Creating a tag for slurs/extreme harsh language

In category: Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

I'm beginning to think a tag for degrading slurs (f*ggot, r*tard etc) should exist.

I'm not even talking about the mental health issue here, just that a tag to help users avoid or find this content seems like something that should have been done some time ago, and the tag degradation is too broad.

I'm not sure how tag creation works on this website and I don't want to go around tagging things with a tag that doesn't exist so i'm not sure what else to do than to start this topic in the event that the correct people see it.

I apologies in advance for any drama this post may cause.


Why do you feel the tag degradation is too broad?
Wouldn't it work rather well if the tags degradation and text are used in tandem?

We do have multiple escalations for BDSM content (bound vs BDSM for example) so I'm not entirely against having a tag for different harshness levels of degradation as well.


Tag creation is adhoc in the sense that you don't need to get a new tag approved to use it, you just use it. Although in the more difficult cases it's certainly wise to discuss it ahead of time.

verbal_abuse exists, but only has 20-odd taggings, so probably shouldn't be assumed to be "correct"/definitive.

EDIT: That seems to overlap with degradation text that NMNY pointed out. verbal_abuse seems to be a little more focused on use of slurs rather than general belittling (which may not use slurs)

Genjar
Former Staff
22 days ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 280
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

savageorange said:
Tag creation is adhoc in the sense that you don't need to get a new tag approved to use it, you just use it.

I can't remember where in the rules it's written, but completely new general tags should be discussed or at least mentioned on the forum. Anything that gets added ad hoc is usually redundant, subjective, or too specific -- and only results in unnecessary work later.

Adding new artist and character tags without discussion is of course fine. As is adding minor variations of existing tags (such as green_sky, when red_sky already exists).

Peekaboo
Contributor
22 days ago
adele_morse ambiguous_gender anthro canine chair fox fur lol_comments looking_at_viewer mammal nightmare_fuel oddly_cute orange_fur plushie real sitting solo source_request stoned_fox taxidermy uncanny_valley what_has_science_done where_is_your_god_now white_fur why

Rating: Safe
Score: 84
User: meanwhile
Date: December 03, 2012

Not as effective, but I usually tag profanity.


MrNerorthi said:
I'm beginning to think a tag for degrading slurs (f*ggot, r*tard etc) should exist.

I'm not even talking about the mental health issue here, just that a tag to help users avoid or find this content seems like something that should have been done some time ago, and the tag degradation is too broad.

I'm not sure how tag creation works on this website and I don't want to go around tagging things with a tag that doesn't exist so i'm not sure what else to do than to start this topic in the event that the correct people see it.

I apologies in advance for any drama this post may cause.

well, to be be frank I'm into Femdom/BSDM, so I'm not really against insult and stuff. but I really hate it when I use the degradation tag then I find angry black guys start yelling how much a bitch and other profanities when there gangbanging a deer .it very stupid and not very creative at the slightest. so I would agree that a tagg should be made to single those post out so I can exclude from my search

Peekaboo said:
Not as effective, but I usually tag profanity.

I can see this being useful, but I'm afriad this is also going to filter out posts which don't have a excessive amount of it.


Yes.

This will allow people to filter out content they dislike (or even find to be personally damaging!), which is always a good thing.

As, there's a world of difference between slurs, and just being told to lick one's shoes or whatever.


MrNerorthi said:
(f*ggot, r*tard etc)

Really? on a f*rry p*rn site?..


hslugs said:
Really? on a f*rry p*rn site?..

Just because the words don't bother you don't mean that they don't bother everyone.

Let me explain a trigger to you.

"Oh SnowWolf!" you exclaim, "I already know about how all the little weak-hearted fluffy children are so triggered when something offends their delicate senses!"

Hush now, and let me talk.

I know that the children use 'triggered' in a joking manner these days and that's not what I'm talking about.

A trigger--a real trigger---is something that is deeply upsetting to someone on an intimate and personal level. It is something that can ruin not only a part of someone's day, but possibly their whole week or month. Let me repeat that: A trigger is something that will have long lasting, or severe repercussions for the person being triggered.

(ahem, trigger warnings for the next paragraph or so.)

A trigger isn't "ugh, I hate when men talk about rape." it's "I was raped and whenever people start talking about rape, I start feeling nauseated, and my heart gets fluttery. Most times I'll get really jumpy for the rest of the day. If it's a bad one, maybe all week. Maybe I have nightmares too. Maybe I wake up thinking I hear him calling me a useless whore again, maybe I'm crying, maybe I'm itching and want to claw my own skin off and maybe I'm so broken that I know this is stupid and I'm a worthless waste of ugly flesh but I can't stop thinking about it and I should go take a hot bath but I need to go to sleep because I have a test tomorrow and if I go take a bath I'll end up awake for the next few hours but I guess I'm already awake..."

It isn't a rational thing.

But this is why trigger warnings are a good thing.

Because while you or I can shrug off some things, other people can't. I'm startled when my neighbors set off some fireworks unexpectedly. A veteran with PTSD has a very different reaction. My sister had a tree fall on her house in the middle of a windstorm. storms still make her nervous, because that is the nature of trauma.

Someone who is sensitive to words like F*ggot or r*tart probably doesn't spend much time online because of how often people use these words.... But wouldn't it be nice to let these people have a safe place as well?

The blacklist is a very powerful tool that is intended to allow people avoid content they don't want to see.

I think that is is very good idea to allow a series of tags specifically for the usage of certain words, so that they can be blacklisted if desired.


https://e621.net/forum/show/256766

This feature would solve the problem neatly. If someone has a problem with certain words, they could add transcription:[word] (or whatever the syntax is) to their blacklist.

SnowWolf, your own post might reasonably have a warning on it, because of the graphic nature of some of the details you include. Just a thought.


NotMeNotYou said:
Why do you feel the tag degradation is too broad?
Wouldn't it work rather well if the tags degradation and text are used in tandem?

We do have multiple escalations for BDSM content (bound vs BDSM for example) so I'm not entirely against having a tag for different harshness levels of degradation as well.

The degradation tag and even degradation+text involves a lot of stuff that's not profanity. Profanity/slurs also aren't mutually inclusive with degradation- you can have playful or casual use, or else just have them pop up in mean dirty talk that doesn't quite get to the point of degradation.

I think there could/should be different levels of profanity tagging. There should definitely be a way to separate mild profanity like 'crap' or 'damn' from stronger words like 'shit' and 'fuck'. Slurs are their own category of profanity that comes from terms used to refer to specific groups.


Clawdragons said:
https://e621.net/forum/show/256766

This feature would solve the problem neatly. If someone has a problem with certain words, they could add transcription:[word] (or whatever the syntax is) to their blacklist.

This is a really good point and would be an EXCELLENT use of that as well.

SnowWolf, your own post might reasonably have a warning on it, because of the graphic nature of some of the details you include. Just a thought.

You are correct. I've tucked in a warning of my own. on e621, I tend to assume that if we're in a thread that's discussing this stuff, that people are already warned, but I did go several steps further into trigger territory -- thank you for suggesting that.


I think there should definitely be a racial_slur tag implemented. People who don't want to see it can blacklist it, and the people who do, and there are people who do get off the raceplay, can more easily seek it out.

Or maybe that content isn't allowed here in the first place I really have no idea.


SnowWolf said:
I think that is is very good idea to allow a series of tags specifically for the usage of certain words, so that they can be blacklisted if desired.

I was referring solely to the use of asterisks for censoring words.
Sorry if my attempts at sarcasm went a bit over some heads.


Clawdragons said:
https://e621.net/forum/show/256766

This feature would solve the problem neatly. If someone has a problem with certain words, they could add transcription:[word] (or whatever the syntax is) to their blacklist.

It's a bit beyond the scope of the current transcript proposition, IMO. transcript: blacklisting would require at minimum that transcript texts were returned as part of /post/index/... pages, in order to be available to the blacklist processing script.

Also, I think wildcards would need to be supported to make it reliable (to handle plurals and other variant forms of a root word)


savageorange said:
It's a bit beyond the scope of the current transcript proposition, IMO. transcript: blacklisting would require at minimum that transcript texts were returned as part of /post/index/... pages, in order to be available to the blacklist processing script.

Also, I think wildcards would need to be supported to make it reliable (to handle plurals and other variant forms of a root word)

I don't really understand much about how the blacklist code works or whatnot, but if the transcript search could search for parts of words, it would be easy enough to blacklist without having to use wildcards. Plurals and whatnot would contain the root word, so blacklisting the root word would naturally blacklist most variants.

Like I said, I'm not an expert on how the blacklist or search function thingamabobs work so I can't say for sure that the idea would work... but it seems like it'd be the sort of thing that should at least be looked at - if feasible, it would be quite useful.


savageorange said:
It's a bit beyond the scope of the current transcript proposition,

But... this is how things are built.

One person says "I have an idea"
other people add on, and share their opinions. "We could do this this" "make sure we don't do that"

Ultimately, it will come down to the administration: They'll discuss features they want, how they'll interact and how feasible things are or are not.

Our job's mostly to provide feedback and ideas.

It's up for them to decide if they want to do this at all and, if they do, if they want to do it sweet and simple, complicated and detailed, or implement it in phases or whatever.

But you give them ideas NOW, rather than wait for the feature to arrive and then offer suggestions about how to make it better--suggestions that might require totally reworking the system.


SnowWolf, not very amused by your post.
The point was that if transcript: field and search was implemented according to what had been worked out in that thread so far..

Then it's clearly wrong to say you would then be able to blacklist anything that you couldn't before.

If you want to do blacklisting you have to design for it; even assuming the client side code was updated, the server code would have to change further, which is a more major undertaking.

Hence the people involved in the discussion do, AFAICS, need to have a certain amount of concrete knowledge about how things are structured. There's no point trying to extend the existing structure if you don't know what it actually is.

Clawdragons said:
I don't really understand much about how the blacklist code works or whatnot, but if the transcript search could search for parts of words, it would be easy enough to blacklist without having to use wildcards.

No actually. I mean, yes you don't have to use wildcards, but there are problems more basic than that.

The search code has everything in the database available to it. pool membership, set membership, uploader, sources ...

The blacklist code is client side, ie. it's entirely done by the browser. The information it has available to it is limited to the contents of the page that the server has already sent to the browser.

IIRC this has in the past come up in relation to pool ids. You can't blacklist pool membership, because that information isn't in the page to begin with. If we wanted to blacklist pool membership, /post/index/* pages would have to include that information.

Currently, they include:

  • Tags
  • Rating
  • Score
  • Uploader
  • Time of posting
  • MD5 hash

and possibly

  • whether the post is flagged or has been approved

Plurals and whatnot would contain the root word, so blacklisting the root word would naturally blacklist most variants.

That sounds exactly like appending a wildcard to the term, ie. if the term is foo, then it is matched like foo*. If you want to hide that wildcard from the user, OK -- that might be a good idea -- , but the operation is the same. 'begins with foo' == 'matches foo*'.

Currently, our blacklisting is completely literal -- if you blacklist foo, that matches exactly foo with no characters before or after.


Clawdragons said:
I don't really understand much about how the blacklist code works or whatnot, but if the transcript search could search for parts of words, it would be easy enough to blacklist without having to use wildcards. Plurals and whatnot would contain the root word, so blacklisting the root word would naturally blacklist most variants.

Like I said, I'm not an expert on how the blacklist or search function thingamabobs work so I can't say for sure that the idea would work... but it seems like it'd be the sort of thing that should at least be looked at - if feasible, it would be quite useful.

Filters that search for parts of words end up being problematic in a big way because they are not smart enough to tell the difference between 'cunts' and 'Scunthorpe'. You could instead continuously add variations on words or continuously add exceptions, though that does run into issues with misspellings.


savageorange said:
SnowWolf, not very amused by your post.

The point was that if transcript: field and search was implemented according to what had been worked out in that thread so far..

*raises eyebrow*

Okay, let me say this a little more bluntly.

▼ Because this thread is about tagging slurs and extreme language

forum #356766 was started 5 days ago. Until a few hours ago, no member of the staff had weighed in on the feasibility of the issue.

Had someone started another thread for a similar idea--say the blacklist-able transcription field-- one would be scolded and told that there's already a thread for the 'transcription field' idea. It's one of the basic rules of forum etiquette: keep related threads together. If TPTB decided that it was a good idea and should be studied in greater, then they would prefer to look at one thread, not 2, not 3, not 5 to see the ideas that had been batted around. See that forum etiquette thing again.

Clawdragons had a good idea. In an ideal world, that would be a great addition to the website. It's a good idea. But it was posted in this thread, not that thread. I also posted about it over there in the hopes that it would keep discussion about transcription field concepts in one thread, not two... so I'm kind of feeling like the ducks that I was attempting to relocate are rather viciously pecking at my knees, because this thread is supposed to be about tagging slurs and extreme language, not the transcription feature.

Then it's clearly wrong to say you would then be able to blacklist anything that you couldn't before.

If you want to do blacklisting you have to design for it; even assuming the client side code was updated, the server code would have to change further, which is a more major undertaking.

Hence the people involved in the discussion do, AFAICS, need to have a certain amount of concrete knowledge about how things are structured. There's no point trying to extend the existing structure if you don't know what it actually is.

Beyond that, I'm a user of this website. I use this website. I have ideas about how things feel. If the wangdoodler system feels awkward because of how it's designed, it's not my job to learn enough programming to tell the staff how to make the wangdoodler system better. My job is not to whine about how dumb the wangdoodler system is. My job is to consider what I dislike about the wangdoodler system and quantify it (for example, when I try to wangdoodle something, I have to press too many buttons) and, hopefully, come up with some suggestions on how to make it better rather than just bellowing "FIX IT".

Just like when someone proposes an alias or an implication, it is good to look at the options from all angles. Talk about it. get some ideas of potential features, and ways people would like to use it. It's not my job to understand programming. When I suggest something, I don't know if it's as simple as 5 minutes of coding or 5 days of coding.

[i]But I DO know that it's better to mention features at the beginning rather than the end.[i]

No one is yelling Transcript blacklist or riot!' no one is yelling "ANARCHY!"...

... basically.. all we've said is "this seems like it could be neat, if feasible"
... to which if he answer is "cool! what a neat idea!" then: Great!
... and if the answer is "too difficult, it's not really feasible" then: Still Great! Our idea has been heard, and considered. That's wonderful.
... If the answer is "we'll keep this idea under consideration." It's STILL great!
... If the answer is silence or nothing? ... well, not quite so great, but we've got it all here in a neat pile (well, two neat piles...) if or when people look at the project with the intention of determining feasibility.

tl;dr - I was trying to move the conversation to the thread where the conversation belongs. And saying that ideas are good things, even if less feasible. It's easier to plan to expand later than to retrofit.


hslugs said:
I was referring solely to the use of asterisks for censoring words.
Sorry if my attempts at sarcasm went a bit over some heads.

I only censored the words out of courtesy and so I was more comfortable reading them when I returned to this thread. The incomplete words seem to have somewhat less of an impact on me than the full ones. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


SnowWolf said:
*raises eyebrow*

Okay, let me say this a little more bluntly.

[..]

tl;dr - I was trying to move the conversation to the thread where the conversation belongs.

To be frank, I cannot read your earlier post and get any sense of trying to move to another thread. That idea just doesn't seem to be included in any way, even if it's what you actually intended.

It seems pretty clearly about 'how features are built', from start to finish.

And saying that ideas are good things, even if less feasible. It's easier to plan to expand later than to retrofit.

I don't even disagree with that -- much of what you have said seems to me both obviously true (the kind of case I would myself make, largely), and irrelevant to the post you replied to.

Saying 'it would be good if we had X' or 'it would be good if we didn't have to Y' is not the same kind of thing as 'we will have X if we get Y'. The latter statement is a claim about "how Y would relate to the existing system", rather than "how we want the system to behave".

If it's a clearly false claim, then it is misinformation, which needs to be pointed out promptly, *especially* in the case where most participants are technically clueless.

I could have posted to the other thread. I considered that a bit more hostile of an option though, like 'Look what Clawdragons posted over here!', since AFAICS the topic was the existing system and not primarily transcript:.


savageorange said:
To be frank, I cannot read your earlier post and get any sense of trying to move to another thread. That idea just doesn't seem to be included in any way, even if it's what you actually intended.

Well... I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. In retrospect, I was a bit vague... though it still seems clear to me. *shrugs* Perspective is a hell of a thing.

(I find the psychology of subtlety to be fascinating. Two people communicate and one person says something that, to them, is clear as day and the other doesn't see it at all.)

and irrelevant to the post you replied to.

Well, my point THERE was mostly "let's not shit on an idea, just because it hasn't already been discussed for the project in question" as you seemed pretty determined to tell clawdragons "This isn't a good idea"

Saying 'it would be good if we had X' or 'it would be good if we didn't have to Y' is not the same kind of thing as 'we will have X if we get Y'. The latter statement is a claim about "how Y would relate to the existing system", rather than "how we want the system to behave".

If it's a clearly false claim, then it is misinformation, which needs to be pointed out promptly, *especially* in the case where most participants are technically clueless.

*slow blink*

This is because you interpreted clawdragon as assuming that having transcription feature would mean it would be blacklistable.

Whereas, my interpretation of their post was "This could be an interesting addition to this potential feature."

Again, I find it fascinating how two people can understand entirely different things out of the same sentence.

I could have posted to the other thread. I considered that a bit more hostile of an option though, like 'Look what Clawdragons posted over here!', since AFAICS the topic was the existing system and not primarily transcript:.

And again, from my perspective... what existing system? there's a proposal, not a system. Proposals need ideas and discussion.


SnowWolf said:
And again, from my perspective... what existing system? there's a proposal, not a system. Proposals need ideas and discussion.

I think by 'existing system' they mean 'the thread was about adding a tag using the existing tagging system.'


SnowWolf said:
stuff about triggers

OH EM GEE, YU AR A TREEGERD ESS JAY DUBBAYOO!! STAHP CENSURIN' MA FREE ZPEECH!11!2


BlackLicorice said:
OH EM GEE, YU AR A TREEGERD ESS JAY DUBBAYOO!! STAHP CENSURIN' MA FREE ZPEECH!11!2

wh ...why was this comment necessary?


SnowWolf said:
Well... I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. In retrospect, I was a bit vague... though it still seems clear to me. *shrugs* Perspective is a hell of a thing.

(I find the psychology of subtlety to be fascinating. Two people communicate and one person says something that, to them, is clear as day and the other doesn't see it at all.)

No argument there :)

Well, my point THERE was mostly "let's not shit on an idea, just because it hasn't already been discussed for the project in question" as you seemed pretty determined to tell clawdragons "This isn't a good idea"

That isn't at all what I intended. I have no objection to the idea that it would be nice to be able to blacklist using transcript:, or to Clawdragons on any personal level.

What I intended was: "That assumption is wrong."
(in the case of 'if we get transcript:, it follows naturally that we will be able to blacklist it')
and "that proposition is incomplete/ambiguous." (in the case of wildcards, as Regsmutt illustrated). AFAICS, these two errors actually do need to be resolved in the course of discussing any such feature. Clawdragons' replies went some way towards that.

EDIT: To clarify the intent, this is my experience with bug and feature tracking systems: If the request unpacks all its assumptions explicitly, and it is reasonably well grounded in the current system, that maximizes the chance it will actually get to the point of being implemented. IMO that's because it's essentially been made as approachable as possible. So, that's what the aim was : "I'd like to see something like this implemented, let's fix the flawed formulation". (The implication that "we'll be able to get this easily" is particularly troublesome IMO, because it suggests that no further problem solving is needed)

This is because you interpreted clawdragon as assuming that having transcription feature would mean it would be blacklistable.

Whereas, my interpretation of their post was "This could be an interesting addition to this potential feature."

I agree that Clawdragons' original post was open to interpretation. OTOH I consider Clawdragons' subsequent replies to indicate something more clearly like 'if we get transcript:, then it is a relatively small step to get transcript: blacklisting'.

And again, from my perspective... what existing system?

  • The basic way that the blacklisting system works (ie. it runs client side, so it only gets access to whatever data the server has already returned.)
  • The need to rapidly return results for /post/index/*
  • The way metatags work (affects blacklisting code, tagging code, and searching code.)

This does not seem to me to indicate it's impossible. For example, possibly the blacklisting code could use some new/updated API to fetch transcript data (and cache it, thus mitigating server load) after the page loads, and finally use that to apply complete blacklisting. Since a majority of posts would have no/empty transcript, that could be an efficient strategy.

This would be a notable change to the current design (blacklist code doesn't talk to server, hence it's relatively fast) and would warrant discussion, though.


MrNerorthi said:
wh ...why was this comment necessary?

It wasn’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


ugh. I spent about an hour typing a reply and it got eaten by a PC crash.

*sigh*

tl;dr - savageorange - I think we're on the same page. You're cool. I"m cool, let's all be cool. Thank you for your patient and educational replies.

Let's refocus on the topic of tagging slurs and harsh language.

*another sigh*

there are a lot of types of extremes that can be revealed only through the text of a post.

In far less detail than I typed out before my crash, here is a list of some things i've thought of:

(Again, trigger warning. I describe examples in places)

  • Racial slurs
  • Racially charged language (Suck that big fat wolf cock, you black bitch)
  • Physical abuse (Do you want me to give you another black eye? last time you couldn't see for 3 days)
  • Sexual abuse
  • Emotional abuse (You're so damn worthless)
  • Ablistic language (I don't know enough about this to speak confidently. There are some words that are bad to use though)
  • Ablistic abuse (I found a picture of a character in a toilet stall. writing on the wall indicated that she was paralyzed from the neck down)
  • Slavery
  • Child abuse
  • death threads/promises (including the implication that 'no one will miss them' or "come on, let's go so we don't have to listen to him die" )

maybe something also for some of the most common insults flung at people too.. word:slut, word:faggot, whore... etc or maybe.. name-calling?

In my opinion, these should probably-ish each have their own tags, with several implications, etc, that way anyone can blacklist as much or as little as they like.

I dunno I"m tired and I hate typing things twice.

Eggplant
Privileged
20 days ago
2018 absurd_res ambiguous_gender eumus_mark_(monoflax) glowing glowing_eyes greyscale halo hand_on_shoulder hi_res humanoid monochrome monoflax monstrous_humanoid not_furry rear_view sharp_teeth solo spines teeth

Rating: Safe
Score: 18
User: JAKXXX3
Date: February 21, 2018

SnowWolf said:
Ablistic language (I don't know enough about this to speak confidently. There are some words that are bad to use though)
Ablistic abuse (I found a picture of a character in a toilet stall. writing on the wall indicated that she was paralyzed from the neck down)

actually the term is ableist, not ablistic

but i got some examples of ableist language: for example usage of ableist slurs (for example cr*pple or r*tard), talking about how someone is lesser / inferior / subhuman for being physically or mentally disabled, mocking someone for not not being able to perform certain tasks because of their disability and stuff like that


Eggplant said:
actually the term is ableist, not ablistic

I told you I didn't know enough about it to speak confidently, haha. I tried to cover my ass and STILL got it wrong. :)

but i got some examples of ableist language: for example usage of ableist slurs (for example cr*pple or r*tard), talking about how someone is lesser / inferior / subhuman for being physically or mentally disabled, mocking someone for not not being able to perform certain tasks because of their disability and stuff like that

Thank you!

That's exactly what I mean.

Hmm... I'd presume use/mention of Asperger/Autism/as*b*rger etc as a slur would also count. (Of course it would, but I'm mentioning this now so that if anyone wants to pitch a fit, they can)

Thinking about it, we should also include:

  • Homophobic slurs
  • homophobia language
  • transphobic slurs
  • transphobic language