"please post this again when there is some real cock in it, thank you."
August 22, 2006 1:58 AM Subscribe
Okay, here it is in all it's glory: googlyeyesoncock.com is once again filled with googly-eyed cock. (seriously NSFW!)
A++++++ BEST OF THE WEB WONDERFUL SELLER WOULD CLICK AGAIN.
posted by phylum sinter at 2:44 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by phylum sinter at 2:44 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
caddis, when the original post was deleted, it said this: "please post this again when there is some real cock in it, thank you."
malor, calm down.
posted by TheCoug at 2:50 AM on August 22, 2006
malor, calm down.
posted by TheCoug at 2:50 AM on August 22, 2006
I think I'm going to enjoy the MeTa thread more than this one.
Pass the snapples, yo. Rip it smooth.
posted by loquacious at 3:04 AM on August 22, 2006
Pass the snapples, yo. Rip it smooth.
posted by loquacious at 3:04 AM on August 22, 2006
Did I accidentally go to fark instead of mefi?
posted by nightchrome at 4:24 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by nightchrome at 4:24 AM on August 22, 2006
Doesn't get any fucking lamer than that. Aaand watch out for the Meta thread, it's NSFW either!
posted by gigbutt at 4:29 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by gigbutt at 4:29 AM on August 22, 2006
Wow. Penises seem so harmless with googley eyes on them. Good post.
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:34 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:34 AM on August 22, 2006
Wasn't this on the front page sometime on Saturday? I had a friend over who hadn't heard of Metafilter, and I was showing her the site until "Whoops, well, er... let's see what's going on in Ask Metafilter!"
Can't find a link to it now. Deleted?
posted by hermitosis at 5:02 AM on August 22, 2006
Can't find a link to it now. Deleted?
posted by hermitosis at 5:02 AM on August 22, 2006
Goddammit.
Does "my" have an apostrophe? Does "his" have an apostrophe? Does "her" have an apostrophe?
No?
Then why would the possessive of "its" have an apostrophe?
posted by ibmcginty at 5:20 AM on August 22, 2006
Does "my" have an apostrophe? Does "his" have an apostrophe? Does "her" have an apostrophe?
No?
Then why would the possessive of "its" have an apostrophe?
posted by ibmcginty at 5:20 AM on August 22, 2006
Here's the original thread, which has indeed been deleted. Reason for deletion:
This post was deleted for the following reason: broken. please post this again when there is some real cock in it, thank you.
Because the site went 404WOL after a while. All the googliness makes googley eyes difficult for the JPEG algorithm to compress, thus bandwidth use quickly exceeded allowance.
So TheCoug is at least capable of following instructions, in this case a specific request to repost when the cock came back. He even acknowledged mathowie's demand in the thread title. How can we argue with that level of gracious compliance?
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:25 AM on August 22, 2006
This post was deleted for the following reason: broken. please post this again when there is some real cock in it, thank you.
Because the site went 404WOL after a while. All the googliness makes googley eyes difficult for the JPEG algorithm to compress, thus bandwidth use quickly exceeded allowance.
So TheCoug is at least capable of following instructions, in this case a specific request to repost when the cock came back. He even acknowledged mathowie's demand in the thread title. How can we argue with that level of gracious compliance?
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:25 AM on August 22, 2006
Wow. Penises seem so harmless with googley eyes on them.
I tested this out and you're wrong.
posted by itchylick at 5:53 AM on August 22, 2006
I tested this out and you're wrong.
posted by itchylick at 5:53 AM on August 22, 2006
I don't know if these are atheist cocks, christian cocks, or bored cocks, but I must say I am somewhat surprised that this hasn't been deleted yet. I love Metafilter, so unpredictable! (And I mean that.)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:32 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:32 AM on August 22, 2006
What is that, m_c_d, a suprised flounder-cock?
posted by sourwookie at 6:45 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by sourwookie at 6:45 AM on August 22, 2006
...cause this wasn't stupid enough the first time. Ye gods. Best of the worst of the web.
posted by fet at 6:50 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by fet at 6:50 AM on August 22, 2006
I thought it was pretty funny. It's not like anybody is being tricked into looking at pictures of man-bits. Chill out a bit, maybe?
posted by cmyr at 7:07 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by cmyr at 7:07 AM on August 22, 2006
I second what cmyr said. This even includes real penises, not those cast-plastic animal dildeaux which were so acceptable not that long ago, and it's even clearly labelled "NSFW" -- and the first page of the referenced site even contains a suitable warning!
posted by davy at 7:29 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by davy at 7:29 AM on August 22, 2006
So ... Uhhhh, where does one purchase googly-eyes anyway? Am I going to have to start an AskMifi thread on this one?
posted by crunchyk9 at 7:30 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by crunchyk9 at 7:30 AM on August 22, 2006
"where does one purchase googly-eyes anyway?"
At crafts stores such as Michael's and A.C. Moore, you pervert.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 7:37 AM on August 22, 2006
At crafts stores such as Michael's and A.C. Moore, you pervert.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 7:37 AM on August 22, 2006
Most all cocks look the same, kinda boring, until you put googly eye on them. Or pierce them. Well, I am not putting googly eyes on mine.
posted by cdavidc at 7:54 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by cdavidc at 7:54 AM on August 22, 2006
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly, horribly disturbing and a little uncomfortable to look at? (Very very NSFW picture of erect cock covered in blisters... I mean, googly eyes.)
posted by Hal Mumkin at 8:11 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by Hal Mumkin at 8:11 AM on August 22, 2006
(Just noticed same pic is in the MeTa thread. Sorry. But I guess it answers my question.)
posted by Hal Mumkin at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by Hal Mumkin at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2006
I do say! Those chaps have gone all cock-eyed!
posted by jimmythefish at 8:19 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by jimmythefish at 8:19 AM on August 22, 2006
If I'm not mistaken, those are all of the same cock.
posted by crabintheocean at 8:46 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by crabintheocean at 8:46 AM on August 22, 2006
Uh, cdavidc, you're allowed to peek in the showers at the gym. Everybody's looking at yours anyway.
posted by davy at 8:58 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by davy at 8:58 AM on August 22, 2006
I hate the internet.
posted by Optamystic at 9:05 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by Optamystic at 9:05 AM on August 22, 2006
Damn, that is pretty funny stuff. Great sense of humour.
The thread is kinda funny too. Ya get the feeling that the outrage would have been slightly less if it had been smiling pussy or something.
I also get the distinct feeling that a few people clicked on it, truly expecting something clever other then googly-eyed cocks, which I think is fairly clever on its own. When it comes right down to it, you can warn em for ever; "No really, it is just cocks with googly eyes on them" but the more you warn em, the more likely they are going to think it is actually something else and go click anyway and get all outraged as if they haven't seen some cock in their life.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:07 AM on August 22, 2006
The thread is kinda funny too. Ya get the feeling that the outrage would have been slightly less if it had been smiling pussy or something.
I also get the distinct feeling that a few people clicked on it, truly expecting something clever other then googly-eyed cocks, which I think is fairly clever on its own. When it comes right down to it, you can warn em for ever; "No really, it is just cocks with googly eyes on them" but the more you warn em, the more likely they are going to think it is actually something else and go click anyway and get all outraged as if they haven't seen some cock in their life.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:07 AM on August 22, 2006
Rooster fanciers everywhere are horrified.
posted by clevershark at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2006
posted by clevershark at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2006
I was disappointed last time when it didn't have a gallery.
I now consider myself thoroughly appointed.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 1:12 PM on August 22, 2006
I now consider myself thoroughly appointed.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 1:12 PM on August 22, 2006
Ya get the feeling that the outrage would have been slightly less if it had been smiling pussy or something.
Let's try:
Any outrage?
posted by bpm140 at 1:14 PM on August 22, 2006
Let's try:
Any outrage?
posted by bpm140 at 1:14 PM on August 22, 2006
Trigonometry, I think that is googly eyes on half-cock
posted by Iron Rat at 3:14 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by Iron Rat at 3:14 PM on August 22, 2006
+1 vote for best post of August 22!
posted by greensweater at 8:04 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by greensweater at 8:04 PM on August 22, 2006
I miss Testicle Theater.
posted by homunculus at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by homunculus at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2006
(Not from the post, from this thread.
And, come on: Googly eyes on the Rock? That's comedy gold!)
posted by ChrisR at 10:40 PM on August 22, 2006
And, come on: Googly eyes on the Rock? That's comedy gold!)
posted by ChrisR at 10:40 PM on August 22, 2006
Bovine Love : "Ya get the feeling that the outrage would have been slightly less if it had been smiling pussy or something."
I get the feeling that you're probably the only one feeling that the outrage would be less if it were pussy instead of cock.
posted by Bugbread at 2:59 AM on August 23, 2006
I get the feeling that you're probably the only one feeling that the outrage would be less if it were pussy instead of cock.
posted by Bugbread at 2:59 AM on August 23, 2006
You may be right, bugbread. I may have misinterpreted general prudishness as fear-that-I'm-gay prudishness. Metafilter is different from fark after all!
posted by Bovine Love at 7:21 AM on August 23, 2006
posted by Bovine Love at 7:21 AM on August 23, 2006
Bovine Love : "I may have misinterpreted general prudishness..."
Where was the prudishness, though? Here are all the comments in this thread that have been against the post:
Drop dead, you self-linking jerk.
Complaint about self-linking.
Non-prudish.
How many times does Matt need to delete this shit?
Complaint about relinking a deleted post.
Non-prudish.
A++++++ BEST OF THE WEB WONDERFUL SELLER WOULD CLICK AGAIN.
Complaint about spamming/self-linking.
Non-prudish.
Did I accidentally go to fark instead of mefi?
Complaint about juvenility of post content.
Non-prudish.
Doesn't get any fucking lamer than that. Aaand watch out for the Meta thread, it's NSFW either!
A vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
Tabarnak, stop posting this shit.
I have no idea who Tabarnak is, but a vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
I had a friend over who hadn't heard of Metafilter, and I was showing her the site until "Whoops, well, er... let's see what's going on in Ask Metafilter!"
A complaint about propriety of post and offensive content.
Prudish.
...cause this wasn't stupid enough the first time. Ye gods. Best of the worst of the web.
Complaint about juvenility of post content.
Non-prudish.
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly, horribly disturbing and a little uncomfortable to look at? (Very very NSFW picture of erect cock covered in blisters... I mean, googly eyes.)
Complaint about one particular picture that looks like a blistery cock.
Not prudish, unless you are of the opinion that all non-prudes are comfortable looking at cocks with blisters, and that any dislike of any particular photo of genitalia for whatever reason indicates prudishness.
I hate the internet.
Vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
So, 10 negative comments, one of which is prudish, and 3 possibly prudish pictures; that is, setting aside our little side-discussion, 1 prudish and 3 possibly prudish comments out of 44 total comments indicates that MeFi is generally prudish?
I think you're just assuming that any criticism of a post with cocks in it is therefore a sign of prudism. Likewise, I don't like Pol Pot, showing that I am clearly racist against Cambodians.
posted by Bugbread at 7:49 AM on August 23, 2006
Where was the prudishness, though? Here are all the comments in this thread that have been against the post:
Drop dead, you self-linking jerk.
Complaint about self-linking.
Non-prudish.
How many times does Matt need to delete this shit?
Complaint about relinking a deleted post.
Non-prudish.
A++++++ BEST OF THE WEB WONDERFUL SELLER WOULD CLICK AGAIN.
Complaint about spamming/self-linking.
Non-prudish.
Did I accidentally go to fark instead of mefi?
Complaint about juvenility of post content.
Non-prudish.
Doesn't get any fucking lamer than that. Aaand watch out for the Meta thread, it's NSFW either!
A vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
Tabarnak, stop posting this shit.
I have no idea who Tabarnak is, but a vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
I had a friend over who hadn't heard of Metafilter, and I was showing her the site until "Whoops, well, er... let's see what's going on in Ask Metafilter!"
A complaint about propriety of post and offensive content.
Prudish.
...cause this wasn't stupid enough the first time. Ye gods. Best of the worst of the web.
Complaint about juvenility of post content.
Non-prudish.
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly, horribly disturbing and a little uncomfortable to look at? (Very very NSFW picture of erect cock covered in blisters... I mean, googly eyes.)
Complaint about one particular picture that looks like a blistery cock.
Not prudish, unless you are of the opinion that all non-prudes are comfortable looking at cocks with blisters, and that any dislike of any particular photo of genitalia for whatever reason indicates prudishness.
I hate the internet.
Vague complaint.
Could be prudish.
So, 10 negative comments, one of which is prudish, and 3 possibly prudish pictures; that is, setting aside our little side-discussion, 1 prudish and 3 possibly prudish comments out of 44 total comments indicates that MeFi is generally prudish?
I think you're just assuming that any criticism of a post with cocks in it is therefore a sign of prudism. Likewise, I don't like Pol Pot, showing that I am clearly racist against Cambodians.
posted by Bugbread at 7:49 AM on August 23, 2006
Yup, pretty unfair isn't it? I am making totally unfounded assumptions, and I don't apologize for it.
Few people will say "This offends my sensibilities". They almost invariably find some other complaint, a kind of ad hominem attack. Now, of course, the complaints expressed could easily be taken at face value and be exactly what they say they are, or they could be something else. Considering the level of whining, I tend to believe some of them are cover. I could be wrong, but such virulent comments are not seen often for more 'acceptable' material.
And I am having some fun too, maybe poking a bit to see if someone will comeback with something more coherent then attacks on the poster.
No, I have not observed that Metafilter is generally prudish, quite the opposite in fact. But I do like to poke the lion a bit, a bad habit I will admit.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:36 AM on August 23, 2006
Few people will say "This offends my sensibilities". They almost invariably find some other complaint, a kind of ad hominem attack. Now, of course, the complaints expressed could easily be taken at face value and be exactly what they say they are, or they could be something else. Considering the level of whining, I tend to believe some of them are cover. I could be wrong, but such virulent comments are not seen often for more 'acceptable' material.
And I am having some fun too, maybe poking a bit to see if someone will comeback with something more coherent then attacks on the poster.
No, I have not observed that Metafilter is generally prudish, quite the opposite in fact. But I do like to poke the lion a bit, a bad habit I will admit.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:36 AM on August 23, 2006
Bovine Love writes "Few people will say 'This offends my sensibilities'. They almost invariably find some other complaint, a kind of ad hominem attack."
Ok, that makes sense. I disagree that prudishness is the case, but your logic is well-founded, so our disagreement is just a gut-instinct thing.
posted by Bugbread at 3:52 PM on August 23, 2006
Ok, that makes sense. I disagree that prudishness is the case, but your logic is well-founded, so our disagreement is just a gut-instinct thing.
posted by Bugbread at 3:52 PM on August 23, 2006
The logic is pants. It's like asking if someone's an alcoholic, and when they say no deciding it's just denial. You can only do that if they reek of booze and have a history of out-of-control drinking.
Here, the posters kicking off don't have a puritanical posting history, that I can see, and there's almost no reek of any puritanism here. Sure, some puritans do cover it up with other reasons, but a many are upfront and clear about their objections.
If this was the sort of thing to draw puritan objections, you'd expect at least a percentage of them to show up in the clear. They haven't, and that suggests that the others are also not puritan in intent.
posted by bonaldi at 7:53 PM on August 23, 2006
Here, the posters kicking off don't have a puritanical posting history, that I can see, and there's almost no reek of any puritanism here. Sure, some puritans do cover it up with other reasons, but a many are upfront and clear about their objections.
If this was the sort of thing to draw puritan objections, you'd expect at least a percentage of them to show up in the clear. They haven't, and that suggests that the others are also not puritan in intent.
posted by bonaldi at 7:53 PM on August 23, 2006
bonaldi : "The logic is pants. It's like asking if someone's an alcoholic, and when they say no deciding it's just denial."
Well, that's not illogical, it's just very very likely to be wrong. Logical consistency doesn't guarantee correctness. Illogical would be to ask someone if they're an alcoholic, and when they say "no", saying "ah, so you admit it".
I agree with you that we're not puritans. And I think Bovine Love is wrong. But I first interpreted his saying we were puritans as being "the comments y'all have made are puritanical statements", which is just wrong, hence his "thus you're puritans" conclusion is illogical. However, it turns out what he was saying was "If people whined a little, I would take the contents of their complaints at face value, but I think the volume of complaints (not the contents of them) is out of proportion to the aspects they are complaining about, hence I think it's likely that the complaints are not about what they seem, and I'm going to make the assumption that this relates to prudishness." So he's admitting that he's making an assumption, not that A is necessarily true because of B, which is where the big logical hole appeared before.
If it helps to consider it, imagine a man dressed in a military uniform, covered in dirt, sunburnt, sweaty, limping, with a red bandanna tied around his head, cigar half-hanging out of his mouth, big buff muscles, etc. If a person says "This guy is an actor. It's clear from looking at him", well, that seems illogical. If the person says "This guy is dressed so much like the archetypical Army Guy that it appears to me over-the-top, a Hollywood style character, so while on the face of it he would appear to be a rugged commando, I don't believe it, and I suspect he's an actor instead", that no longer seems illogical. That doesn't mean it's right. The guy could be a hardcore marine grunt, whose only exposure to acting was pretending to lie dead in order to ambush an enemy. But that doesn't make the assumer's assumption illogical, just wrong.
posted by Bugbread at 9:07 PM on August 23, 2006
Well, that's not illogical, it's just very very likely to be wrong. Logical consistency doesn't guarantee correctness. Illogical would be to ask someone if they're an alcoholic, and when they say "no", saying "ah, so you admit it".
I agree with you that we're not puritans. And I think Bovine Love is wrong. But I first interpreted his saying we were puritans as being "the comments y'all have made are puritanical statements", which is just wrong, hence his "thus you're puritans" conclusion is illogical. However, it turns out what he was saying was "If people whined a little, I would take the contents of their complaints at face value, but I think the volume of complaints (not the contents of them) is out of proportion to the aspects they are complaining about, hence I think it's likely that the complaints are not about what they seem, and I'm going to make the assumption that this relates to prudishness." So he's admitting that he's making an assumption, not that A is necessarily true because of B, which is where the big logical hole appeared before.
If it helps to consider it, imagine a man dressed in a military uniform, covered in dirt, sunburnt, sweaty, limping, with a red bandanna tied around his head, cigar half-hanging out of his mouth, big buff muscles, etc. If a person says "This guy is an actor. It's clear from looking at him", well, that seems illogical. If the person says "This guy is dressed so much like the archetypical Army Guy that it appears to me over-the-top, a Hollywood style character, so while on the face of it he would appear to be a rugged commando, I don't believe it, and I suspect he's an actor instead", that no longer seems illogical. That doesn't mean it's right. The guy could be a hardcore marine grunt, whose only exposure to acting was pretending to lie dead in order to ambush an enemy. But that doesn't make the assumer's assumption illogical, just wrong.
posted by Bugbread at 9:07 PM on August 23, 2006
Yeh, I didn't say it was illogical, just that it was pants. Take it as "extremely unforceful" if you'd prefer.
The bit I was really taking issue with was not BL's conclusion, more your "well the logic is fine, so there's nothing to distinguish our positions except gut instinct", because it doesn't allow for context and knowledge of the situation.
To take your example: "On a war film set, people dressed like soldiers are likely to be actors" or "In a combat zone, people dressed like soldiers are likely to be actors". Which is this? Film set or combat zone?
Is the suspected alcoholic sitting quietly on a train reading a book, or in the gutter reeking of booze? Is the suspected puritan posting on a forum of grannies, or a bearpit?
It's not instinct, it's awareness of his argument's force. Is metafilter a board where puritans are? Since we've been here years and he's been here a few months, our assessment of whether this is a bearpit is likely to have more force. And therefore so do our conclusions.
posted by bonaldi at 4:46 AM on August 24, 2006
The bit I was really taking issue with was not BL's conclusion, more your "well the logic is fine, so there's nothing to distinguish our positions except gut instinct", because it doesn't allow for context and knowledge of the situation.
To take your example: "On a war film set, people dressed like soldiers are likely to be actors" or "In a combat zone, people dressed like soldiers are likely to be actors". Which is this? Film set or combat zone?
Is the suspected alcoholic sitting quietly on a train reading a book, or in the gutter reeking of booze? Is the suspected puritan posting on a forum of grannies, or a bearpit?
It's not instinct, it's awareness of his argument's force. Is metafilter a board where puritans are? Since we've been here years and he's been here a few months, our assessment of whether this is a bearpit is likely to have more force. And therefore so do our conclusions.
posted by bonaldi at 4:46 AM on August 24, 2006
Bonaldi,
Roger and aye. "Gut instinct" was probably a poor choice of phrase. I didn't mean to imply that gut instincts are equal in likelihood (Chuck Yeager's "gut instinct" about what's wrong with a jet is probably way, way more likely to be true than a high school kid in shop class's idea of what's wrong with a jet), just that, once it came to gut instinct, it's much harder to set up conclusive proof. So his logic is good, he's making a judgement based on gut instinct, and admitting it, which is good, but his gut instinct is based on (probably, I dunno if he lurked before registering) less data than ours, and his gut instinct is less likely to be right than ours. "Pants", as it were.
posted by Bugbread at 6:08 AM on August 24, 2006
Roger and aye. "Gut instinct" was probably a poor choice of phrase. I didn't mean to imply that gut instincts are equal in likelihood (Chuck Yeager's "gut instinct" about what's wrong with a jet is probably way, way more likely to be true than a high school kid in shop class's idea of what's wrong with a jet), just that, once it came to gut instinct, it's much harder to set up conclusive proof. So his logic is good, he's making a judgement based on gut instinct, and admitting it, which is good, but his gut instinct is based on (probably, I dunno if he lurked before registering) less data than ours, and his gut instinct is less likely to be right than ours. "Pants", as it were.
posted by Bugbread at 6:08 AM on August 24, 2006
Ah, very interesting discussion gents (or ladies...). Bugbread summed up my position much better then I did, and some interesting thoughts put there. This is why I keep coming back.
I did lurk for a bit, but still am relatively new. OTOH, I come here for the discussion, not to be right, so I am ok with possibly being wrong.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:22 AM on August 25, 2006
I did lurk for a bit, but still am relatively new. OTOH, I come here for the discussion, not to be right, so I am ok with possibly being wrong.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:22 AM on August 25, 2006
« Older Nights to Remember - Unusual Hotels | Do it with your feet up... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Malor at 2:08 AM on August 22, 2006