61–70 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it's a fireable offense.
I should be fired too... '.' != '\.'. I'm put in mind of the old Zawinski quote: "Some people, when confronted with a problem, think \"I know, I'll use regular expressions.\" Now they have two problems. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ancestor comment you (correctly) noted that you hadn't said this post was porn. Now you are all but saying exactly that. Which is it?
I'll make my point again: The problem is not that the content is or isn't pornography; the problem is that the content can be considered pornography by a viewer. It doesn't matter whether I think it's pornography, it's whether the person at the desk across from me does. If they think it's pornography, they're well within their rights to file an HR complaint if it makes them uncomfortable. Which is why it's good to ha…
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 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. If that would be grounds for firing, even after describing the context of the article, then you decidedly do not work at a fairly liberal software company.
Any sufficiently left-wing policy is indistinguishable from a right-wing policy, and the reverse is also true. Anti-pornography movements present one of the clearest modern illustrations of this phenomenon. The right-winger complains of personal morality, while the left-winger complains about demeaning and objectifying the subjects, but they wind up at basically the same conclusions. Alcohol prohibition showed something very similar around the turn of the century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kind of threw this out the window after all the hats and costumes, though.
It's all about the distinctive silhouettes of the character classes and how they move. Even with clothes you can quickly recognise a heavy, a pyro, a medic at a distance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Mary Sue is only when character is posed as in any way ordinary.
No, Mary Sues are really awesome, in all aspects. "The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may posse…
The second critical aspect of a Mary Sue is being unnaturally placed at the center of the plot. The "unnatural" part is important: a character who makes sense as the focal point of his or her own plotlines is not a Sue. This is what makes Sues in fanfiction easier to spot than Sues in original works: you can compare a fanfiction to the original story, and see if it flows the same way. When the work itself is original, you have no basis for comparison: you have to look at more subtle (but, in some ways, more egregious) flaws in the writing. It happens, but it's easier to mask.
All Sues are wish-fulfillment characters, but not all wish-fulfillment characters are Sues. The difference between them brings us to the third critical aspect. Most wish-fulfillment characters represent the reader, but a Sue, by contrast, represents the author in particular. Authors and readers can of course have the same fantasies -indeed, some would say the entire point of fiction is to make this happen- but a Sue gets too intensely personal, to the point where it becomes harder for anyone but the author to relate to the Sue: it breaks the rapport between the character and the reader.
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 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. If that would be grounds for firing, even after describing the context of the article, then you decidedly do not work at a fairly liberal software company.
It's basically considered a fireable offense under the sexual harassment policy.
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.)
Does anyone know of any case where someone has been fired for looking at a hand drawn non-pornographic depiction of a nude in the western world? Really? I see stories about teachers being fired for working as strippers on the side, or there's a teacher fired for http://www.parentdish.com/2006/10/02/texas-school-teacher-fi... a child to nude pictures in an Art museum (Texas -- ) but I think this is fanciful. And note…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kind of threw this out the window after all the hats and costumes, though.
It's all about the distinctive silhouettes of the character classes and how they move. Even with clothes you can quickly recognise a heavy, a pyro, a medic at a distance.
I've never had an issue with hats confusing what class I'm approaching.