Forum:'No-Go' images?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

While floating through RW I ended up in the 'Unremitting Horror' category (via Michele Bachmann). And what should I find at the bottom but this NSFW atrocity.

So, I'd like to ask, is this image a 'seriously don't touch this' thing? I mean...it's shocking, it's upsetting, it makes me border on physically ill, but that's exactly the point. Emotional appeal it may well be, but I think it's kind of important to get across that this shit is real rather than just a pretty sick joke on the gang page.

I do wonder why this isn't on homophobia and especially Fred Fucking Phelps please someone kill it with fire. Not embedding it, I can understand becaause to have that pop up halfway down a page can be "upsetting" to say the least (see the talk page on Phelps for something in the similar vein, going back and forth between whether or not to link his foul, putrid site), but it just seems bizarre why this is more or less off the beaten track rather than right next to its horrid, hate-fuelled source.

I'd add it myself but I need to know if others would consider this a 'no-go' image, alongside any others that might fall into that category. --Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The NSFW thing that prevents an image from being embedded in a page was meant for NSFW images (thank you, Captain Obvious). I don't know why this image was put there, it's not really NSFW, at least not in the same sense as File:Frot.jpg. -- Nx / talk 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider it NSFW, unless we really want to dilute the term down a bit (on par with labelling H2O as "Hazard Code 2"), I've pulled the tag for now. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 18:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)