5 ms·

NSFW meaning "content that you may not want to view in public", is the Bible or Quran really that?

mvdtnz 1y ago
That's not what NSFW means in this context. > The marked app may contain nudity, profanity, slurs, violence, intense sexuality, political incorrectness, or other potentially disturbing subject matter.
- mminer237 1y ago
  No, he was exactly right. That says "may" because it's just a comment, not F-Droid's actual definition, which you cut out: > This Anti-Feature is applied to an app that contains content that the user may not want to be publicized or visible everywhere. https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/#nsfw https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/#nsfw That is clearly not applicable to the vast majority of these apps' users as evidenced by their outrage.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
Have you read it? Yes they are
- nathanaldensr 1y ago
  Yes, I have read it, as have billions of others, and we don't agree with you. Your personal political sensibilities are not shared by all. For what it's worth I wouldn't flag any of your chosen religious texts either no matter what they were.
  - WolfeReader 1y ago
    Do you read Ezekiel chapter 23 at work and to your family?
    - BizarroLand 1y ago
      I wish I loved anything as much as atheists love gotchas
      - WolfeReader 1y ago
        It's easy and fun, especially since so many defenders of the Bible show themselves to be unfamiliar with its contents. Also, maybe don't assume I'm an atheist just because I pointed out some of the Bible's NSFW contents in a discussion about the Bible being NSFW.
    - bentley 1y ago
      As a 12‐year‐old I encountered this passage during my first complete read of the Bible and wasn’t bothered by it. It’s a colorful metaphor that uses sexual promiscuity to symbolize Israel’s religious impiety, a common theme that occurs elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Hosea whose commitment to his unfaithful wife was used as a symbol for the love of God to an unfaithful Israel). These are basic theological ideas that were not hidden from me at church even at that age. I encountered actual prurient material on the shelves of the school library, and heard far worse obscenity in the locker room during gym class. The most erotic stuff in the Bible, Song of Songs, is quaint by the standards of a century ago, let alone today. If F‐Droid is trying to drum up opposition to the UK’s extreme suppression of pornography, they've muddled it. They could have defied the unjust restrictions, or they could have leaned into it and marked Wikipedia apps, Reddit apps, Mastodon apps, and Project Gutenberg apps the same way. That they did neither indicates that they have chosen to specifically target religious content, and not just by marking it. F-Droid developers openly state (https://gitlab.com/fdroid/admin/-/issues/252#note_2578531026 https://gitlab.com/fdroid/admin/-/issues/252#note_2578531026) that (1) new NSFW apps will not be added, and (2) existing NSFW apps will be removed. It's bad on principle: F-Droid is akin to a distribution package repo, and should not prohibit apps based solely on ideology (nor should Debian, Gentoo, BSD ports…); and it's also impractical: given the looming threat of government suppression of app stores, F‐Droid (already an underdog) should not be driving away supporters by taking up anti‐religious ideology.

That's not what NSFW means in this context. > The marked app may contain nudity, profanity, slurs, violence, intense sexuality, political incorrectness, or other potentially disturbing subject matter.

mminer237 1y ago
No, he was exactly right. That says "may" because it's just a comment, not F-Droid's actual definition, which you cut out: > This Anti-Feature is applied to an app that contains content that the user may not want to be publicized or visible everywhere. https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/#nsfw https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/#nsfw That is clearly not applicable to the vast majority of these apps' users as evidenced by their outrage.

TiredOfLife 1y ago

Have you read it? Yes they are

nathanaldensr 1y ago
Yes, I have read it, as have billions of others, and we don't agree with you. Your personal political sensibilities are not shared by all. For what it's worth I wouldn't flag any of your chosen religious texts either no matter what they were.
- WolfeReader 1y ago
  Do you read Ezekiel chapter 23 at work and to your family?
  - BizarroLand 1y ago
    I wish I loved anything as much as atheists love gotchas
    - WolfeReader 1y ago
      It's easy and fun, especially since so many defenders of the Bible show themselves to be unfamiliar with its contents. Also, maybe don't assume I'm an atheist just because I pointed out some of the Bible's NSFW contents in a discussion about the Bible being NSFW.
  - bentley 1y ago
    As a 12‐year‐old I encountered this passage during my first complete read of the Bible and wasn’t bothered by it. It’s a colorful metaphor that uses sexual promiscuity to symbolize Israel’s religious impiety, a common theme that occurs elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Hosea whose commitment to his unfaithful wife was used as a symbol for the love of God to an unfaithful Israel). These are basic theological ideas that were not hidden from me at church even at that age. I encountered actual prurient material on the shelves of the school library, and heard far worse obscenity in the locker room during gym class. The most erotic stuff in the Bible, Song of Songs, is quaint by the standards of a century ago, let alone today. If F‐Droid is trying to drum up opposition to the UK’s extreme suppression of pornography, they've muddled it. They could have defied the unjust restrictions, or they could have leaned into it and marked Wikipedia apps, Reddit apps, Mastodon apps, and Project Gutenberg apps the same way. That they did neither indicates that they have chosen to specifically target religious content, and not just by marking it. F-Droid developers openly state (https://gitlab.com/fdroid/admin/-/issues/252#note_2578531026 https://gitlab.com/fdroid/admin/-/issues/252#note_2578531026) that (1) new NSFW apps will not be added, and (2) existing NSFW apps will be removed. It's bad on principle: F-Droid is akin to a distribution package repo, and should not prohibit apps based solely on ideology (nor should Debian, Gentoo, BSD ports…); and it's also impractical: given the looming threat of government suppression of app stores, F‐Droid (already an underdog) should not be driving away supporters by taking up anti‐religious ideology.