The Dish

Yesterday, I declared that, “in deference to the readers, this blog will henceforth censor itself in one area: no more non-pornographic, non-sexual depictions of any faintly naughty bits of the actual human body.” A reader pushes back:

The reason I subscribe to The Dish is because I love the range of issues you cover.  Politics and poetry, religion and pop culture, sex and, well, “non-pornographic, non-sexual depictions of faintly naughty bits of the actual human body.”  You don’t have to let our anxieties drive your editorial decisions, but if you really ARE sympathetic to those who work in nanny corporatist states, how about you post such (YES, I AGREE) innocent-yet-controversial photos below the fold?

Because anyone who links to the post would immediately see the whole thing, rendering them just as vulnerable to lawsuits from office busy-bodies, regardless of a “read-on” NSFW warning. Another reader goes into more detail:

I was one of those people who was at work when I scrolled upon the scrotum story with its giant picture of the aforementioned body part. I quickly moved past it lest anyone in my office caught sight of it; I’m just glad I wasn’t on a public desk when I perused your website (I’m a librarian at a public library). I’ve had the same reaction before to the graphic pictures of war that you’ve posted. But in reading your reaction to the Dissent of the Day, I disagree with your conclusion.

It’s not a matter of Puritianism; it’s a matter of Internet etiquette.

The NSFW label gives people an option to make a choice which is whether to view a movie, picture, or website. For the people who are at work, they can make a mental note to visit the site later if they want to follow up and view the material without worrying about possible work consequences. For the people who are in the comfort of their own home, they can make a choice as to whether or not to view it; it is not thrust upon them unsuspectingly. By placing the materials sans label out there, you are usurping that choice.

It’s not that I object to the material in the slightest; it’s that I object to having my choice taken away. I do realize and fully appreciate that you want your readers to see these images and videos because they are so powerful. I trust in your news curation skills to bring forth the issues that need the light of day, to be talked about, and to be discussed in full measure. Placing material behind a label isn’t furthering Puritanism, it’s being a good friend to your readers in saying, “Hey, I have something that might be a bit shocking but it’s important to me that you see it and know about it.”

As a librarian, I don’t believe in holding things back either. But I do believe in letting people know what they are getting into. I inform them and let them make their own decisions. Trust your readers and they’ll follow you to where you point them.

I notice the the reader thought the image of the scrotum was “giant”. It was actually half the size of a full Dish photo and embedded in a pull-quote. But the reader has a point. Another:

If the offensive image is worth posting, then put it below the “read-on.” It’s a reasonable compromise. And I am asking you to compromise because of both workplace considerations and personal considerations. We would like to be able to choose when and if we want to look at potentially offensive material. This is why there are wrappers on porn magazines. This is why movie trailers omit graphic sex and violence. Your readers have varying sensibilities, and they have a right to determine what they will see on their computer and when they will see it. It’s about maintaining a civilized society, which requires negotiation, compromise, and mutual consideration.

I don’t just work in a place where co-workers would rather not see dick, but I also have three kids, two boys and a girl, ages 10 to 11, and a sensitive wife, who doesn’t prefer to glimpse close-up dick shots as she walks past my screen.

We’ve never published  a “close-up dick shot,” unless you count this abstract close-up. I cropped the scrotum image precisely to avoid that. Another:

Putting a NSFW label or tucking an image under the fold is not censorship. Censorship is making it impossible to view something. NSFW is a warning: “Here there be balls.” It does not restrict me from viewing it, just gives me a heads up in case I work in a cubicle. Which I do.

And a final reader thinks I’m being inconsistent:

I understand the point you’re making in this post, but you’ve already set precedent by employing the NSFW label in the past, mostly when linking to videos containing profanity. If it’s Puritanical to warn people about nudity and violent content, then why should you give a heads-up to those who might take offense at “bad” language?

Videos come ready-made for choice to play them or not, so a warning can actually work. Not so with photographs.

Is there a compromise? I repeat that I think I’ve been unwittingly insensitive to the dangers readers face if these images pop up on their screens with co-workers nearby. But it kills me to have my freedom to publish anything curtailed by employment laws. (This may not be direct government censorship but it is indirect censorship. The sexual harassment laws, in the end, are enforced by government.)

Patrick suggested a way forward that maximizes our ability to post what we want, without risking readers’ jobs. We’ll carve out space in the middle of the weekends for adult visual content, particularly Saturday night. Think of it as a free speech zone as well as a free reading one. It grieves me to be constrained this way; but my readers are right. There needs to be a balance between my freedom and their livelihoods. If we link back to Saturdays in the week, we’ll add a warning. Thanks for all the input.

David Brooks proffers the most succinct rebuttal to the nihilist partisanship – and civic cowardice – of Lowry and Kristol. He’s right on the substance, but also, critically, on the politics. Money quote:

The final conservative point of opposition is a political one. Republicans should not try to win back lower-middle-class voters with immigration reform; they should do it with a working-class agenda.

This argument would be slightly plausible if Republicans had even a hint of such an agenda, but they don’t. Even then it would fail. Before Asians, Hispanics and all the other groups can be won with economic plans, they need to feel respected and understood by the G.O.P. They need to feel that Republicans respect their ethnic and cultural identity. If Republicans reject immigration reform, that will be a giant sign of disrespect, and nothing else Republicans say will even be heard.

This is what so many on the right just don’t understand. Their very arguments against universal healthcare and gay marriage and immigration reform are all made as if the working poor, gays, and illegal Latino immigrants were not in the room. You think we don’t hear that in the tone and content of what they are saying? It’s the way in which people who desperately need healthcare are dismissed as abstractions, or in which gays are never offered any actual policy but avoidance and disdain, or in which hard-working immigrants – living in a kind of radical insecurity no white native-born Republican has ever fully experienced or imagined – are simply told to hang around for a few more years, or “self-deport”. That bespeaks a disconnect that obscures any capacity to govern this country as it actually is – rather than as they would like it to be.

Like David, I think this is a crucial moment. Actual conservatism should not be averse to an imperfect compromise to resolve a festering and difficult socio-economic problem. Actual conservatives should see the essentially conservative case for reform that Brooks outlines. But, alas, we are not dealing with actual conservatives, prepared to negotiate or reform the bill for the better. We are dealing with what Richard Hofstadter called “pseudoconservatives” – alienated, paranoid, visceral loathers of any concession to the party that just won popular vote majorities for House, Senate and the presidency.

You cannot reason people out of something they did not reason into. But I admire Brooks for trying.

Because gerry-mandering incentivizes them not to.

Brad Plumer summarizes a new Department of Energy report (pdf) “which argues that large swaths of America’s aging energy infrastructure — from nuclear reactors and barges transporting coal to oil rigs and power lines — are at risk from the effects of global warming”:

If the United States keeps getting warmer, then many Americans will use air conditioning more often. Combine that with the risk of more frequent power-plant interruptions, and the Western United States will need an additional 34 gigawatts of generation capacity by 2050 to keep the lights on, according to a study by Argonne National Lab. That’s an extra $45 billion. On the flip side, however, some parts of the United States, like the Northeast, will have fewer heating needs in the winter.

Now, the DOE report does suggest that there are ways to adapt to many of these changes. Transmission lines can be hardened against wildfires. Fracking firms can pursue more water-efficient ways to drill for natural gas. Hydroelectric dams facing lower reservoir levels can install more efficient turbines. But this all costs extra.

The American public doesn’t share your disdain of the president’s schmoozing skills. They know the real reason for gridlock.

Catherine Rampell compares mothers and fathers:

I wrote in Monday’s article that “among all mothers with children under 18, just a quarter say they would choose full-time work if money were no object and they were free to do whatever they wanted, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. By comparison, about half of mothers in the United States are actually working full time, indicating that there are a lot out there logging many more hours than they want to be.” On Twitter and elsewhere, people have asked me what the results were for fathers, so I’ll share here: Just over half of all fathers with children under 18 say their ideal situation would be to work full time, if money were no object. Another 30 percent of these fathers would prefer to work part time, and 16 percent would stay at home.

Exotic, “invasive” dishes are coming to America:

The Corvallis, Oregon-based Institute for Applied Ecology’s (IAE) Eradication by Mastication program includes an annual invasive species cook-off and a published cookbook called The Joy of Cooking Invasives: A Culinary Guide to Biocontrol (kudzu quiche! nutria eggrolls!). The program will hold a workshop this summer on how to dig, process, and cook up the highly invasive purple varnish clam. Tom Kaye, executive director of IAE, made one of three prize-winning entries at last year’s cook-off: battered, deep-fried Cajun bullfrog legs. Second place went to popcorn English house sparrow drumsticks. Despite their poor labor-to-meat ratio, Kaye says, “they were tasty.” Third prize went to nutria prepared three ways, including pulled-pork style and made into sausages. …

“It’s a chicken and egg situation,” says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch. “Getting more product available will make it easier for chefs to be able to cook with it. That could be a win-win situation for the environment and people who like eating interesting things.” But she adds, “I really think a well-known chef needs to take it up.”