Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

dresdencodak.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#21

Post by SteveGerencser »

enraged_camel wrote: post #8
knowtheory wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

I used to work at a place where part of my job was to find great porn for the boss so he could spend more time doing boss stuff. And I got paid to find, and rate, porn. Win/ win.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#22

Post by eterpstra »

This reminds me a bit of the DOTA 2 Character Art guide. Valve takes it a step further and states that a character must be identifiable by only its silhouette - including orientation and carried weapons. It's a pretty good read, even with just a passing interest in game & character art. http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2Chara...

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#23

Post by gojomo »

kevingadd wrote: post #18
kevingadd wrote: post #2

Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be informative by pointing out that the post's content is in fact definitely, most very not-safe-for work: downvotes and ranting from the HN hivemind about how I'm oppressing art with my puritan American worldview, or something. Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here: - Say this post shouldn't be on HN - Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone - Say the post w…

It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause of the downvotes.

Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruriently-posed cartoon nudes, used for a valid illustrative purpose, present no 'safety' problem.

Please don't make the US work environment seem more prude or homogenous than it actually is. This is not "definitely, most very not-safe-for-work". It depends on where you work. That makes "mildly NSFW" a fair description - it's enough of a warning for those in very sensitive environments, while allowing that in other places it'd be considered harmless.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#24

Post by angersock »

lowboy wrote: post #17
enraged_camel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

I'd still classify it as mildly NSFW. Cartoons and other depictions are less NSFW than images. Or else the following would also be a fireable offense: (.|.)

But I don't understand why you need to match periods redundantly in your regex?

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#25

Post by angersock »

BoppreH wrote: post #3

Aaron Diaz is amazing. The time travel/transhumanism comic Hob is greatly recommended ( http://dresdencodak.com/2007/02/08/pom/ ).

There are many webcomics out there that are strictly better from both a plotting and dialog standpoint--however, for simply having delightful art and interesting character design, Dresden Codak is wonderful.

I'm a bit skeptical of the current Kickstarter, but here's hoping, you know?

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#26

Post by vacri »

kevingadd wrote: post #18
kevingadd wrote: post #2

Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be informative by pointing out that the post's content is in fact definitely, most very not-safe-for work: downvotes and ranting from the HN hivemind about how I'm oppressing art with my puritan American worldview, or something. Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here: - Say this post shouldn't be on HN - Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone - Say the post w…

That rather small collection of comments down there, half of which agree with you, is 'ranting from the hivemind'? Your comment currently being at 1+ karma is "getting downvotes"?

Grow a thicker skin.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#27

Post by kevingadd »

vacri wrote: post #26
kevingadd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be informative by pointing out that the post's content is in fact definitely, most very not-safe-for work: downvotes and ranting from the HN hivemind about how I'm oppressing art with my puritan American worldview, or something. Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here: - Say this post shouldn't be on HN - Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone - Say the post w…

That rather small collection of comments down there, half of which agree with you, is 'ranting from the hivemind'? Your comment currently being at 1+ karma is "getting downvotes"? Grow a thicker skin.

It was at -3 when I wrote that comment. I guess writing a reply is a good way to get upvotes. :P

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#28

Post by kevingadd »

gojomo wrote: post #23
kevingadd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be informative by pointing out that the post's content is in fact definitely, most very not-safe-for work: downvotes and ranting from the HN hivemind about how I'm oppressing art with my puritan American worldview, or something. Let's enumerate the things I didn't do here: - Say this post shouldn't be on HN - Say the post is inappropriate for viewing by anyone - Say the post w…

It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause of the downvotes. Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruriently-posed cartoon nudes, used for a valid illustrative purpose, present no 'safety' problem. Please don't make the US work environment seem more prude or homogenous than it actually is. This is not "definitely, most very not-safe-for-work". It depends on wher…

I've never encountered a work environment where viewing those drawings at work would be defensible unless you were actually an artist.

Note that I'm not saying that this would be a firable offense, but that someone could easily complain to HR about it and it could be considered creating a hostile work environment if it makes them feel unwelcome. These things matter!

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#29

Post by balloot »

enraged_camel wrote: post #8
knowtheory wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

1) You clearly don't work at a fairly liberal company. 2) I disagree with the "regardless of context". Let's say someone did see you reading this. You would say "this is the top ranked item on Hacker News. Didn't realize one of the drawings was naked." And that would be that, at least everywhere I've ever worked.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#30

Post by gojomo »

kevingadd wrote: post #28
gojomo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause of the downvotes. Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruriently-posed cartoon nudes, used for a valid illustrative purpose, present no 'safety' problem. Please don't make the US work environment seem more prude or homogenous than it actually is. This is not "definitely, most very not-safe-for-work". It depends on wher…

I've never encountered a work environment where viewing those drawings at work would be defensible unless you were actually an artist. Note that I'm not saying that this would be a firable offense, but that someone could easily complain to HR about it and it could be considered creating a hostile work environment if it makes them feel unwelcome. These things matter!

And I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards.

Everyone's got an anecdote!

Post reply on HN