Prude alert: Sexually explicit wm themes in emerge

Message

Mikos · Post by **Mikos** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:59 pm

Jesus, I am so happy that I don't live in USA!

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:01 pm

Yeah, it's making me ashamed to be here...
Omg it's not "Politically Correct" to say that! Here comes the black helicopters! ahhhhh.!!

Edit: Is it ok to lie on my profile about where I'm from?

viperlin · Post by **viperlin** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:04 pm

tuxq wrote:Yeah, it's making me ashamed to be here...
Omg it's not "Politically Correct" to say that! Here comes the black helicopters! ahhhhh.!!

Edit: Is it ok to lit on my profile about where I'm from?

only if people know about cherrynoble

(comically spelt wrong on purpose)

nesl247 · Post by **nesl247** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:05 pm

This is how i see it.. If you know whats in it dont use it if it offends you.. It might offend someone else that they lose something they like because you dont like it.. Get over it.. The world doesnt revolve around you or anyone else.. if something is in it you dont like remove it dont use it.. Other people arent your guardians.. You are your own guardian..

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:07 pm

iotc247 wrote:This is how i see it.. If you know whats in it dont use it if it offends you.. It might offend someone else that they lose something they like because you dont like it.. Get over it.. The world doesnt revolve around you or anyone else.. if something is in it you dont like remove it dont use it.. Other people arent your guardians.. You are your own guardian..

Amen my brotha from anotha motha.

...Is it really necessary for Gentoo to hold your hand?
...Gentoo should smack the hell outta your hand for suggesting so.

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:13 pm

iotc247 wrote:This is how i see it.. If you know whats in it dont use it if it offends you.. It might offend someone else that they lose something they like because you dont like it.. Get over it.. The world doesnt revolve around you or anyone else.. if something is in it you dont like remove it dont use it.. Other people arent your guardians.. You are your own guardian..

The point is, if you don't "know whats in it" you don't get a choice.

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:15 pm

It is not like it's the only theme that comes in it! It's just a big package of themes... Pick one that is APPROPRIATE for your enviroment--and ignore the rest.

turbothy · Post by **turbothy** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:21 pm

motub wrote: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 (...)

You have obviously never seen a Nigella Lawson cookbook

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:22 pm

tuxq wrote:It is not like it's the only theme that comes in it! It's just a big package of themes... Pick one that is APPROPRIATE for your enviroment--and ignore the rest.

It's not that I don't want it on my monitor. That's beside the point. Having it on my hard drive alone is a problem. It can be just as damaging to me. I'm reponsible for what's on the hard drive, not just on the screen. I could install this and maybe not even know this material was included, but someone else might find it. Whether that's my wife and kids or my boss, its a problem (and neither would understand that I didn't know it was there).

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:26 pm

*sigh*

motub · Post by **motub** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:29 pm

YetiChick wrote:
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.

I'm not asking anyone to protect me from anything; I'm asking them to inform me so I can decide whether or not I need to protect myself.

If it is illegal to display the images linked above on a non-private desktop, or it is against the policy of my company so strongly that I will be immediately dismissed if I happen to be going through the wallpapers to see which ones I have to delete-- or just to see them, since I don't know that displaying any of them will put me out of a job or in contravention of the law-- and my boss happens to walk by at just the wrong moment, I don't think it's unjustified for me to be pissed off that you (the content provider) did not even hint that I might be unemployed 5 minutes later simply for viewing these images at the wrong moment (which I would not have done, had I known).

I just came back from the (grocery) store.

According to you, I should count myself grateful that the manufacturers of the food articles I just bought even bother to put labels on the cans and bottles, and that they say something more than "FOOD", since I should really be growing my own tomatoes, and raising my own chickens and cows (or maybe hunting boar or something), since they really have no responsibility to tell me what's actually in those cans and bottles; even if they did, they bear no responsibility to tell me accurately what's in them (hey, sugar, strychnine, what's the difference?), and if I'm going to accept and trust someone else's (food) content, I really have no business complaining if it makes me sick, since I didn't test the content with my handy home chemlab first to verify for myself what's really in it.

Yeah, OK, fine-- if "man" was an island, but not terribly practical or reasonable on a planet where creatures (certainly creatures of the same species) are dependent on each other for survival (or at least reasonable comfort in the developed world).

Civilization is meant to facilitate cooperation; and humans are group animals (not sure if we're pack animals or herd animals, maybe both).

Saying, "Here, have whatever I want to give you; no, I won't tell you anything about it, if you don't want it, don't take it," is not a particularly civilized attitude, and for me to ask, "What is it?" before taking it is not particularly overly demanding. I still have to decide whether I believe you, or whether (if you're lying or wrong) the item in question is "dangerous" to me on whatever level-- that's what protecting myself is. But I can't do that without information, and "the right to know" is generally considered so important that people make laws about it all over the place.

If you feel that you (in the abstract, not you personally) should have the "right" to just throw any old thing out there without giving the first bit of info about it to allow the receivers to make some kind of judgement before accepting it, then there's no reason to be surprised if there are no takers, or what few takers are stupid enough to accept (because they don't make any effort to protect themselves) are not bloody pleased with what they get.

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

And how does providing content without informing the potential recipients that accepting the content may cause various problems fall in with "accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions"? That when the angry mob comes to beat me up for getting them out of a job/ forcing them back into therapy/whatever, that one simply doesn't fight back, as those are the consequences of one's actions?

Isn't there a better way?

scalded · Post by **scalded** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:55 pm

Great points motub, particularly this one (that I'll quote because it seems the "other side" doesn't bother to read entire posts, instead they copy and paste the same garbage over and over)

motub wrote:I just came back from the (grocery) store.

According to you, I should count myself grateful that the manufacturers of the food articles I just bought even bother to put labels on the cans and bottles, and that they say something more than "FOOD", since I should really be growing my own tomatoes, and raising my own chickens and cows (or maybe hunting boar or something), since they really have no responsibility to tell me what's actually in those cans and bottles; even if they did, they bear no responsibility to tell me accurately what's in them (hey, sugar, strychnine, what's the difference?), and if I'm going to accept and trust someone else's (food) content, I really have no business complaining if it makes me sick, since I didn't test the content with my handy home chemlab first to verify for myself what's really in it.

I think this discussion is far from over, all sides have drilled their points far enough, now we're just waiting for the developers to take action on it. Whether you kids like it or not, most people might find the material offensive or just would rather not be associated with it.

Do NOT push your personal beliefs of art and offensive material onto others, all that these people ask for is a choice. As it stands now, they are forced to have soft-core porno on their computer if they want WM themes (at least without exposing themselves to it as motub said). If the developers removed the offending themes from the package and you still wanted them, you are still able to get them yourself. With USE flags, everyone wins, because now you can have the added pleasure of looking at genitalia with every moment of your e-life while other people can get work done.

And why is it always USA's fault.

Business != USA

nesl247 · Post by **nesl247** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:01 pm

Why not just seperate them into another package?

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:02 pm

Last time I checked no one is pushing anything onto anyone...
Now, if you had paid for this software maybe it would be considered pushing...
But... Considering gentoo developers selflessly gather, package, and distribute this stuff for free... Is it really your place to complain?
Remove the themes package... Go to WindowMaker's page and get themes yourself. It's very easy.

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:07 pm

By the dark eternal, are people still arguing over this?

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:12 pm

Sorry for the break of topic...

R.I.P. Kim Sun Il.

Did not know him, but he deserves the respect.

flickerfly · Post by **flickerfly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:19 pm

tuxq wrote:Last time I checked no one is pushing anything onto anyone...
Now, if you had paid for this software maybe it would be considered pushing...
But... Considering gentoo developers selflessly gather, package, and distribute this stuff for free... Is it really your place to complain?
Remove the themes package... Go to WindowMaker's page and get themes yourself. It's very easy.

If the content isn't communicated in any way, then there is something of a passive pushing (yeah... oxymoron). Think of it like spyware installing on your computer when you are installing other software on your computer that you actually want. Kazaa gives its stuff away so do you have the right to complain when you find out that they installed spyware on your computer without telling you?

This is about lack of disclosure of information that can be damaging to an individual in many ways financially, morally, personally, relationally, etc.

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:37 pm

Holly,

The main difference between my view and yours is that you would have others change their behavior in deference to your needs while I would have others change their behavior according to their own needs. So, how are we justifying our respective positions?

I'm not asking anyone to protect me from anything; I'm asking them to inform me so I can decide whether or not I need to protect myself.

And if you ask, that's fine. But you seem to take the position that other people should be able to read your mind as to what you wish to be informed about - and then required to do so. If you're simply saying that you think it would be polite to make such an effort then we're in agreement and probably arguing just for the sheer fun of it.

I don't think it's unjustified for me to be pissed off that you (the content provider) did not even hint that I might be unemployed 5 minutes later simply for viewing these images at the wrong moment (which I would not have done, had I known).

I do. Completely unjustified. Listen, if you downloaded a pack of pictures entitled, "Cute kittens at play, for cat lovers" and found that it contained pictures of masturbating women then yes, I could understand your anger if you happened to get fired over previewing the thing at work. If you know that you could get fired for such transgressions and begin previewing wallpapers from a package put together by geeks? No. You had a little bit of responsibility to think ahead and realize that it just might contain some naughty stuff. Grab it at home and go through it if you really, really have to see what's in it. And if the package maintainer happens to warn you ahead of time? Bonus! And a good thing as long as it was done because they wanted to do it. Not if they were compelled to by someone else.

According to you, I should count myself grateful that the manufacturers of the food articles I just bought even bother to put labels on the cans and bottles

Pretty much, yes. But in a free economy, label-free products couldn't happen. If people cared enough about having their food labeled properly then manufacturers would begin labeling them to gain a competitive edge. Some third-party certification company would begin analyzing food and providing information about the quality of said products. It's what's done today, by the way, at least in the US. Third-party food certification. Unfortunately, it's done by the government and not privately. Well... not exactly... but I think you'll see my point. We have no right to demand that others behave in a certain way if their behavior is not affecting us. I'm only including invasive behavior. Invasive behavior which is difficult to avoid - or unreasonable to expect someone to try to avoid - is not an unreasonable target for regulation. If you suggest that I should have to warn you before I hack your computer and install a naughty screensaver then I'm with you. If you suggest that I should have to warn you before you download something from my site... Then you stand alone. Well, not alone, but certainly not with me.

Civilization is meant to facilitate cooperation; and humans are group animals (not sure if we're pack animals or herd animals, maybe both).

Yes! Cooperation. Not coercion. I have at no time said it wouldn't be 'nice' if people made an effort to be polite to each other. What I'm so sick and tired of is the sense of entitlement that I keep seeing in threads like this. "I have kids!" "I could get fired!" And because of those things, you should have to warn me. Mmmf. How about we all take care of ourselves with the assumption that nobody is required to do anything to help us? Nothing is keeping others from helping if they want to. Cooperation. Nice.

and for me to ask, "What is it?" before taking it is not particularly overly demanding.

Oh, absolutely not. But if I choose not to answer (rude) then you can simply not take it. (smart)

then there's no reason to be surprised if there are no takers, or what few takers are stupid enough to accept (because they don't make any effort to protect themselves) are not bloody pleased with what they get.

I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I'd expect to see few takers, in a world full of smart people. What I'd get, however, would be a bunch of people whining about how I somehow failed to realize that a photo of a Campbell's soup can on their desktop would get them fired from their lucrative jobs at Progresso Soups. And I'd sit here and quietly fume while people debated the new "-commercial" USE flag.

I don't think that the "-offensive" flag is inherently bad. I do believe that it places responsibility for determining what is or is not "offensive" content in a place it does not belong.

And how does providing content without informing the potential recipients that accepting the content may cause various problems fall in with "accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions"? That when the angry mob comes to beat me up for getting them out of a job/ forcing them back into therapy/whatever, that one simply doesn't fight back, as those are the consequences of one's actions?

This is almost as silly as my cucumber comment. (Which was unintentionally silly. Thank you so much for making me laugh by seeing a cucumber as suggestive when I was grabbing for something innocuous and harmless that nobody could find offensive. My point had simply been, "We can't make anything completely unoffensive." I guess you kind of made my point.

)

We accept responsibility for invasive behavior. If you include all potential effects from everything you do then you have an unending supply of blame to spread around. If I initiate something which directly affects you and you retaliate then yes, I should be ready to accept the consequences. If all I did was enable a behavior on your part then you need to accept the consequences if you choose to do whatever it is we're talking about.

I'll even go so far as to say that if my enabling misleads you into behaving a certain way than I should accept responsibility, at least in part. Nothing here so far has indicated to me that the Gentoo devs (or the WindowMaker devs) have any responsibility if you 'suffer' from these naughty themes.

And this post went far too long. My apologies to all for being so long-winded. It's been a weird week and I guess I just needed to rant about something.

Tracy

nrl · Post by **nrl** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:42 pm

tuxq wrote:It is not like it's the only theme that comes in it! It's just a big package of themes... Pick one that is APPROPRIATE for your enviroment--and ignore the rest.

I'm going to submit a patch to all window managers/desktop environment theme packages that will add a www.goat.cx theme with full colour backgound and maybe some nice icons.

Oh and I'll consider making a www.tubgirl.com theme too if I get positive feedback.

EDIT: This post was intended as a joke and I posted it in the assumption that everybody would know what these sites are and hence wouldn't click the links (unless they wanted to of course

). If you are unaware of the content of the above sites please consult:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatsex
before you consider looking at those pages.

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:45 pm

nrl wrote:
tuxq wrote:It is not like it's the only theme that comes in it! It's just a big package of themes... Pick one that is APPROPRIATE for your enviroment--and ignore the rest.
I'm going to submit a patch to all window managers/desktop environment theme packages that will add a www.goat.cx theme with full colour backgound and maybe some nice icons.

...lol... I'm not going to touch that statement.

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:46 pm

YetiChick, lol... yeah that's a little wordy...

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:48 pm

I'm going to submit a patch to all window managers/desktop environment theme packages that will add a www.goat.cx theme with full colour backgound and maybe some nice icons.

Oooh. And without a warning about where those links led. See, this is not what I meant by polite.

Tracy

nrl · Post by **nrl** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:49 pm

YetiChick wrote:
I'm going to submit a patch to all window managers/desktop environment theme packages that will add a www.goat.cx theme with full colour backgound and maybe some nice icons.
Oooh. And without a warning about where those links led. See, this is not what I meant by polite.

Oh sorry I forgot that phpBB automatically makes URLs into links -- silly me.

tuxq · Post by **tuxq** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:51 pm

YetiChick, the cucumber thing...
It's all in the mind of those who see it.
Personally, when I see a woman grab a cucumber at the supermarket... I'm thinking---Damn... She's single.... I wonder if she's gay...

But for someone else, they may be like...
"I wonder if she's going to use that new recipe I saw on Martha Stewart Living..."

Everyone has their own way of interpreting... This is what I think:
Those who complain: When they see these pictures, they are aroused, possibly subconsciously, and get aggravated by the idea--sexual problems at home?

...Just my opinion, sorry to those I offended.

YetiChick · Post by **YetiChick** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:52 pm

Oh sorry I forgot that phpBB automatically makes URLs into links -- silly me.

You forgot...

Tracy