Prude alert: Sexually explicit wm themes in emerge

[asimon]

Other distros get hit by these things too.
Here is another one from SuSE:

Code: Select all

~> rpm -q --changelog xscreensaver|head -n3
* Fri Jun 18 2004 - mcihar@suse.cz

- remove webcollage (bug 42196 - often downloading porn pictures)

I wonder how many office workers got hit by this "bug".

[viperlin]

/me emerges windowmaker for free pr0n

[jj11888]

For that reason I think we should have differant 'adult' and 'offensive' USE flags, as people can still get any offensive gaim smilies or fortunes without having portage break the law for them when they go to install window maker

I think this could probably be expanded even further, but certainly a good point. "crude" "adult" "porn" "offensive" and "nude-art" could each be defined differently.

'adult', 'porn', and 'nude-art' seem the same to me (esically when you consider that some of the nude photo shoots are considered art by people, and that I can't image anything adult-only other then porn), and 'crude' seems so vague I am not sure what you mean.


And um, how many offensive material does portage evan have? i doubt its enough variety to group and classify it like you are, seems like its just making unnessisary complications for those who want this stuff

[motub]

What, precisely, is an "offensive" gaim-smiley? And how exactly, if a "grin" icon can somehow be "offensive" enough to fall under an "offensive" flag, might it be "OK for use" in a situation where a nude digital chick on the desktop wouldn't?

Sounds like splitting hairs to me.

[jj11888]

/me emerges windowmaker for free pr0n

30 Jun 2003; Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> :
Porn now removed per discussion on -core.

too late

[jj11888]

What, precisely, is an "offensive" gaim-smiley? And how exactly, if a "grin" icon can somehow be "offensive" enough to fall under an "offensive" flag, might it be "OK for use" in a situation where a nude digital chick on the desktop wouldn't?

Sounds like splitting hairs to me.

odd, i thought i remember gaim-smileys using the offensive USE flag, i just check, it isn't in the IUSE and there isn't a mention of it in the changelog, so maybe i was thinking of something else

[YetiChick]

"Please be my babysitter because I'm afraid of being offended."

Give me a break. A 'right' to make an informed choice? To not be offended? To have somebody else protect your children? Please.

I have no objection to someone voluntarily marking something 'potentially offensive' before they make it available to the public, but why bother? Somebody is bound to be offended by the mere presence of potentially offensive material. Mark it, you offend someone, don't mark it, offend someone else. And then we can sit in here and debate who was being reasonable. "Well, everyone accepts that nudity offends some people, but being bothered by a picture of a cucumber? I dunno."

Sorry, but if you can't examine something for offensive content yourself (for fear of being offended) you shouldn't be downloading, period. It's not anybody else's responsibility to determine what your limits are. I'm 'offended' by easily offended people, but I'm not... oooh... Wait. No, that's a good idea.

Before anyone is allowed in a discussion forum, they should have to mark their profile with a list of things which offend them. Then, before you post to a thread, you can make sure you don't say anything which will bother somebody. Or maybe... Maybe a profile would contain a list of potentially offensive things you might say in a post. That way, nobody would have to read a thread if they saw you were a part of it. Oooh. Good idea. Or not.

I can't express how much how this 'please protect me thing' offends me. It's spreading like a cancer in America, too. And I can't do a thing about it... Should I want to?

Tracy

[viperlin]

/me emerges windowmaker for free pr0n

30 Jun 2003; Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> :
Porn now removed per discussion on -core.

too late

but windowmaker-themes still exists

[michaelbrandtner]

Does it bother anyone else that the windowmaker-themes package contains sexually explicit material?

I did not know this was the case. Imagine my surprise when I emerged windowmaker-themes and tried out my new slick themes only to find pr0n that my boss would definately not approve of.

Yeah. I can delete it. I know how. But how is it that this stuff is in the emerge in the first place?

Any thoughts?

Don't forget to get rid off xbill an kbill.
I'm absolutely shocked about the incredible violence in this game, it's an offence.
Btw, games are often forbidden in at work and some people have kids at home ...

[motub]

"Please be my babysitter because I'm afraid of being offended."

Give me a break. A 'right' to make an informed choice? To not be offended? To have somebody else protect your children? Please.

Tracy, it's not that I don't get what you're saying (I was born in the US), but this is not limited to U.S. prudery.

Some of these images are illegal to display on a non-private desktop in some countries. Some of these images could legally subject you to a civil lawsuit if you display them somewhere other than the privacy of your own home. Becoming subject to a civil lawsuit in the workplace could very well be cause for dismissal from your job, depending on your contract.

And you're telling me that I don't have the right to make an informed choice before risking that?

Sorry, can't agree.

I have no objection to someone voluntarily marking something 'potentially offensive' before they make it available to the public, but why bother? Somebody is bound to be offended by the mere presence of potentially offensive material. Mark it, you offend someone, don't mark it, offend someone else. And then we can sit in here and debate who was being reasonable. "Well, everyone accepts that nudity offends some people, but being bothered by a picture of a cucumber? I dunno."

Now you're just being silly. Obviously you have to stop somewhere. But we all know very well when a picture of a cucumber is meant to be "suggestive" and when it is meant to be part of a recipe, and we all also know that "suggestive" or openly pornographic (meaning, "representing the naked human body for purposes of sexual excitement or arousal of the viewer") images are offensive to some on philosophical, or flatly religious grounds. Or doesn't a Catholic priest have the right to own a computer?

That priest, or a damaged person who was raped or otherwise abused, or even just me, who maybe finds "suggestive" wallpaper generally pointless, has every right to determine for themselves that they don't want to look at such images on their desktop wallpaper--without having to look at the images first to decide to delete them. That's why we have an offensive flag in the first place. It's not like it's just Bible-thumping puritans who might use this flag-- and even if it was, a Bible-thumping puritan has rights, too.

Sorry, but if you can't examine something for offensive content yourself (for fear of being offended) you shouldn't be downloading, period. It's not anybody else's responsibility to determine what your limits are.

I can accept that, too, but if I am unable to specify beforehand that certain content exceeds my limits, than what good is it for me to be responsible for knowing them?

If you go to an R or X rated movie, you have acknowledged that the content that causes the film to be so rated does not exceed your limits; if you feel that it does, then you don't go. Because it's your right to decide what content you accept, and the content provider has indicated the nature of the content that is being provided.

We live in one world, all together, and it's important to try to work these issues out one way or another, because almost nobody likes being told to "do it my way or get out of town". That's offensive to humans of almost every stripe.

[flickerfly]

For that reason I think we should have differant 'adult' and 'offensive' USE flags, as people can still get any offensive gaim smilies or fortunes without having portage break the law for them when they go to install window maker

I think this could probably be expanded even further, but certainly a good point. "crude" "adult" "porn" "offensive" and "nude-art" could each be defined differently.

'adult', 'porn', and 'nude-art' seem the same to me (esically when you consider that some of the nude photo shoots are considered art by people, and that I can't image anything adult-only other then porn), and 'crude' seems so vague I am not sure what you mean.

DISCLAIMER: Just my definitions here. Per your second statement this is being answered for completeness, and that's about it.

"crude" can simply be a joke that is "off-color". No pictures, just a suggestive phrase.

"adult" might be similar to crude in many ways. I'm not sure I personally see a difference, but it seems others do.

"porn" is the use of the human body to arouse lust.

"offensive" might not even be sexual in nature, but rather of a significantly bloody nature. Think background of someone getting their head removed.

"nude-art" is basically porn minus the intention to arouse lust.

And um, how many offensive material does portage evan have? i doubt its enough variety to group and classify it like you are, seems like its just making unnessisary complications for those who want this stuff

You bring a good point. It probably is more work than it's worth.

[rbr28]

Some of the comments here are absurd. Obviously many of the people here, are not the kind of people I would ever want working for me. I have worked in IT for years, and I'm currently in a high level position at a major university, probably one of the most liberal enterprise environments you could ever work in. I could probably have two people having sex as a background for my desktop without getting fired, but I sure as hell wouldn't be so stupid as to test the boundaries.

The original point was just that this stuff should be separated out, and/or it should be obvious to the user that this type of stuff is included in the package. People who comment about how this stuff is not offensive, how you shouldn't work for a place that doesn't tolerate it, etc...you are just immature, unprofessional, and very inexperienced. Believe me, if someone told me that for 100,000/yr, I wasn't allowed to put a background on my work pc, that included nudity, I sure as heck would care less. And, if you are at all professional and/or have any common sense, having some consideration for other people, whether it is prudes in your office, children, etc, is not exactly compromising your principles to view material that you feel is totally appropriate.

Could you imagine if MS Windows installed a theme with nudity by default? I haven't even looked at the package, so maybe it did use the -offensive flag, and it was just missed, but although I rarely have to worry about such things, I can definitely understand someone who thinks that this sort of issue has to be addressed, whether it is by having a separate package, just having a warning, etc. Even in the liberal environment that I work in, if I was to put out linux workstations with themes, and somehow missed that there was one obscure image with nudity, in a theme, I would probably here about it from a few prudish people. Sure, maybe that's somewhat unfair, but I would just as soon not have to worry about such a thing, than go through the hassle of arguing with those higher up, why I thought that was necessary, or how I possibly could have missed it.

[michaelbrandtner]

Can someone post a link to an 'offensive' Windowmaker-Screenshot, so we know what we are talking about?
I can't imagine that you get porn in official WM-Themes, maybe more or less nude bodies, but that is no porn.

[motub]

Actually, it kinda is, Michael... the "unneccessary" display of the naked human form may be considered art in some circumstances, but since the reason it is generally done is to elicit some form of sexual arousal (Michaelangelo's David and other such art notwithstanding), it does in fact fall under the heading of pornographic, depending on how strict your definition of the term is.

But there was a screenshot of one of the images in question linked at the beginning of this thread, iirc-- sorry, thought it was in the Bugzilla, but no.

Nope, I'm wrong again, it was somebody's screenshot of an "offensive image" for comparison. I don't see any actual screenshots to one of the removed images from the package.

OK, I'm done editing, hopefully.

[Marctraider]

Just let it be, if someone wants sexual things then thats fine, besides, i dont see little kids using gentoo ;P

[flickerfly]

Just let it be, if someone wants sexual things then thats fine, besides, i dont see little kids using gentoo ;P

Why not? If I had young kids, they wouldn't be using Windows XP as I don't have a single windows computer. I'd have them setup on the box I maintain with the software I provide. That would be Gentoo, unless the offensive flag was abolished.

[motub]

i dont see little kids using gentoo

Why not? I use it, so if my child (don't have any, but if I did) used my PC they would be using it too. Changing wallpaper is not all that hard in WMaker (and I'm sure my kids will be clever).

Suppose my kid goes to a club (sports club, afterschool program, whatever) where there is a computer displaying these images that I would prefer that my kid is not exposed to? I have temporarily given these people responsibility for my child, but there are some things that they're not allowed to do (hit them, have sex with them, and show them porn).

And of course, "little kids" are not the only issue. It's perfectly fine to say that "if someone wants sexual things that's fine"... as long as it's in the privacy of their own home.

As soon as a non-private desktop is in question, it becomes a public issue, and people responsible for non-private desktops certainly have not only the right, but the responsibility to know just exactly what kinds of images they might be exposing the public to before doing so, given that there could be serious repercussions.

[YetiChick]

Some of these images are illegal to display on a non-private desktop in some countries. Some of these images could legally subject you to a civil lawsuit if you display them somewhere other than the privacy of your own home. Becoming subject to a civil lawsuit in the workplace could very well be cause for dismissal from your job, depending on your contract.

And you're telling me that I don't have the right to make an informed choice before risking that?

Correct. If you extend that 'right' to its logical extreme you force others to protect you from your own actions under situations they have no control over. Any number of scenarios can be constructed which make the provider responsible for your problems. So, does this become a numbers game? Do I only have to mark my content if there is a 'reasonable' chance of it being offensive? Who defines reasonable? I think it's pretty unreasonable for someone worried about offensive images to download and install a window manager or its theme pack. Cool, since I make the rules... Pthhht.

No. When each person accepts personal responsibility for her own actions these problems are not an issue.

That priest, or a damaged person who was raped or otherwise abused, or even just me, who maybe finds "suggestive" wallpaper generally pointless, has every right to determine for themselves that they don't want to look at such images on their desktop wallpaper--without having to look at the images first to decide to delete them.

No, you don't. You have a desire, not a right. If in a good mood, I will - if I think you're a fairly reasonable person - help you with it and warn you before allowing you to get something from me which I think might offend you. I have no responsibility to do so. In some countries, I may have a legal requirement, but that makes it neither your right to be protected nor my moral responsibility to protect you.

I have a page where I keep some stories I've written. I clearly mark those which are erotica, and among the erotica I mark those which might be offensive to even those who like naughty stories. Why? 'Cause in spite of what I believe as far as rights and responsibilities I'm really a nice person. But, heaven help you if you read on and then write me email screaming, "I had no idea it would be *that* offensive!" It's happened, and it does not make me happy.

If you go to an R or X rated movie, you have acknowledged that the content that causes the film to be so rated does not exceed your limits; if you feel that it does, then you don't go. Because it's your right to decide what content you accept, and the content provider has indicated the nature of the content that is being provided.

Actually, a third-party has provided those ratings. And I have no problem with it if you ask your less easily offended neighbor to scan your latest batch of downloads for things you might not like. When you use a rating system - whether it is an "offensive" USE flag or an MPAA R rating - you're trusting someone else to make a decision for you. Fine. I'll accept that you have a right to make that choice. You don't have the right to force me to take the place of your neighbor because your eyes are just too delicate to review it yourself.

We live in one world, all together, and it's important to try to work these issues out one way or another, because almost nobody likes being told to "do it my way or get out of town". That's offensive to humans of almost every stripe.

We agree there. We're probably going to have to disagree on the rest. Each of us is telling others to "do it my way". You: "Do it my way 'cause otherwise I (or someone else) might be offended. Me: "Do it my way because it is the only way to be responsible for yourself."

Tracy

[viperlin]

WARNING, REALLY NSFW



this is the "offensive" porn theme
http://viperlin.net/WMpron.png

[Roguelazer]

Can someone post a link to an 'offensive' Windowmaker-Screenshot, so we know what we are talking about?
I can't imagine that you get porn in official WM-Themes, maybe more or less nude bodies, but that is no porn.

Here ya go. Anybody that clicks on this link better sure as HELL know that it's Not Safe for Work, Kids, or anything else that doesn't want to see some pretty hardcore stuff.

www.roguelazer.com/nsfw.png

And yes, there are more. But this is the worst one. Well, not really. I can think of several that are just as bad. Here they are too:

www.roguelazer.com/nsfw2.png
www.roguelazer.com/nsfw3.png

edit:
Heh. I am always a second or so too slow. Oh well, my picture takes about 1/2 the time to load anyhow. Enjoy.

[nrl]

Well that's not exactly hardcore porn but I think it certainly falls into "potentially offensive material" and hence you should need the "offensive" USE flag to get it.

[quag7]

Look, first of all I really don't care if someone is offended by something I say or display on my desktop. Somehow this "right to not be offended" has appeared out of thin air, making the nipple-fearing United States, where I live, an even bigger gaggle of whiners.

But the point is not censorship here but adding metadata. More bang for your buck - not only do you have the option to install the offensive themes, but you get free metadata labeling it as "not worksafe." This would bother me to no end if it was the government slapping the label on, but frankly I'm fine with Gentoo doing it.

Why? Because the US is a sue-happy, whinging place. The issue isn't that I particularly care if someone is offended by a naked form (I really don't care. The more someone whines about being offended, the more my immediate instinct is to offend them more), but that in a work environment you could unwittingly expose your company to lawsuits. In my own company, we are compelled to report cases of sexual harrassment we're not even involved in for the purpose of protecting the company against lawsuits. So, if I see someone displaying a swimsuit model on their desktop, and people have explicitly said that they don't find it offensive, I have to be a squealer, because someone new or someone with a vendetta could use it to sue the company I work for for not providing a "non-threatening workplace." If I see something like that and do not report it, and the company maintains that I knew about it, *I* could be fired. There are ten billion posts and talk show rants about what a reprehensible this state of affairs is, but it is what it is. Drives me nuts, but we should accept the situation.

Is it idiotic that people are offended by nudity? Yep. However, I am willing to concede that even the most liberal of us can tell when something might be potentially offensive to someone else. It irks me that I have to care about this at all, but because of the really whiny legal environment, I do.

I don't use Gentoo at work. But if I wanted to, I could definitely see this become an issue, sad though that is. It could make a company that's already unsure about Linux simply close their minds to it.

So as much as we might rant and rave about the hypersensitive, childish way that people react to things as basic as the human form (at least here in the States, and I can think of a few other countries), that's not really the issue. The issue is being worksafe. No matter how open minded your company is, I can assure you, you're one sexual harrassment lawsuit away from, to use hyperbole, fascism. This country is immensely screwed up right now, and it's best to accept that as a fact while we do our best to change things at the same time.

I don't know how much of a goal it is to bring Gentoo into an enterprise environment, but if it is a goal at all, providing either metadata in form of a warning, or as a USE flag, is prudent. The material is still there for all to use, but I'd be thankful to know where it was.

If all of this bothers you, good - you and I have something in common. If it bothers you a LOT to the point of making you angry, and you live abroad, might I extend an invitation to you to please move to America so we can shore up our numbers and drag down the State

In the mean time, USE flags, please.

[scalded]

I just worked up a patch for one of the offending themes

Almost SFW http://scalded.net/stuff/WMpatch.jpg (blocked out anything thats not shown on US primetime TV, but some innuendo is still present)

[viperlin]

i dont get all these arguments, just a use flag will be effective and help out sysadmins using gentoo for business purposes because they wont have to remove NSFW stuff manually, and even then it's up to the user if they want it to install it in thier home dir....

offensive use flag is perfect, it allready exists so just use it for windowmaker-themes..

jesus....


to give you a real idea of what they mean by offensive, how would you feel if a default windowmaker or gnome theme was all cocks and gay porn...... (from the aspect of the women on the boards that are not lesbian, the pictured theme above is offensive....

USE FLAG

[tuxq]

I was going to make a post about ... "It's art, not pr0n" ... But that's not art... hahaha... its crappy pr0n on top of that. C'mon Gentoo! We need some good stuff.
But yeah, there should definately be an 'adult' or 'pr0n' thing to go with those types of themes....
But then again Gentoo is busy making a stable and secure Linux distributions--Do they really need to bother with 'politically correct' crap such as this?