ile's rotten.com tendencies

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i realize i'm more sensitive to this than most, but fuck.. at least it was fine when i could guess which threads would NOT have upsetting images by the thread titles.

fuck that shit...

(not trying to censor ile.. carry on)

(and as if i should try and check this thread again since i kinda dared this to be a disgusting photo thread by proxy.. oh well)

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 04:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't seen anything like that. Which threads am I missing?

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 04:50 (twenty-two years ago)

http://home.comcast.net/~saellow/JesusLizard.jpg

― adaml (adaml), Saturday, 18 October 2003 04:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(hiding images in my ilxor settings)

you mean the cute mustard pic you posted for instance, oops?

not saying it was wrong of you to post it. I'm just lamenting the fact that i'm bound to run into images that really disturb me on ANY thread on ilx, and not just ones that say "Best Gory movies: S/d" or whatever.

It doesn't help i live in a country where rotten.com is considered tame according to media watchdog groups whereas a bare female nipple is considered shocking and censor-worthy.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:00 (twenty-two years ago)

You mean the one I posted by accident and apologized for right after?

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:01 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, that one.

how the hell do you accidentally post that anyway? do you keep a folder called "mustard pics" somewhere on your machine? (never minding the very coincidental political statement made.)

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Hooray for nipples, though.

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:05 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, i believe your apologies, oops, but i don't believe that was an accident.

Nipples rule!

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Ctrl-C first gross pic, linked it to my friend on IM, tried to Ctrl-C the second pic...oh why the fuck am I explaining this? Yes, I am so ashamed of posting it that I lied and said it was an accident. You got me.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:09 (twenty-two years ago)

donut bitch, you really have hit on something that drives me mental about this country. i mean, it seems obviously, but what the heck. gnarly images generally don't bother me but seriously, i think it would fuck up the kids a lot less if primetime tv eased up on the bloody carcasses and (if they want to keep their viewers) not worry so much about the occasional nipple!

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:11 (twenty-two years ago)

caveat- i haven't had a tv in a couple years, so i don't know if Must See TV is now Breast See TV or what.

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:12 (twenty-two years ago)

oops: ok, whatever. it's still kinda fishy how you were sending peripheral contexts of "mustard" to different people at the same time, but fuhgettabattit.

rob: yeah, I haven't watched TV in several years -- mainly because i was becoming unhealthy and wasting my time with it, so i stopped. The side effect of seeing less disturbing shit is nice. I try to make up for my lack of TV though whenever i travel by overdosing on bad Survivor/sex shows and MTV in the odd motel room. Then i lose the craving for another 11 months.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:16 (twenty-two years ago)

huh? I googled 'mustard' and both those pics came up.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

ha! i do the same thing. hotels = television for me. that and going to other people's houses, but i don't do that anymore, because i am a hermit.

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:19 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and every time tv proves to me that it still utterly sucks! except for the history channel. and space ghost.

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)

We only have one chnnel. :(

― adaml (adaml), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

So what other threads were you refering to?

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

which channel is it adam?

― rob geary (rgeary), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

the "FUCK YOU!!" thread

which, granted, has a slightly more active context, but still

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

and the various pic postings of that asian guy shooting himself in the head, which is obviously very Troma, and probably just disturbs me and no one else.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, i could go and search every thread, oops, but i'd rather have better things to do with my time and nerves. I don't think anyone will disagree that they've become more common recently.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh. Haven't seen those. Only asked because I didn't think it had become anywhere near common.
Hmm. I guess whenever someone sees a disturbing post they could alert the mod and at least put a disclaimer in the thread title (ideally, the person who posted the image would be the one to tell the mod). Hopefully someone like myself who isn't too squeamish will come across any such images first.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

it's a hard issue because pics have kinda become the discussion proxy of ile (well, ilx) for better or worse, and i'm vehemently against censorship unless someone is trying to get ilx readers at work in trouble...

...which, again, says a lot about what we, at least most of western society, consider "bad" images. how likely is a pic of a disembodied head going to get someone in trouble at work as opposed to pics of boobies and balls? the whole standard just creeps to fuck out of me.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Pretty likely I think. I'd imagine that if someone's boss--depending on who the boss is and the work environment-- saw them looking at gruesome images they may get in MORE trouble than if they were looking at nekkid people.
I do see and somewhat agree with your point though.

Putting a disclaimer up wouldn't be censorship and would still make it possible to avoid disturbing images.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:44 (twenty-two years ago)

which channel is it adam?

Well, it WAS the one with Frasier on it, but that's fuzzed out. Now we can just about see the channel with Letterman on it.

BTW, I agree with the majority of what Donut Bitch is saying. So...OTM, then.

― adaml (adaml), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:46 (twenty-two years ago)

well, i just tried this "hide images" setting thing, and i think it's good enough for the chickenshit people like me -- so far.

wish i could agree with you, oops, and surely some bosses would judge the way you described, but i'm guessing most bosses would label boobie pic viewers as "lazy deviants" but label gore pic viewers as "ok... odd hobby, but whatever".

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, maybe the boobie viewers would face more 'official' consequences than the gore viewers. But I think the gore viewers would be viewed as more deviant, weirder, possibly a psycho killer, etc,. whereas the boobie viewer cause, hey, everybody looks at boobies.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 05:55 (twenty-two years ago)

whereas the boobie viewer cause, hey, everybody looks at boobies.
insert a "wouldn't" in there i guess.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 06:02 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. more and more, i see gore is becoming like some active hedonistic hobby, like video games, or what not (never minding the two worlds intersecting more as well) and becoming more of a standard i.e. accepted form of entertainment. whereas, i think we've got a long way to go before the taboo of looking a nudie pics becomes equal to just a shrug.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 06:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, feel free to disagree with me, but I agree with everything you said in your last post.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 06:05 (twenty-two years ago)

DB, i know of how this stuff really bothers you and for your own health you should turn pics off on yr machine.

That said, I really enjoy rotten.com and have a morbid fascination with these types of thing. I don't know why. I'm not a violent person and other "more tame" things really upset me. Like any explicit depiction of rape on tv can unhinge me for weeks. I'm really not sure what it is but can only provide some justification in saying that I've had a desire to be a medical examiner/forsenic scientist since I was a tyke. This is still a career I serioulsy consider so any opportunity to view the human body in all it's states of . .. well you know, I am drawn to with an intense curiosity.

― A Girl Named Sam (thatgirl), Saturday, 18 October 2003 06:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Where is an offensive pohotograph of mustard? I don't understand. Who would even take a picture of mustard? It's not very photogenic. What is the mustard doing that is offensive?

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Saturday, 18 October 2003 10:50 (twenty-two years ago)

it was a picture of skin blistered by mustard gas

― the surface noise (electricsound), Saturday, 18 October 2003 10:51 (twenty-two years ago)

It was a picture of skin blistered by Grey Poupon.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 18 October 2003 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

db- the tendencies bother the hell out of me also. funny thing is i am far from not being morbid.
i am not sure what it is that really bugs me about it. during the pre-internet days, the 'faces of death' series were the only mainstream channel of such images.
i think its the whole exploitation thing that gets me. dead people shouldnt be photographed or viewed or reduced to a good laugh.
like you said i am not saying this should be censored, but ...

― kephm, Saturday, 18 October 2003 13:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally thought that picture was a of someone having spilled some weird colored mustard on their foot.

― Carey (Carey), Saturday, 18 October 2003 13:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Ewww!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 18 October 2003 13:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Carey, you weren't alone.

― adaml (adaml), Saturday, 18 October 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

haven't had a tv in a couple years, so i don't know if Must See TV is now Breast See TV or what.

When wasn't it? Nowadays, TV is considered tame if you don't see a flash of nipple or arse in the first 10 mins. (I'm not just talking about soaps or reality series, either.) There are more shows about sex on the networks now, than there used to be. (A new one on Fox called Skin supposedly pits Romeo and Juliet against the parents, w/ Juliet's pop being a porn producer.)

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Saturday, 18 October 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

db- (snip)funny thing is i am far from not being morbid.

heh heh, same here x 10.. i just choose to be private about it.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 18 October 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

So much for that;>

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Saturday, 18 October 2003 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally thought that picture was a of someone having spilled some weird colored mustard on their foot.

So did I! That's why I copied the link and sent it to my friend, cause I just thought it was a weird thing to take a picture of. He was like 'dude, that ain't edible mustard'.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 18 October 2003 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I actually thought it was funny the way you posted that first and then wrote "oh gross, sorry!" and posted the picture you meant. The juxtaposition of that and the dude in the mustard bottle costume was amusing. And FWIW I thought it was very clear you'd done it as a cut n paste accident, in case anyone thinks you're just saying that. I assumed thats what you did even before you explained it to DB.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 19 October 2003 01:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I used to think that G's image shortcut was the grebtest thing, but now its become shortcut for any expression of thought and often kills threads or reduces them to a base level.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Sunday, 19 October 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I actually am like this too. I happened upon rotten.com & looked at each & every picture in turn. There was a morbid fascination that compelled me forward. Only problem was, these images didn't leave me & haunted me for a while afterwards. I couldnt eat without thinking about disgusting images & sleep wasnt happening. It happened again recently when someone posted a pic of the scariest criminal. It was the guy who had been beaten up & had tattoos on his face. Well i looked at this pic for quite some time & didnt think anything more of it, apart from when I tried to sleep the following night & all i could see was this guys face looking at me from across the room. Not pleasant at all.
I am not sure what the answer is as I dont agree with censoring ilx in any way, but maybe when questionable pics are included in threads, there could be a note put in the question before it is opened.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 20 October 2003 07:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I used to think that G's image shortcut was the grebtest thing, but now its become shortcut for any expression of thought and often kills threads or reduces them to a base level.

Can we forward the phrase "reduce to base level" to the "use other words" thread and pretend it never, ever existed?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 20 October 2003 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Stuff like that is the reason why the option of having the images turned off is such a great one. I know which people are going to be shitehawks and post stupid pictures I don't want to look at, and can click on the pictures I want to see when I feel like looking at them. Plus, ilx loads so much faster this way.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 20 October 2003 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.