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)

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Why not just go with the tag "slur?" There's already two instances of it, and it makes sense that a lot of people don't like slurs of any type.

If we start making that a more prominent tag and someone or someones go back and start tagging stuff with that then we can get it to be a tag that works well for a blacklist.

This way it's just one simple and obvious tag. This could be used for stuff regarding any state of being, really any word or phrase that attacks a person's physical, mental, or spirituality, or nationality.

Just a thought.

AnotherDay said:
Why not just go with the tag "slur?" There's already two instances of it, and it makes sense that a lot of people don't like slurs of any type.

If we start making that a more prominent tag and someone or someones go back and start tagging stuff with that then we can get it to be a tag that works well for a blacklist.

This way it's just one simple and obvious tag. This could be used for stuff regarding any state of being, really any word or phrase that attacks a person's physical, mental, or spirituality, or nationality.

Just a thought.

Well, because while all this stuff is bad, not all of it bothers everyone equally.

That said, the land of arousal is a weird place and we can't control what turns us on in fantasy land. Some people might want to specifically search for specific stuff. Plus, as far as this stuff goes, you can say a lot of nasty things without specifically saying any slurs.

Just like you can have a rating:s picture with graphic sexual text and it's still rating:s. Which is part of why I'm pushing this.

That said, one of my last posts was a rather detailed lists of all the sorts of things we might want to tag.

Since that's now on page one, I'll include it here again, to make stuff easier for others <3

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

• Racial slurs

Racially charged language ("Suck that big fat wolf cock, you black bitch")
Ableist slurs (such as cr*pple, or r*tard)
Ableist abuse (Discussing how someone is inferior for being physically/mentally disabled, mocking someone for their disability)
Homophobic slurs (F*ggot)
Homophobic language ("I'd rather be dead than gay")
Transphobic slurs
Transphobic language
Physical threats ("Do you want me to give you another black eye? last time you couldn't see for 3 days")
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" )
Sexual abuse/threads of sexual violence ("When I catch you, I'm going to rape you")
Emotional abuse ("You're so damn worthless")
Slavery
Child abuse

(hm.. I missed religion. I doubt we have a lot of religions degradation, but I'm trying to be inclusive of all possible ideas.

SnowWolf said:

Thinking about it, we should also include:

• Homophobic slurs

homophobia language
transphobic slurs
transphobic language

Honestly I wouldn't mind a blanket profanity tag that had slurs implied, and then specific tags like "homophobic slurs" would imply slurs or something

Seems useful for people avoiding this content

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Honestly I wouldn't mind a blanket profanity tag that had slurs implied, and then specific tags like "homophobic slurs" would imply slurs or something

Seems useful for people avoiding this content

Agreed -- there should be many implications, I think :)

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Honestly I wouldn't mind a blanket profanity tag that had slurs implied, and then specific tags like "homophobic slurs" would imply slurs or something

Seems useful for people avoiding this content

This is seeming like the right idea, tags for specifics and the blanket tag slur.

Although i'm only seriously effected by a specific type, I wouldn't mind being able to avoid the other types out of preference so a broad tag seems a good idea.

These tags would also have a curb-cut effect of helping fetishists find this content easier, so other than the energy spent in this (surprisingly civil) discussion there's little to no downside.

SnowWolf said:
"transcript indexing"

Having some kind of tag that specifies a word id a good idea, but I doubt uploaders would go through the effort of tagging specific words (I doubt it will be easy to convince them to tag slurs in general, people either don't care or actively hate the idea) so i'm not sure of it's usefulness is practice. The existing system seems a better fit for this issue, and although I love the idea indexing seems like a feature discussion for another place or time.

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 term degradation is definitely too broad, as viewing it brought up surprisingly few instances of what I am trying to tag.

The term verbal abuse is closer, but still not entirely specific enough, as still less than a quarter of the content even comes close to what i'm talking about.

However viewing this tag I have found comments from many users over the years who seem to want the same tag addition I do, for one reason or another.

Adding more specific tags ("slur" along with "homophobic_slur", "ablest_slur" and maybe something else) would not only help people who dislike or are straight up triggered (PTSD not slang) by these words to be able to more comfortably use the website, but also have the curb-cut effect of helping people into degradation content more easily find what they're looking for. (another thing I saw expressed by various users.

Although maybe renaming the tag to be something less likely to enrage right-wing users of the website may be an idea....

I really just want this to be over, making someone with PTSD crawl across abuse tags and manually tag slurs is a horrible idea from all sides.

MrNerorthi said:
I really just want this to be over, making someone with PTSD crawl across abuse tags and manually tag slurs is a horrible idea from all sides.

That varies too much from one person to the next, it'd just have to be some vague thing.

MrNerorthi said:
Although maybe renaming the tag to be something less likely to enrage right-wing users of the website may be an idea....

We wouldn't want them to get triggered.

SnowWolf said:
Racial slurs
Racially charged language ("Suck that big fat wolf cock, you black bitch")
Ableist slurs (such as cr*pple, or r*tard)
Ableist abuse (Discussing how someone is inferior for being physically/mentally disabled, mocking someone for their disability)
Homophobic slurs (F*ggot)
Homophobic language ("I'd rather be dead than gay")
Transphobic slurs
Transphobic language
Physical threats ("Do you want me to give you another black eye? last time you couldn't see for 3 days")
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" )
Sexual abuse/threads of sexual violence ("When I catch you, I'm going to rape you")
Emotional abuse ("You're so damn worthless")
Slavery
Child abuse

woah, woah, way too many tags. people are going to keep asking for more and more overly-specific 'trigger tags', to the point where they're nonsensical. 90% of artists and uploaders can't be fucked to memorize and properly tag for each specific slur or type of 'degradation'. this will only lead to more pointless arguments in comments over people not adding the tags or using the wrong tags.

let's not turn e621 into the disaster that tumblr has become. if just seeing the word 'fag' is really enough to ruin your entire week, the best course of action would be to seek counseling. while it's a nice idea to have everything on the internet personally censor-able, it's a hopeless battle and not a realistic solution.

in short, what you're aiming for will result in a large sum of confusing tags that very few people will ever use. seeing how slur itself only has 21 tags and degradation only has 157, you should probably spend more time on getting those tags recognized and used first before you start segregating them further.

MrNerorthi said:
The term degradation is definitely too broad, as viewing it brought up surprisingly few instances of what I am trying to tag.

Wait, so instead of just adding the degradation tag where it's missing, You go through all the work to try and make new tags?

post #1263144

Kyubii said:
Wait, so instead of just adding the degradation tag where it's missing, You go through all the work to try and make new tags?

post #1263144

As I brought up before it's not used on this site in a way that would be helpful for using it as a way to block slurs because a) a lot of posts in the tag don't involve slurs and b) slurs can be used in contexts outside of that kink. If you look at the tag it's a fairly specific kink tag, making it 'the slur tag' would make that kink harder to tag effectively and harder to search for since it would now include harsher dirty-talk, rude pet names, friendly banter, etc. On the other end if you were looking for images with slurs in them they'll be mixed with things that don't include slurs at all.

Transphobic slurs are still used as general tags here and you wanna have a tag to blacklist specific slurs?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not to say youre not on the right track but you really think that will take off outside of just using the tag "Slur"?

And then what about those images that actually have the words in them, like dickgirl and cuntboy is that now gonna get tagged with Slur as well, since they are? Or are we just here to pretend that thats not the case.

Fag is still an acceptable searchable tag as well, as well as other slurs that are homophobic and etc although thats been aliased away to something less "offensive"

But sure, ok, lets go through the trouble of adding trigger warning tags to make the site SEEM more inclusive and ignore all the other problems that Still havent (and wont be) fixed.

abscondler said:
woah, woah, way too many tags. people are going to keep asking for more and more overly-specific 'trigger tags', to the point where they're nonsensical. 90% of artists and uploaders can't be fucked to memorize and properly tag for each specific slur or type of 'degradation'. this will only lead to more pointless arguments in comments over people not adding the tags or using the wrong tags.

*squints*

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anywhere that this was an all inclusive list of individual tags... and that each and every individual item on that list required it's own individual tag.

As I see this is supposedly your first post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Typically when a tag is brought up, we discuss a number of different circumstances and options regarding the tags in question. If a tag is covering too many things, should it be split up? What defines the two new tags? Or: Is this implication a good idea? Can we, truly say that all instances of Tag_X also have tag_a? For example, yes, all blowjobs (fellatio) include oral sex, but do all instances of fellatio involve a penis?

It's easy to say "YES," until you remember that there are pictures like this: post #1561236 where the penis is entirely obscured, yet the action is clear. This discussion helps prevent accidents from happening, accidents that are rather frustrating to clean up later.

So, for your information: I was listing things that *could* be tagged.

For example, "Suck that big fat wolf cock, you black bitch" does not use a racial slur. it would be improper to tag it as "racial_slur" but perhaps "racially charged language" and "racial slurs" could be tagged as one tag.

Homophobic slurs, and homophobic actions on the other hand could be combined easily into "Homophobic content" or something.

I wasn't listing everything to give each one a tag. I was listing circumstances that i've seen on images over the years that may fall into this category.

let's not turn e621 into the disaster that tumblr has become. if just seeing the word 'fag' is really enough to ruin your entire week, the best course of action would be to seek counseling.

If only it was so simple. (trigger warnings, please)

Mental health is not a sweet and simple "Just don't be upset anymore!" thing. IF you believe that "getting over" PTSD is as simple as talking to a therapist a few times, you're very very wrong.

Instinct--human, animal, everything-- is here to help us survive. We learn fears. If we climb a tree and a branch breaks, we learn to be more careful when climbing. We learn that some types of woods are stronger than others. We learn. We learn, for example that the whistling of a certain type means that there will be an explosion soon. We learn that gunfire means that it is time to fight, and run and hide. We learn that gunfire means we need adrenaline. We learn that gunfire can mean pain. it works well. Sometimes too well.

We learn that sounds, smells, locations, feelings can all lead to dangerous situations, or places where we must be cautious. Years ago, it was that tiger urine sprayed on a tree smells like danger. Now, it's the smell of war, or of someone's cigarettes, or aftershave. That same instinct that says that my daddy's deodorant is a pleasant safe scent is the same instinct that says that the combination of whiskey and Marlboros means danger.

A therapist helps. Oh good god, a therapist is a wonderful thing, and they help so much, if you've got a good one... but this takes years, if not decades, to 'work past' a trauma. In the mean time, you've still got your problems and you've still got to deal with it every day.

And one of the thing that helps with that is knowing "hey, I'm not up to being exposed to that today"

while it's a nice idea to have everything on the internet personally censor-able, it's a hopeless battle and not a realistic solution.

While true, why should we not try and make our own spaces safer?

"Outside is dirty, so inside should be dirty too" doesn't fly.

Demesejha said:
Transphobic slurs are still used as general tags here and you wanna have a tag to blacklist specific slurs?

Well, the most recent thread about this was 37 PAGES long (forum #195804 - Creating Better Tags for intersex and trans characters), in which, I believe the admin statement was If we can have a system that is less vulgar (and doesn't compromise the tagging/search system) then why the fuck not change?

So... If you've got a good idea, maybe give that thread a skim over, then maybe message NotMeNotYou and ask if he'd mind you starting a thread regarding your idea. I speak for many of us that we would love to move away from those tag names.

In the mean time, that's no reason not to do work here.

Fag is still an acceptable searchable tag as well, as well as other slurs that are homophobic and etc although thats been aliased away to something less "offensive"

Honey.

There are three choices.

"fag" is not aliased away, and people can tag it and it displays on images.
"fag" is aliased to invalid_tag and people get incorrect tags and erratic search results
"fag" is aliased to male/male, and posts are mostly tagged correctly, and findable.

There is no way to say "you cannot search for that term"

so this is the best solution provided by the system.

If you have a better solution, please feel free to share.

Likewise, if there are any other slurs that you think are inappropriate that need to be aliased away, please speak up.

But sure, ok, lets go through the trouble of adding trigger warning tags to make the site SEEM more inclusive and ignore all the other problems that Still havent (and wont be) fixed.

As I've said: If you have a solution, please share it.

SnowWolf said:
Well, the most recent thread about this was 37 PAGES long (forum #195804 - Creating Better Tags for intersex and trans characters), in which, I believe the admin statement was If we can have a system that is less vulgar (and doesn't compromise the tagging/search system) then why the fuck not change?

So... If you've got a good idea, maybe give that thread a skim over, then maybe message NotMeNotYou and ask if he'd mind you starting a thread regarding your idea. I speak for many of us that we would love to move away from those tag names.

In the mean time, that's no reason not to do work here.

Honey.

There are three choices.

"fag" is not aliased away, and people can tag it and it displays on images.
"fag" is aliased to invalid_tag and people get incorrect tags and erratic search results
"fag" is aliased to male/male, and posts are mostly tagged correctly, and findable.

There is no way to say "you cannot search for that term"

so this is the best solution provided by the system.

If you have a better solution, please feel free to share.

Likewise, if there are any other slurs that you think are inappropriate that need to be aliased away, please speak up.

As I've said: If you have a solution, please share it.

If you'll notice, I'm the op of that thread, I provided several options for replacement, did surveys, collected results, I even gave those results away and nothing that happened.

I DID speak up, I continued to and nothing happened.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n12l8n7x5yznle9/Tag%20Proposal%20for%20Replacing%20Slur%20Tags.csv?dl=0

This is the result of that survey. THere was also a poll in that thread about it. The overwhelming response was yes the tags are hated and people want them changed, and the overwhelming winner was andromorph and gynomorph.

I had evidence, there's 96 responses here.

It was all ignored.

I've proposed other solutions to other problems as well, to no avail, many times to the point where I felt it wasnt worth trying anymore because nobody was listening.

I admit the "fag" thing is more of a nagging issue and I agree with how it's currently handled because other solutions to it, such as "invalid_tag" may cause issues down the line, though I dont see why its one of the only slurs that is still not alias'd to invalid tag.
Also queer, a word used for M/M historically (though more recently as a blanket for other things as well) is invalid but the slur is not. Same with Homoerotic

Meanwhile transgirl, transgender, trans* everything have all been aliased to invalid tag, with "Drama" as their cited reason for no other reason than they don't want to deal with it, so you tell me.

Again, no offense intended but this is a continued issue.

I absolutely agree this would be a valuable feature, but I'm somewhat against creating new tags for all potential slurs and triggers, unless there's a population of people who are actively seeking out their depiction. The number of tags to maintain could get out of hand fairly quickly, and without being applied rigorously, they'd be essentially worthless for the purposes of blacklisting; the people who'd most benefit from their existence are the least likely to seek out and propagate them. If your only goal to is avoid images containing certain content and interactions, many of the suggested censors do have existing tags that could be used (if they were tagged consistently) to filter out potential triggers:

• Racial slurs and charged language: (slur, racism)

Physical abuse: (threat, violence)
Sexual abuse: (rape, implied_rape)
Emotional abuse: (verbal_abuse, degradation)
Slavery: (slave, branding)
Child abuse: (young, bad_parenting)
Death threats: (death_threat)
Homophobic slurs and language (homophobia)
Ableistic language and abuse
Transphobic slurs and language

The remaining instances could be covered by the addition of ableism, and transphobia, which could be applied liberally to potentially inflammatory dialogue. The issue is not so much the existence of tags for this purpose, but the diligence and frequency with which they are applied, as well as some potential ambiguity within them. For instance, death_threat and slur are generally unused, and nearly every instance of racism would be better suited by specieism (or maybe something like human_racism), but these are all tangible projects to be undertaken. I don't believe attempting to document and categorize each individual slur is an effective use of energy, and seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

A transcript or word-tagging system could help, but those run into much larger issues with how e6's entire search engine works, and I'm skeptical people would really use it. At the end of the day, inclusivity is definitely worth striving for, but I'm not sure realistically how many people would benefit from such a labor-intensive overhaul, only for a slight decrease in the odds of witnessing a trigger.

SnowWolf said:
-snip-

i'm sorry, i jumped to rash conclusions. i agree that it would be a nice option for people to have, so long as it doesn't get out of hand and create more drama. hopefully the usage of these tags will catch on. i wish you the best of luck.

I suppose that's valid point: it is likely to create drama, considering the connotations that some of these terms have. And many foreign users are unfamiliar with them.

For instance, I suspect that something like disability_discrimination might work better than ableism, even if it is a mouthful.

Demesejha said:
one of the only slurs that is still not alias'd to invalid tag.

I'm not sure what you mean. Unless I'm blanking, I can't find any precedent for invalidating slur tags, at least not by virtue of being slurs. fag aliases to "male/male" to the extent that fag is a word for a gay character, and someone who searches it is looking for a gay character. Their tolerance in doing so is debatable, but absolutely irrelevant to the results that should appear. Same thing applies to shemale→dickgirl (arguably both slurs); people search for porn this way. The idea that the search engine should see me (pansexual) use the word 'faggot' and spout "you cannot search for that term" is bizarre.

The one invalidated "slur" (slang might be more suitable) I'm aware of is queer, and this is because it was invalidated earlier this morning. Because gender preference is not TWYS, Gay, lesbian, and queer are ALL technically invalid tags. The difference is that gay usually means m/m, so it's aliased as such to evade common mistakes, and to make searching easier. Queer on the other hand could apply to many non-hetero pairings (and was mistagged in each of its twelve instances), so it's invalid rather than risking the accidental application of a m/m tag to an intersex image.

Demesejha said:
Meanwhile transgirl, transgender, trans* everything have all been aliased to invalid tag, with "Drama" as their cited reason for no other reason than they don't want to deal with it

Trans tags are invalidated under TWYS because from a purely visual standpoint, a character's current, apparent gender is the only relevant fact. Fairly well understood, and ingrained into most tagging guides: if it's got knockers and a snake charmer, that character is female. The "drama" in question occurred nearly five years ago when people were still getting the hang of TWYS, and were squabbling and deliberately mistagging. It's not admins "not wanting to deal with it," it's a site-wide ruling that's been undisputed for as long as most of us can remember.

Genjar said:
For instance, I suspect that something like disability_discrimination might work better than ableism, even if it is a mouthful.

Probably true.

abscondler said:

let's not turn e621 into the disaster that tumblr has become.

Showing curtsy to people with trauma won't ruin a website, I'm so sick of that logic.

And although I want to keep my personal trauma out of this discussion as much as possible, it is worth noting that I am and have for a long time had counseling on this issue, it doesn't just go away. It often never goes away.

MrNerorthi said:
Showing curtsy to people with trauma won't ruin a website, I'm so sick of that logic.

And although I want to keep my personal trauma out of this discussion as much as possible, it is worth noting that I am and have for a long time had counseling on this issue, it doesn't just go away. It often never goes away.

it's the people that abuse that courtesy that ruin a website or community. i was out of place to imply that counseling was an easy fix for trauma or mental health issues and i'm sorry for that.

however, this type of courtesy can easily get out of hand and abused by trolls or other malicious individuals. some people will start demanding 'trigger tags' for more and more ridiculous things, and everyone else will start hating anything related to trigger tags, even though some are valid and helpful.

this is what happened with tumblr, and is why few people take the word 'trigger' seriously anymore. what started as a good idea got abused and turned into a disaster.

abscondler said:
it's the people that abuse that courtesy that ruin a website or community. i was out of place to imply that counseling was an easy fix for trauma or mental health issues and i'm sorry for that.

however, this type of courtesy can easily get out of hand and abused by trolls or other malicious individuals. some people will start demanding 'trigger tags' for more and more ridiculous things, and everyone else will start hating anything related to trigger tags, even though some are valid and helpful.

this is what happened with tumblr, and is why few people take the word 'trigger' seriously anymore. what started as a good idea got abused and turned into a disaster.

Tumblr is a hub for the far-left, this website sure as hell is not. I'm more worried about being attacked for suggesting trigger tags than the tags somehow getting out of hand.

And I have a feeling the word trigger becoming a joke and political phrase was what ruined it, not some bizare idea of overuse.

The slight possibility that someone may ask for a nonsence tag is no damn reason to not add these tags, it was barely even worth mentioning to be honest.

I am having the kind of bad couple days that involves an inch of water on the floor of my bathroom, bedroom and closets. I need to reply more in depth all over, but right now, I'm just gonna add in this one thought:

abscondler said:
it's the people that abuse that courtesy that ruin a website or community. i was out of place to imply that counseling was an easy fix for trauma or mental health issues and i'm sorry for that.

<3

however, this type of courtesy can easily get out of hand and abused by trolls or other malicious individuals. some people will start demanding 'trigger tags' for more and more ridiculous things, and everyone else will start hating anything related to trigger tags, even though some are valid and helpful.

They'd generally be indistinguishable from most tags, actually.

That said, most 'ridiculous things' that people might ask for are already tags.

No one really objects to us having:

sound
sound_warning (for posts with sudden loud sounds)
epilepsy_warning
trypophobia
spider
food
rape
gore

or anything like that. I honestly can't think of anything that would be *generally* requested that would require a new tag... except for this stuff. (which, again, I'll reply to stuff later. I am so tired right now)

this is what happened with tumblr, and is why few people take the word 'trigger' seriously anymore. what started as a good idea got abused and turned into a disaster.

Actually...
I've got a theory on this one.

But over all, I think it'd be better to allow for basic courtesies, rather than to assume people will abuse it and ask for unreasonable things right off the bat. If someone starts asking for all 5 letter words to be tagged, then we will deal with that then.

So, reading through everything I think the the whole *_slur tags would be perfectly fine.

However, do we need the distinction to *_language?
I'd argue that, for example, racial_slur and racially_charged_language would have so much overlap that it makes little sense to have two separate tags, and would instead argue those should be covered by a single tag.

The distinction between physical threats (non-fatal) and fatal physical threats would definitely be a good one to have.

Don't we have a slavery tag already? Or is that for threats about selling people into slavery?

NotMeNotYou said:
So, reading through everything I think the the whole *_slur tags would be perfectly fine.

However, do we need the distinction to *_language?
I'd argue that, for example, racial_slur and racially_charged_language would have so much overlap that it makes little sense to have two separate tags, and would instead argue those should be covered by a single tag.

The distinction between physical threats (non-fatal) and fatal physical threats would definitely be a good one to have.

I agree with this. my main concern is having too many vague or similar tags that will confuse people and start more drama in whether a picture should or shouldn't be tagged with it.