came across this image a day or two ago:

post #1300557

naturally the janitors have approved it and the rule against blacklisting what you don't want to see is still in force. unfortunately there is nothing especially evident in the tags to blacklist - just a bunch of generic descriptors.

it would be nice to have a tag for controversial opinions, though the hate_speech and transphobia tags were removed. I suppose "lol_comments" could be considered an indirect one, though that tag is also used for humour and not drama, and to the point I don't even have comments enabled.

indeed, i'd rather not see what i would consider discriminatory work. a post implying that 15 million people - 0.2% of 7.5 billion (thank you Lance Armstrong) - have a fundamentally misguided existence does not sit well with me.

INB4 inevitable shitstorm about freedom of speech vs art vs opinions.

FoxFourOhFour said:
INB4 inevitable shitstorm about freedom of speech vs art vs opinions.

please understand i'm not suggesting a blanket ban on anything that would cause this theoretical shitstorm you bring up. while it is the artist's right to express an opinion, it doesn't mean that opinion has to be broadcast to anybody who doesn't want to listen to it, especially on a privately-owned website whose users are on here voluntarily and have been encouraged to make extensive use of the blacklist functionality.

i don't believe such a suggestion would go against current site policies, seeing as such opinions are within the image itself, therefore not violating tag-what-you-see. the trouble would be tagging what is actually hate speech, a definition of which could be looked up in your preferred dictionary.

1. Create a set.
B. Add whatever you think is hate speech to it.
III. Exclude it from searches. (-set:whatever)
Four. Add like-minded users as maintainers to the set.

A hate speech or controversial opinions tag would be way too subjective to apply, especially when the "hate speech" in question is simply a truthful statement you're not willing to face or a symbol you arbitrarily hate.

political_statement on the OP image would be pretty accurate; there isn't really any ambiguity about it in this case, and it is not biased language.
Of course I suspect such a tag would attract trolls.

savageorange said:
political_statement on the OP image would be pretty accurate; there isn't really any ambiguity about it in this case, and it is not biased language.
Of course I suspect such a tag would attract trolls.

i like BlueDingo's suggestion, though it would require a lot of upkeep, and it doesn't occur to a lot of users that you could blacklist sets, myself included.

i do like savageorange's though, for being the most centrist option anybody has thought of thus far.

fewrahuxo said:
i like BlueDingo's suggestion, though it would require a lot of upkeep, and it doesn't occur to a lot of users that you could blacklist sets, myself included.

Actually, you can't blacklist sets yet. I probably should make a feature request for that.

savageorange said:
Of course I suspect such a tag would attract trolls.

That's one of the benefits of a set: You can decide who toys with it.

It is not hate speech for the following reasons:

• It isn't saying trans people are bad
• It isn't saying to hate trans people
• It is merely stating an opinion

If you want to blacklist it, add post:1300557
However, I do agree stuff like this(Not just this, it can be pro-trans content too) should probably be tagged with politics or political_statement.
I'll ask the poof of deciding(AKA: one of the admins who is online at the moment)

I don't see how that counts as politics either. 'Politics' is the science of governing, whereas that's just an opinion.

Genjar said:
I don't see how that counts as politics either. 'Politics' is the science of governing, whereas that's just an opinion.

Apparently, how people's brains work is politics now.

"It is merely stating an opinion" can be said about any other hate speech statement. Claim of the chechnya leader that gay people don't exist is homophobic. Claims in this shitty post are transphobic. Have your "freedom of speech" and post it here, but tag it correctly.

It's impossible to blacklist sets and suggestion to blacklist single posts means that we have a janitor that doesn't understand how the site works.

If you're not want to allow people to blacklist things they want to avoid don't act surprised later when they are going to show their opinion about the thing that they can't blacklist in the comments.

Genjar said:
I don't see how that counts as politics either. 'Politics' is the science of governing, whereas that's just an opinion.

Its politics because its not a opinion, it a public message/statement writen to effect policy.

• "YOU" stop abusing kids with lies.
• "I" feel these are nothing but lies that are abusive to kids.

The correct Gender Unicorn

Titling is made to imply a feeling of being derived from undeniable fact to the reader, not a persons opinion.

I would go so far as categorizing this as propaganda
thou that does not address the op fully, only the example post...

Genjar said:
I don't see how that counts as politics either. 'Politics' is the science of governing, whereas that's just an opinion.

This image is clearly made as a take that -- or, given the most charitable interpretation, an attempt to shame people into behaving/not behaving a certain way.
The tone of the message is clear enough as to be unmistakable.

For another example, "ALL NEO-NAZIS SHOULD BE JAILED" is also both clearly an opinion and clearly a (fascist, ironically) political act.

fewrahuxo said:
a post implying that 150 million people - 0.02% of 7.5 billion - have a fundamentally misguided existence does not sit well with me.

0.02% of 7.5 billion is 1.5 million. You meant to say that 0.2% of 7.5 billion is 15 million.

As long as male, female, and transgender aren't political parties I can't see how this would fit either a propaganda or a political statement tag. If that same statement would have been made by a political figure or mascot I'd probably let it slide under political statement, but I'm unaware of any party using a unicorn as mascot.

This would be much easier to deal with if we had tags that couldn't be placed by member rank accounts.

Controversial_opinion would probably the best fitting blanket tag, but has quite a potential to be abused, even with tag locking in place.

Offensive_content wouldn't work by default because rape, snuff, cub porn, scat, and watersports content exist. Offensive_opinion might also work as a tag, but has the abuse potential as controversial_opinion.

NotMeNotYou said:
As long as male, female, and transgender aren't political parties I can't see how this would fit either a propaganda or a political statement tag. If that same statement would have been made by a political figure or mascot I'd probably let it slide under political statement, but I'm unaware of any party using a unicorn as mascot.

Jews are also not a political party. Do you think that this isn't propaganda poster then?

NotMeNotYou said:
As long as male, female, and transgender aren't political parties I can't see how this would fit either a propaganda or a political statement tag. If that same statement would have been made by a political figure or mascot I'd probably let it slide under political statement, but I'm unaware of any party using a unicorn as mascot.

This would be much easier to deal with if we had tags that couldn't be placed by member rank accounts.

Controversial_opinion would probably the best fitting blanket tag, but has quite a potential to be abused, even with tag locking in place.

Offensive_content wouldn't work by default because rape, snuff, cub porn, scat, and watersports content exist. Offensive_opinion might also work as a tag, but has the abuse potential as controversial_opinion.

People are trying to call it political becausw us existing at all has become "gender politics" to the right and alt right.

Because as long as were a "political idea" they can pretend we dont have rights as human beings and dont deserve basic respect or human decency.

Controversial oppinion works but theres a big difference between a controversial oppinion and something explicitly designed to incite a fight between people. Which this is. People saw it and the very first comment is how its going to cause drama.

I suggest the best tag to use is "drama_bait" or "flame_bait" because thats what it is. And we need to call this shit what it is. An explicit attenmpt to stir up trouble and create animosity towards a community that already faces ridiculous amounts of bullshit.

I also suggest blocking roarey as an artist@op because hes literally stated in the past he gets off on drama and intentionally does this to get his jollies. If you wanna avoid political bull then block his tag.

fewrahuxo said:
it would be nice to have a tag for controversial opinions, though the hate_speech and transphobia tags were removed.

There is no such thing. It's the readers choice to be offended, whether they know that or not.

Making a tag would just let everyone turn it into a shitstorm. Everything can be offensive, sorry about that.

I'd say best course would be to make it a set, as someone already said.

Granberia said:
Jews are also not a political party. Do you think that this isn't propaganda poster then?

Obvious straw men argument; poorly chosen example. That is a poster designed and spread by a political party to push their political agenda of the Third Reich, so Hitler could further secure total power of the government and help the genocide against Jews and the other "impure" minorities.
Of course if a political party themselves, or a representative of a political party, says something then it becomes a political statement. But if some random drunk in a bar hurls the same statement it doesn't mean it's either politically motivated or a political statement.

My entire point is that people can be sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other kind of asshole to other people without being politically motivated. Of course it can be politically motivated, but it doesn't have to be.

Demesejha said:
People are trying to call it political becausw us existing at all has become "gender politics" to the right and alt right.

Because as long as were a "political idea" they can pretend we dont have rights as human beings and dont deserve basic respect or human decency.

Controversial oppinion works but theres a big difference between a controversial oppinion and something explicitly designed to incite a fight between people. Which this is. People saw it and the very first comment is how its going to cause drama.

I suggest the best tag to use is "drama_bait" or "flame_bait" because thats what it is. And we need to call this shit what it is. An explicit attenmpt to stir up trouble and create animosity towards a community that already faces ridiculous amounts of bullshit.

I also suggest blocking roarey as an artist@op because hes literally stated in the past he gets off on drama and intentionally does this to get his jollies. If you wanna avoid political bull then block his tag.

Drama_bait sounds like a good candidate, there's very little spiel for misinterpretation.

I am aware that the (alt) right has it written on their agenda, but my point is that it's not certain that this particular image has been "inspired" by them. Which is why I would like a more neutral term for general drama generators.

WaffleDragon said:
Making a tag would just let everyone turn it into a shitstorm. Everything can be offensive, sorry about that.

you know, we already have rowdy comment sections without a specific tag existing.

it's true any sufficiently reactionary individual may be offended by anything, but going in a public forum, for instance, and saying "transgender folks are mentally deranged" is a bit more offensive than expressing a preference for Pepsi over Coca-Cola.

i do like the drama_bait tag, fitting the mold of the other cheeky meta-tags floating around, like "the_truth". i don't think the unicorn image should be tagged with the_truth (as it is now) because it doesn't fit a shade of reality as described in the tag description, but i'm not so bold as to remove it.

I also think the dramabait tag is a good idea.

There is already a tag for that. It is called lol_comments.

The correct gender unicorn. Opinion
There are 2 (biological) genders. Fact
99.8 of all people identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. Fact
Stop abusing kids with lies. Opinion. I would say stop trying to indoctrinate children. opinion

First off, this is the interweb don't ever take the bait and never feed the trolls. Secondly, Idk how people could be so close minded that if they hear an opinion that is considered unorthodox to their ideology, they start condemning people for wrongthink. What gives these people the moral authority to thoughtpolice everyone.

Beanjam said:
There is already a tag for that. It is called lol_comments.

no? lol comments also applies on images where people are memeing and generally having fun. for example
post #1288602

ThoughtCrime said:
There are 2 (biological) genders. Fact

you're confusing "gender" with "sex", which itself is incorrect because intersex people exist.

in addition, assuming that there are only two genders ignores multiple cultures where there are advanced concepts of gender that don't fall into a binary. these include terms such as "two-spirit", "hijira", and "kathoey", for aboriginal, South Asian, and Thai cultures respectively.

NotMeNotYou said:
Of course if a political party themselves, or a representative of a political party, says something then it becomes a political statement. But if some random drunk in a bar hurls the same statement it doesn't mean it's either politically motivated or a political statement.

I think it is worth considering that in the event that a political party has made something a significant political issue as part of their campaigning, then when a drunk down at the bar repeats that issue it can be considered to be a political statement - the issue has been politicized, in essence. Even if it was not directly inspired by the group who is focusing on that issue, people as a whole understand the political context behind the statement all the same.

That said, I agree "political statement" and other such possibilities are not ideal.

Drama_bait sounds like a good candidate, there's very little spiel for misinterpretation.

I think this is the best suggestion so far. I can think of a few other images that it would apply to as well (such as 69-11, for instance).

Beanjam said:
There is already a tag for that. It is called lol_comments.

As has been mentioned, lol_comments is supposed to be for funny comments, not for drama. And on that note, I'd like to once again bring up an idea I mentioned before and that I think has some validity:

drama_comments

If for whatever reason there's a lot of drama going on in the comments of an image (whether that be because the image is drama bait or for other reasons), drama_comments would apply. I think it would be a useful tag.

fewrahuxo said:
you're confusing "gender" with "sex", which itself is incorrect because intersex people exist.

in addition, assuming that there are only two genders ignores multiple cultures where there are advanced concepts of gender that don't fall into a binary. these include terms such as "two-spirit", "hijira", and "kathoey", for aboriginal, South Asian, and Thai cultures respectively.

I mean the dude has a literal nazifur as his icon you think he's gonna pay attention to anything outside of white americentrism?

Either way the cartoon isn't fact, its not even oppinion. Its intentional bait from a drama addicted guy obsessed with causing problems to get his jollies. It's bait. plain an simple.

Demesejha said:
I mean the dude has a literal nazifur as his icon you think he's gonna pay attention to anything outside of white americentrism?

Either way the cartoon isn't fact, its not even oppinion. Its intentional bait from a drama addicted guy obsessed with causing problems to get his jollies. It's bait. plain an simple.

sorry, i knew he was a bad troll, but i have avatars disabled. i'm surprised he didn't get a record for his abusive tag edit reasons.

to get the ball rolling on this drama_bait tag, it would help to identify some images which would be applicable to it.

NotMeNotYou said:
As long as male, female, and transgender aren't political parties I can't see how this would fit either a propaganda or a political statement tag. If that same statement would have been made by a political figure or mascot I'd probably let it slide under political statement, but I'm unaware of any party using a unicorn as mascot.

parties are not a necessity for politics, there were politics in modern America(1700-now) decades before any parties have existed...

This would be much easier to deal with if we had tags that couldn't be placed by member rank accounts.

I would suggest finding a better alternative then curbing yet more public control over tags. At this rate you will be heading for defeating the propose of the site with more and more power grabs. If you want to go this route then you can just as well abolish membership all together.

Controversial_opinion would probably the best fitting blanket tag, but has quite a potential to be abused, even with tag locking in place.

controversial opinion is subjective, whats controversial in one region or nation will not be so in another. A almost completely nude women for example on a beach is normal in most of the western world but would be highly controversial in deeply religious countries like Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

drama_bait

I believe this would have the same problem as controversial opinions in not being the same everywhere or to everyone.

NotMeNotYou said:
Obvious straw men argument; poorly chosen example. That is a poster designed and spread by a political party to push their political agenda of the Third Reich, so Hitler could further secure total power of the government and help the genocide against Jews and the other "impure" minorities.

So the only difference between the OP image and this is that "KNOW" it was in use by a real life government in some form.

Of course if a political party themselves, or a representative of a political party, says something then it becomes a political statement. But if some random drunk in a bar hurls the same statement it doesn't mean it's either politically motivated or a political statement.

As noted before parties are not necessary for something to be political, there are quite fuw countries that only have a single party and no party at all non the less they obviously still have politics, most city administrative level positions in the US are non-partician non the less they can and do get political.

My entire point is that people can be sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other kind of asshole to other people without being politically motivated. Of course it can be politically motivated, but it doesn't have to be.

No one said the subject is always political, Only that the OP image is written as a political message, not someones opinion.

And to be certain of motive beyond how it is written and presented would be KNOWING not SEEING, ergo TWYK

Beanjam said:
There is already a tag for that. It is called lol_comments.

Thats for messages in a posts comment section, not text on the post itself.

Ruku said:
*wall of text*

you know, this thread wasn't meant to be a soapbox.

Ruku said:
parties are not a necessity for politics, there were politics in modern America(1700-now) decades before any parties have existed...

Political parties as in any group of people following a specific political ideology, or trying to establish their own ideology on how any given piece of land or group of people should be ruled.
Under different terms those have existed as long as humanity has, in every single nation or tribe. I'm unsure where you got the idea that this entire concept of political parties is a) limited to the US, b) limited to a federal level, c) something "new".

Ruku said:
So the only difference between the OP image and this is that "KNOW" it was in use by a real life government in some form. As noted before parties are not necessary for something to be political, there are quite fuw countries that only have a single party and no party at all non the less they obviously still have politics, most city administrative level positions in the US are non-partician non the less they can and do get political.

You completely and utterly missed the point of that entire paragraph.

Ruku said:
No one said the subject is always political, Only that the OP image is written as a political message, not someones opinion.

And to be certain of motive beyond how it is written and presented would be KNOWING not SEEING, ergo TWYK

Second verse same as the first. I said that political_statement would not be a good tag explicitly because we have no way of knowing - from inside the image - that it's politically motivated.

Clawdragons said:
I think it is worth considering that in the event that a political party has made something a significant political issue as part of their campaigning, then when a drunk down at the bar repeats that issue it can be considered to be a political statement - the issue has been politicized, in essence. Even if it was not directly inspired by the group who is focusing on that issue, people as a whole understand the political context behind the statement all the same.

That said, I agree "political statement" and other such possibilities are not ideal.

I see the merit in your argument but I still stand by my argumentation. Political issues and statements come from somewhere: the opinions of people. The point where a personal opinion switches over to becoming a political one is a rather large gray zone, but I definitely wouldn't say any opinion uttered that somehow, somewhere matches those of a political party is automatically politically motivated.

fewrahuxo said:
sorry, i knew he was a bad troll, but i have avatars disabled. i'm surprised he didn't get a record for his abusive tag edit reasons.

Fix'd.

NotMeNotYou said:
Political parties as in any group of people following a specific political ideology, or trying to establish their own ideology on how any given piece of land or group of people should be ruled.
Under different terms those have existed as long as humanity has, in every single nation or tribe. I'm unsure where you got the idea that this entire concept of political parties is a) limited to the US, b) limited to a federal level, c) something "new".

You are aware that that was just an example to make note that individuals can make political statements too and that it does not require parties, i am also fully aware of the scope of the concept. I never said it was founded in the US or new.

You completely and utterly missed the point of that entire paragraph.

Do please enlighten me on what i missed, because from what i can tell the only basis in argument you have is that you know that it has seen usage by a real country.

That is a poster designed and spread by a political party to push their political agenda in US schools, so they could gain further support among new and future young voters to help approving legislation against intersexed people and gender minorities.

Second verse same as the first. I said that political_statement would not be a good tag explicitly because we have no way of knowing - from inside the image - that it's politically motivated.

You know its politically motivated by how it is written NotMe, i gave an example of that in my first comment in this thread.

Other then that we have no way of knowing the motivation, concerning the post you noted as being a strawman by granbaria, how would we know it is from the third reich of hitler and motivated torwards the genocide of the jewish and not just the segregation(genocide was not always on the agenda of nazis, it developed overtime)? The third reish was also not the only german speaking nation to attack jewish people at the time. You say that strawman post is politically motivated but you are using what you think to know, not what is seen in the image.

ThoughtCrime said:
Stop abusing kids with lies. Opinion.

That sounds more like a request to me.

Demesejha said:
I mean the dude has a literal nazifur as his icon you think he's gonna pay attention to anything outside of white americentrism?

And here I was thinking that stereotyping was a bad thing.

Ruku said:
That is a poster designed and spread by a political party to push their political agenda in US schools, so they could gain further support among new and future young voters to help approving legislation against intersexed people and gender minorities.

post #1300557 is an artist's response to post #1302174. The former is not being sent to schools at all, though the latter might be.

Lance_Armstrong said:
0.02% of 7.5 billion is 1.5 million. You meant to say that 0.2% of 7.5 billion is 15 million.

Not to undermine your point, but:

I believe the "0.2% of the population is non-gender-binary" statistic is only for the US, not the world.
The US population is about 326.7 million.
0.2% of 326.7 million is 653.4 thousand.
The average US population density is 84 people per square mile.
Assuming I have my math right, that means you'd only encounter a non-gender-binary person every 5.4 square miles.
They're that rare.
Getting a accurate statistic for the percent of the world population is nigh impossible; as China(?), (and a large majority of small nations, which make up a majority of the world) deny they even exist.

BlueDingo said:
post #1300557 is an artist's response to post #1302174. The former is not being sent to schools at all, though the latter might be.

probly isnt, it is just an example of how NotMe's argument could also be applied to the OPs example image and on any other post with words to appear as a political statement. They are implying outside information isnt to be used but at the same time utilizing it themselves.

BlueDingo said:
post #1300557 is an artist's response to post #1302174. The former is not being sent to schools at all, though the latter might be.

Ruku said:
probly isnt, it is just an example of how NotMe's argument could also be applied to the OPs example image and on any other post with words to appear as a political statement. They are implying outside information isnt to be used but at the same time utilizing it themselves.

careful what you wish for, fools!

as many have said over the years: this needs to stop.

as young as five is TOO YOUNG!

"The so-called “gender unicorn” is raising concerns and sparking anger across more states as teachers involved in sex education adopt the mythical character, which was created by transgender activists to teach children as young as age five about sex and gender identity."

makes me wonder...how long until it's legal for kids to start browsing the explicit content here? i mean, if we're teaching them about sex and stuff at ages as young as 5 then aren't we just preventing them from seeing things we've taught them?

Ruku said:
Do please enlighten me on what i missed, because from what i can tell the only basis in argument you have is that you know that it has seen usage by a real country.

That is a poster designed and spread by a political party to push their political agenda in US schools, so they could gain further support among new and future young voters to help approving legislation against intersexed people and gender minorities.

Other then that we have no way of knowing the motivation, concerning the post you noted as being a strawman by granbaria, how would we know it is from the third reich of hitler and motivated torwards the genocide of the jewish and not just the segregation(genocide was not always on the agenda of nazis, it developed overtime)? The third reish was also not the only german speaking nation to attack jewish people at the time. You say that strawman post is politically motivated but you are using what you think to know, not what is seen in the image.

The argument I presented was that the example in the OP isn't politically motivated because it's neither from a political party, nor targeted at another political party. Granberia's example of an actual WW2 propaganda poster created by the Nazis is a straw man argument because it's trying to (perhaps unknowingly) shift my argument around to make it easier attackable. If they wanted to argue that something can be propaganda and doesn't have to have another political party as target it's quite pointless using actual political propaganda as example.

My argumentation about how his counter argument is actual WW2 propaganda had absolutely nothing to do with tagging, and was purely aimed at ensuring my original argument isn't misrepresented.

Ruku said:
You know its politically motivated by how it is written NotMe, i gave an example of that in my first comment in this thread.

Are we actually talking about the same things? Not everything that is presented as propaganda is propaganda. If anything the OP's example would be political satire, but not propaganda.
This is also why I'd be against tagging it as either propaganda or political_statement, it's not clearly aimed to be a political statement on its own, it requires the original post (this one) to make sense.
Drama_bait on the other hand doesn't have any of those issues that come with trying to figure out if it's political or not.

treos said:
makes me wonder...how long until it's legal for kids to start browsing the explicit content here? i mean, if we're teaching them about sex and stuff at ages as young as 5 then aren't we just preventing them from seeing things we've taught them?

Bio classes, sexual education, and the consumption of pornography have literally nothing to do with each other.
Your post also has absolutely nothing to do with the tagging question of the OP so keep it out of here.

jesus h christ, this can only be what i can assume is a hilarious shitstorm. round of applause for everyone so meager as to start a raging debate on a tag question

ot: definitely a yes for a "political" tag (which we already have). but you can't define offensiveness when it's a relative concept, outside of extreme examples. i don't believe we're in need of such a tag.

notawerewolf said:
ot: definitely a yes for a "political" tag (which we already have). but you can't define offensiveness when it's a relative concept, outside of extreme examples. i don't believe we're in need of such a tag.

the tag discussion has already produced a candidate that does not describe offensiveness and is non-political in nature. it just describes topics that are likely to cause these impassioned discussions in a more direct way than other tags.

i'm going to draft a definition for drama_bait, in the absence of reasons against it (beyond the "belief" we don't need it):

For posts that are designed to incite arguments, offend the sensibilities of reasonable people, or create other forms of "drama". These are usually made for the sake of trolling or earning attention on behalf of the artist.

The difference between drama bait and a controversial opinion is while an opinion's chief goal is to persuade people, the goal of drama bait is to have other people express their opinions as violently as possible.

fewrahuxo said:
For posts that are designed to incite arguments, offend the sensibilities of reasonable people, or create other forms of "drama". These are usually made for the sake of trolling or earning attention on behalf of the artist.

The difference between drama bait and a controversial opinion is while an opinion's chief goal is to persuade people, the goal of drama bait is to have other people express their opinions as violently as possible.

I can see this going down a slippery slope.

• "designed to" implies intent. Unless the artist specifically states they made the artwork for that reason, you would be merely guessing. Also, it's TWYK.
• Define "reasonable people".
• What's to stop people from assuming that, say, anything with a swastika in it was created to be drama bait for people who hate nazis?

BlueDingo said:
I can see this going down a slippery slope.

• "designed to" implies intent. Unless the artist specifically states they made the artwork for that reason, you would be merely guessing. Also, it's TWYK.
• Define "reasonable people".
• What's to stop people from assuming that, say, anything with a swastika in it was created to be drama bait for people who hate nazis?

it doesn't violate tag-what-you-see because the intent of the image can be discerned by simply looking at it. for what reason would somebody make a picture of the World Trade Center getting a blowjob from a plane besides being a troll?

it's pedantic to define arbitrary terms, and the real slippery slope is applying enough definitions to those terms to the point where a Wiki page reads like United States law. if you ask yourself what the standards of a furry who frequents a porn site are, you would know that most fetishes are within reason, but a furry getting an abortion and then having the fetus be fucked isn't very "reasonable".

(of course if it is actually a fetish, then it's not really drama bait, is it?)

in addition, we already have the nazi tag to blacklist. it isn't enough to feature an image of a nazi or their symbolism; it has to attempt to stir up controversy in its construction.

fewrahuxo said:
it doesn't violate tag-what-you-see because the intent of the image can be discerned by simply looking at it.

Unless the people looking at it see nothing wrong with it or don't know what it is people have a problem with. It's usually open to interpretation.

fewrahuxo said:
for what reason would somebody make a picture of the World Trade Center getting a blowjob from a plane besides being a troll?

Maybe the artist has a thing for planes and building. Also, black humour is a thing.

Related black humour joke.

fewrahuxo said:
it's pedantic to define arbitrary terms, and the real slippery slope is applying enough definitions to those terms to the point where a Wiki page reads like United States law.

That's what happens when you try to objectively define things as subjective as offense and intent.

fewrahuxo said:
if you ask yourself what the standards of a furry who frequents a porn site are, you would know that most fetishes are within reason, but a furry getting an abortion and then having the fetus be fucked isn't very "reasonable".

Most is an overestimation. coprophagia, cock vore and several others aren't very reasonable either but people still jack off to them.

BlueDingo said:
Unless the people looking at it see nothing wrong with it or don't know what it is people have a problem with. It's usually open to interpretation.

Indeed. After reading the page on IB, I must retract my statement that intent was obvious here. Roary is aware that his manner of communication is at least somewhat aggressive, but also clearly has a real concern about whether it is even slightly appropriate to be teaching kids about this kind of stuff before they themselves have put in significant thought to their identity.

In this case his motivation seems to be more 'I know this will generate controversy, but this is important', rather than 'your butthurt is delicious, feed me'.

(IMO there is also a reasonable argument that people's intentions cannot necessarily be boiled down to a single neat sentence; mostly, people's motives are mixed.)

Intent does become somewhat less vague with context, but as you said, that's TWYK.

fewrahuxo said:
the tag discussion has already produced a candidate that does not describe offensiveness and is non-political in nature. it just describes topics that are likely to cause these impassioned discussions in a more direct way than other tags.

i'm going to draft a definition for drama_bait, in the absence of reasons against it (beyond the "belief" we don't need it):

i still don't believe it's necessary. 99% of people go here for porn; a small denominator use it to search for sfw art that's been neatly tagged (kudos to the people here for achieving that). there's few images on the whole site that would even qualify, and art like that is hardly relevant to e6.

this just isn't a site for edgy drama bait. i've been using it since not-too-long-after its formation and those images are super rare. don't get me wrong, i approve of it and it's definitely not a bad thing in some way. just 1. do we really want to normalize/fully approve "purposed drama bait" material by allotting it a tag and 2. why is this at all needed to begin with? food for thought my man

notawerewolf said:
1. do we really want to normalize/fully approve "purposed drama bait" material by allotting it a tag
2. why is this at all needed to begin with?

1. Giving it a tag doesn't normalize it. You'll have a hard time finding someone who considers penis_in_penis, cum_vore, skullfuck, etc. to be in any way normalized yet we have tags for them.
2. People getting #triggered. Sometimes, I forget how good having a thick skin really is.

On reflection, I agree with BlueDingo. +1 on blacklistable sets, -1 on a tag; the reasons why have IMO been adequately discussed.

Blacklistable sets seems to depend on changing /post/index pages to reture information (in "alt" attribute, IIRC) about which sets an image is in; it is not currently provided.

I think the plan to increase blacklist size limits dramatically might also be relevant, given the highly dubious nature of the proposition that people will agree on what is offensive.

Drama_bait seemed like a good idea, but I'm having second thoughts after searching for content that'd fit under the tag. There's plenty of posts that have escalated into flamewars, but it's hard to tell which were intentional baits. +1 for using a set instead.

^{However, it might be useful for blacklisting if we split comment drama from lol_comments into its own tag..}

@Propaganda

I really don't get NMNY obsession with idea that political parties has to be involved, neither does the wikipedia page for propaganda. Corporate propaganda has nothing to do with political parties. Dr Seuss's propaganda pictures are not connected to particular parties. Sure, political parties normally have more mean to make successful propaganda, but that aspect is changing when every idiot can post anything to thousands of people in the internet.

@tagging
I'm against only umbrella tagging it drama_bait, etc. I'm for tagging it as transphobia. ( We have homophobia tag after all). It's like instead of tagging scat, watersports or vore making single tag extreme_fetish. It's not really useful for blacklisting.

OP isn't even about transness. Trans people mentally fit into the gender binary too (ie. mentally, they are NOT gender variant; it's just that they fit into the opposite side of the binary you might expect from looking at their body).

OP is specifically attacking the claim that gender is a continuum, found in the original image. I know this because I went over to IB and read the discussion.

I won't claim this is presented in a particularly clear way; it is not. Simply adding 'GENDER IS NOT A CONTINUUM' would clarify considerably.

But the lack of any clear anti-trans message should indicate that tagging transphobia on this would be incorrect.

If you said that this was phobic against non-binary people, then I would be more sympathetic to that claim. But I don't believe it is at all clear that that is the case either, or that phobia of ANYTHING is being clearly promoted by this post.

ps. phobia is something with an established medical meaning, not mere prejudice or offense-taking. Transphobia is incorrect -- and not harmlessly incorrect, either -- terminology.

fewrahuxo said:

i'm going to draft a definition for drama_bait, in the absence of reasons against it (beyond the "belief" we don't need it):

For posts that are designed to incite arguments, offend the sensibilities of reasonable people, or create other forms of "drama". These are usually made for the sake of trolling or earning attention on behalf of the artist.

The difference between drama bait and a controversial opinion is while an opinion's chief goal is to persuade people, the goal of drama bait is to have other people express their opinions as violently as possible.

I have to agree with the others that this explanation isn't a very good one, mainly because it sounds condescending (everybody believes they are the reasonable people, etc). I'd rather propose the following:

This tag is for posts designed to incite emotionally charged reactions from its viewers. That goal is most commonly accomplished by grossly oversimplifying a sensitive topic and then ridiculing it, or by mocking events, groups of people, or other entities. Usually it takes on the form of satire, but that is not always the case.

In other words drama bait is purely for "teh lulz", and not done to invite a constructive dialog.

Granberia said:
@Propaganda

I really don't get NMNY obsession with idea that political parties has to be involved, neither does the wikipedia page for propaganda. Corporate propaganda has nothing to do with political parties. Dr Seuss's propaganda pictures are not connected to particular parties. Sure, political parties normally have more mean to make successful propaganda, but that aspect is changing when every idiot can post anything to thousands of people in the internet.

Because that is what I assumed your argument would be. Instead of elaborating your point (like you did now) all I had to go on in your reply was that you didn't understand my point. I won't be able to understand your argument if you don't present your argument properly.

With that said, I agree with you and retract my former statement that a political party is a requirement for propaganda, the wiki page makes good points for it.

This tag is for posts designed to incite emotionally charged reactions from its viewers. That goal is most commonly accomplished by grossly oversimplifying a sensitive topic and then ridiculing it, or by mocking events, groups of people, or other entities. Usually it takes on the form of satire, but that is not always the case.

In other words drama bait is purely for "teh lulz", and not done to invite a constructive dialog.

This is less terrible, but it's still not good - BlueDingo's critique about the unknowableness of intent still applies. I'm fairly confident that

a) OP post was not done purely for the lulz, but

b) it was not done to invite a constructive dialog,

c) it does not oversimplify its topic, and

d) it is not clearly presented enough that people reliably realize what its topic actually is

e) whether it was designed to incite reactions is unclear even after research.

f) definitely an attack ("you're just plain wrong about this", essentially). I think this form may constitute ridicule, but I'm not sure.

But all that (even f) is based on offsite research, not anything clearly apparent in the picture.

EDIT: I agree that OP image is oversimplified, now, after doing even more research:
It's strongly established by science that biological sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation are very strongly correlated. This inescapably implies that they are NOT independent variables, and thus that the original image, which is predicated on the idea they are independent variables, manages to be wrong in pretty much every single aspect.
I think that would be a fair 'completion' of OP image, but OP image has no clear resemblance to it.
This video by Jordan Petersen , about primarily Bill C-16 which is premised on exactly the same invalid foundations, explains it probably better than I have.

savageorange said:
This is less terrible, but it's still not good - BlueDingo's critique about the unknowableness of intent still applies. I'm fairly confident that

a) OP post was not done purely for the lulz, but

b) it was not done to invite a constructive dialog,

c) it does not oversimplify its topic, but

d) it is not clearly presented enough that people reliably realize what its topic actually is

e) whether it was designed to incite reactions is unclear even after research.

f) definitely an attack ("you're just plain wrong about this", essentially). I think this form may constitute ridicule, but I'm not sure.

But all that (even f) is based on offsite research, not anything clearly apparent in the picture.

hey, thanks for calling my first draft terrible, like a wiki isn't a collaborative process where ideas are constantly improved.

you know, i don't know the intent of the artists who made such posts as 69/11, the flufflepuff abuse, or the dated anti-brony trite. but i do know about Hanlon's Razor applies: you can believe that somebody is seriously jacking off to 69/11 and the flufflepuff abuse, or you can believe they're just being trolls.

and regardless of their intent, the posts they make are still likely to incite reactions from a broad range of people. i don't care one bit about the artist who made Correct Gender Unicorn, but i already know they have made a "gross oversimplification" of a complex subject they had no interest in persuading others to their point of view of - the lack of interest being demonstrated by looking at the work and seeing little effort put into their statements about gender.

you could argue that an actual point being argued badly is indistinguishable from a troll. but then that's just a subset of Poe's law and is not worth dealing with.

hey, thanks for calling my first draft terrible, like a wiki isn't a collaborative process where ideas are constantly improved.

Fair enough; I apologize.

I had made that statement pretty firmly in my own frame of reference:
"Definitions that depend on mind reading are not feasible or realistic".
So I wasn't thinking of how it would come across, only that no definitions including any of that could be satisfactory.

you know, i don't know the intent of the artists who made such posts as 69/11, the flufflepuff abuse, or the dated anti-brony trite. but i do know about Hanlon's Razor applies: you can believe that somebody is seriously jacking off to 69/11 and the flufflepuff abuse, or you can believe they're just being trolls.

eh.. I think that particular image making fun of 9/11 is black humor.
I'm not sure whether I recognize those other ones to comment.

I also feel impelled to point out that there are more reasons to make something -- even something that gets posted to e621 -- than to jack off or to troll. Like, for example, to begin articulating an argument -- albeit badly in this case.

and regardless of their intent, the posts they make are still likely to incite reactions from a broad range of people. i don't care one bit about the artist who made Correct Gender Unicorn, but i already know they have made a "gross oversimplification" of a complex subject they had no interest in persuading others to their point of view of - the lack of interest being demonstrated by looking at the work and seeing little effort put into their statements about gender.

I replied directly addressing each of the criteria specified in NMNY's post, and then pointed out all the judgments I'd made were TWYK -> ie. the definition is not compatible with TWYS in any major respect. Neither are your observations about intent here, eg :

seeing little effort put into their statements about gender.

"little effort put in" is only TWYS wrt the literal visual presentation of an image . How can you know this?

(Note that I am not saying that, personally, I disbelieve the idea that they put little effort into their statement. I am saying that my belief or your belief is not good enough - for TWYS it must be positively clear to any attentive person that they put little effort into their statement. Isn't this the case?)

ThoughtCrime said:
......Secondly, Idk how people could be so close minded that if they hear an opinion that is considered unorthodox to their ideology, they start condemning people for wrongthink. What gives these people the moral authority to thoughtpolice everyone.

i'm disappointed to see this thread was overtaken by discussion not relevant to the tag discussion at hand. in the absence of a consensus over what to do for flame bait such as "correct gender unicorn," i agree with NotMeNotYou's particular definition.

i wouldn't know where to begin tagging these sorts of things, so i'd like to leave it in the hands of someone more capable.

BlueDingo's critique of 'designed to' in your definition also applies to NotMeNotYou's definition. This problem wasn't addressed at all.

(I would go so far to say that intent is NEVER obvious without context -- and "without context" is exactly what TWYS requires of the tagger.
That's one of the reasons I believe sets are a better approach - they are not held to TWYS standards, so it is less of a problem to use context.
)

Alternatively, you could argue that this is an exception to TWYS. But, well.. good luck with that.