If it ain't broke, why fix it?

bleph said:
I didn't start off trying to argue with you. I was asking a question in good faith to try to understand what you meant, because I know full well that I'm not knowledgeable about web design, and instead of either explaining or just not responding you decided to be insulting instead.

uh, no, your question was answered, then you continued to argue

jerjercorn said:
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

because it was broken

iceink said:
I'm sorry you're not knowledgeable enough to argue with me about these things, but that doesn't mean I owe it to you to make it easier for you to understand when you try to contradict me on a subject I'm an expert in that you aren't familiar with the basics of.

"not knowledgeable enough"; what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. The term "responsive" to refer to the adaptation of web pages to different devices only really came into play in 2010 with an article by Ethan Marcotte (who, as far as I recall, invented the term). Responsiveness on the other hand has been a concept in computer science and specifically HCI for decades. If anyone in this discussion isn't knowledgeable, it's you, and you look like an ass for desperately trying to take some lofty position instead of simply explaining what you meant.

ccoyote said:
Get back under your rock, troll.

Nice argument. I guess you couldn't think of any response to my perfectly valid question. Also, I see that you advocate for SJWs. You also use their terminology (anyone I disagree with is just a troll, and isn't real). SJW mentality DOES lead to fascism. You need to be banned, honestly. You're incredibly pretentious and "holier than thou", speaking down to people you know nothing about. Who would've guessed you'd take the admins' side on this one?

etonri said:
"not knowledgeable enough"; what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. The term "responsive" to refer to the adaptation of web pages to different devices only really came into play in 2010 with an article by Ethan Marcotte (who, as far as I recall, invented the term). Responsiveness on the other hand has been a concept in computer science and specifically HCI for decades. If anyone in this discussion isn't knowledgeable, it's you, and you look like an ass for desperately trying to take some lofty position instead of simply explaining what you meant.

no, everything was explained, but someone with less knowledge than me kept trying to argue even after they received an explanation, also I never used the word 'responsiveness' I called it responsive, which is what they used initially and then changed their wording after I made it clear why they were wrong, so I guess you're kinda hypocritical for being so condescending here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

iceink said:
because it was broken

No it wasn't. And it sure as hell is broken now.

iceink said:
no, everything was explained, but someone with less knowledge than me kept trying to argue even after they received an explanation

Oh stop with this "I'm smarter than you" bullshit. Your argument has zero weight if that's what you're basing it around.

caphistas said:
No it wasn't. And it sure as hell is broken now.

it was objectively broken, no web development professionals consider a site that isn't responsive to be acceptable unless there is a very good specific reason for it

maybe back in 2008 it was acceptable, but not now

caphistas said:
Oh stop with this "I'm smarter than you" bullshit. Your argument has zero weight if that's what you're basing it around.

good thing im not basing it on that then, i'm basing my argument on my own expertise, so no need to be abusive to me

jerjercorn said:
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Because sadly website hosts love the idea of "If it ain't broke lets break it" because they can't add/fix shit people actually want but still need to justify their salary by fucking with things no one had issues with

iceink said:
because it was broken

This is the equivalent of trying to do a simple oil change on your car and breaking 5 other parts that worked fine, and your oil is still needs changing

iceink said: on a subject I'm an expert in

who asked? why not just respond his question?

yflash said:
who asked? why not just respond his question?

no one asked, this is an open discussion and anyone can participate, I did respond to the question

iceink said:
i'm basing my argument on my own expertise, so no need to be abusive to me

By also calling the other dude an idiot, nice one.

caphistas said:
By also calling the other dude an idiot, nice one.

that never happened

iceink said:
that never happened

Oh, sorry. You just said he was "less knowledgeable" than you while claiming you were the expert with nothing to back your claims. Just stop posting.

iceink said:
good thing im not basing it on that then, i'm basing my argument on my own expertise, so no need to be abusive to me

The discussion in question:

iceink said:
because that's not what 'responsive' means

bleph said:
...more than one thing, and I was clearly going off the normal definition. So no, responsiveness does also mean what I said, and it's pretty obvious where the confusion was.

You could have just answered my question instead of being snarky for no reason.

iceink said:
no sorry you're incorrect, responsive means when a website is able to scale it's content based on the viewport of a client, in a sense it is 'responding' to the scale dynamically

the old site was not developed to do this, so it was not responsive

bleph is 100% correct that "responsive" and "responsiveness" mean different things and both are applicable in the context of a web application. Your expertise is shallow and instead of simply explaining your point or gracefully admitting that you and bleph had differing (but equally valid!) understandings of the term, you decided to double down because you're a hotshot webdev. The issue is even tangential to your (somewhat subjective, but I'd argue mostly correct) point that the modern web generally should use responsive web design, so I don't know why you're choosing this hill to die on.

caphistas said:
Oh, sorry. You just said he was "less knowledgeable" than you while claiming you were the expert with nothing to back your claims. Just stop posting.

telling people who posted facts to just stop posting while lecturing about how productive they are in the thread, lmao

etonri said:
The discussion in question:

bleph is 100% correct that "responsive" and "responsiveness" mean different things and both are applicable in the context of a web application. Your expertise is shallow and instead of simply explaining your point or gracefully admitting that you and bleph had differing (but equally valid!) understandings of the term, you decided to double down because you're a hotshot webdev. The issue is even tangential to your (somewhat subjective, but I'd argue mostly correct) point that the modern web generally should use responsive web design, so I don't know why you're choosing this hill to die on.

because he questioned that the original site was not responsive, when in fact it was not, he should not have contradicted me on that point unless he expected to be corrected

he was incorrect, I wasn't, full stop, end of discussion

iceink said:
it was objectively broken, no web development professionals consider a site that isn't responsive to be acceptable unless there is a very good specific reason for it

maybe back in 2008 it was acceptable, but not now

The Space Jam site still works.
Does what its suppose to do
No change since 1999
100 Perfect

iceink said:
because he questioned that the original site was not responsive, when in fact it was not, he should not have contradicted me on that point unless he expected to be corrected

he was incorrect, I wasn't, full stop, end of discussion

Responsive doesn't solely refer to RWD you dense fucker.

whatthefuckerver said:
The Space Jam site still works.
Does what its suppose to do
No change since 1999
100 Perfect

False analogy.

For all intents and purposes the current design on E621 still works in a basic sense just as it did before, but it also works in the advanced sense that is now also works with the functionality needed for mobile users.

"They changed it so it's bad" is a pretty useless mentality when it comes to site redesigns, or much of anything rly.

retsasidsavb said:
Taken from an admin's page

Account > Settings > Advanced Settings > Custom CSS > (paste it there)

/* Background */
body {font-size:80% !important; background-color:#031131 !important; background-image:url("") !important}
#top, #page-footer {background:none !important}

/* Navigation bar */
nav menu {margin:0px !important; padding:0px 0.25rem !important}
nav menu li {display:inline-block !important; padding:6px !important; border-radius:6px 6px 0px 0px !important}
nav menu li a {background:none !important; padding:0px !important}

nav menu li.current {background:#152F56 !important}
nav > menu:last-child:not(.main) {box-shadow:2px 2px 10px #000 !important}

/* General */
#page {border-radius:6px !important; box-shadow:2px 2px 10px #000 !important; margin-top:1em !important}
div#news {border-radius:4px !important; margin-bottom:1em !important; border-color:#00759F !important}
div.newsbody li {margin-bottom:0.5em}

/* Posts index */
aside#sidebar, section#content {display:inline-block !important; float:none !important; vertical-align:top !important; margin:0px !important}
aside#sidebar {width:20% !important; max-width:240px !important; margin-right:1rem !important}

section#search-box form {margin-top:6px !important}
section#search-box form input#tags {margin-right:6px !important; padding:2px 6px !important}

section#content {margin:0px !important; width:calc(100% - 240px - 3rem) !important}

article.post-preview > a > picture > img, div.preview > a > img, div.post-thumbnail > a > img {border-radius:4px; border-width:3px !important}
article.post-preview > div.desc {border-radius:4px}

/* Comments */
div#c-comments div.post-preview {border-radius:4px}
div.comments-for-post {width:100%}
div.post div.preview {margin-right:1rem !important; width:200px}
article.comment {position:relative; overflow:hidden}
article.comment div.author {width:200px !important; border-radius:4px 0px 0px 4px; margin-right:0.5em; box-shadow:2px 0px 5px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.05); box-sizing:border-box}
article.comment div.content {width:100%; margin-bottom:1em; padding:1em !important}
article.comment div.content menu {position:absolute; width:100%; bottom:1em}
article.comment div.content menu li {margin:0px !important; padding:0px 0.25em}

/* Forum posts/comments */
article.forum-post {display:flex; position:relative; border-radius:6px; overflow:hidden}
article.forum-post > div:not(.clearfix) {display:inline-block; vertical-align:top}
article.forum-post div.author {float:none !important; width:200px !important; border-radius:6px 0px 0px 6px; margin-right:0.5em; background:rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.05); box-shadow:2px 0px 5px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.05)}
article.forum-post div.content {width:100%; margin:0em 0em 1em 0em !important; padding:1em !important}
article.forum-post div.content menu {position:absolute; width:100%; bottom:1em}

/* Blips */
article.blip {display:flex; padding:0px !important; position:relative; border-radius:6px; overflow:hidden}
article.blip > div:not(.clearfix) {display:inline-block; vertical-align:top}
article.blip div.author {float:none !important; width:200px !important; padding:1em; border-radius:6px 0px 0px 6px; margin-right:0.5em; background:rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.05); box-shadow:2px 0px 5px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.05); box-sizing:border-box}
article.blip div.content {width:100%; margin:0em 0em 1em 0em !important; padding:1em !important}
article.blip div.content menu {position:absolute; width:100%; bottom:1em}

/* Paginator */
div.paginator menu li a {display:inline-block !important; margin:0px !important; padding:4px !important; min-width:1.8rem !important; line-height:1.8em !important; border-radius:4px !important; color:#152F56 !important}
div.paginator menu li a * {line-height:0px !important; margin:0px !important; padding:0px !important}
div.paginator menu li:not(.more) a {background:#8899AF !important; border:1px solid #8899AF !important; box-shadow:2px 2px 10px #000 !important}
div.paginator menu li a:hover {background:#3C3CDC !important; color:#FFF !important}

div.paginator menu li.arrow:first-of-type > :after {content:" Previous" !important}
div.paginator menu li.arrow:last-of-type > :before {content:"Next " !important}
div.paginator menu li.more {display:inline-block !important; color:#FFF !important; min-width:1.8rem !important}

/* User Profile */
div.profile-container {margin-bottom:1em}
div.profile-avatar img {border-radius:6px; box-shadow:0px 2px 10px #000}
table.user-statistics {box-sizing:border-box; border:1px solid #255193}

@media screen and (max-width:800px) {
/* Posts index */
section#content, aside#sidebar {width:100% !important; margin:0px !important}
section#content {padding:1em !important; box-sizing:border-box}
aside#sidebar {max-width:100% !important}

article.post-preview > a > picture > img, div.preview > a > img, div.post-thumbnail > a > img {border-radius:4px 4px 0px 0px}
article.post-preview > div.desc {border-radius:0px 0px 4px 4px}

/* User profiles */
div.profile-avatar {margin:0em 1em !important}
div.profile-avatar img {max-width:75px; height:auto}
div.profile-stats h1 {margin:0px !important}
}

THANK YOU!

etonri said:
Responsive doesn't solely refer to RWD you dense fucker.

Okay, I'm done talking to you if you're going to be abusive and attack me when I've clarified why you're incorrect.

How about this, what does, "when a website is able to scale it's content based on the viewport of a client, in a sense it is 'responding' to the scale dynamically" mean? Does it affect what we upload? It's so vague to understand how important this is.

kemonophonic said:

THANK YOU!

FYI, there is an ongoing process of compiling various CSS style tweaks and fixes in the "I don't like the theme" sticky thread.
Here is the latest version (shameless self-promotion).

bitwolfy said:
FYI, there is an ongoing process of compiling various CSS style tweaks and fixes in the "I don't like the theme" sticky thread.
Here is the latest version (shameless self-promotion).

Nice! Do I just add the new text to the existing text or do I have to remove the old text first?

kemonophonic said:
Nice! Do I just add the new text to the existing text or do I have to remove the old text first?

Delete the existing code.

iceink said:
False analogy.

For all intents and purposes the current design on E621 still works in a basic sense just as it did before, but it also works in the advanced sense that is now also works with the functionality needed for mobile users.

"They changed it so it's bad" is a pretty useless mentality when it comes to site redesigns, or much of anything rly.

God, I just love it when ever a site gets redesigned for the worst and you have the contrarians going all out with the "yOu jUsT h8T iT cUz iTz NeW"

Oh boy the mobile version is better! Totally worth having features flat out broken and changed for the worst so someone can jack off to furry porn in a public space.

Look guys my car has a flat tire, no oil, and the check engine light is constantly flashing now but I changed the paint job so its much better! Trust me im a big brain expert.

fluffy_tail said:
SJW mentality DOES lead to fascism. You need to be banned, honestly.

Mmkay.

That's not the contrarians, it's the people who have seen this shit time and again (eg. developers).
Roll out breaking changes and users will complain no matter what, it's that simple. Same reason that politicians can never do anything right: there is no breaking change which doesn't step on someone's toes.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

iceink said:
I'm sorry you're not knowledgeable enough to argue with me about these things, but that doesn't mean I owe it to you to make it easier for you to understand when you try to contradict me on a subject I'm an expert in that you aren't familiar with the basics of.

Nor does anyone owe you any respect or credence to your capabilities when you can't fucking handle not being insulting for several seconds. Reflects very poorly on you, and I'd personally place little value in your takes on anything with an approach like that.

Maybe instead of saying "that's not what it means" you could've shown your so called expertise in good faith from the get go and avoided this entire back and forth? Just a small, SMALL thought. Just like you COULD say you don't care about my take on your approach, but where there's one there's more.

Seeing how you handled yourself later on in this thread though, I'm not waiting around.

savageorange said:
That's not the contrarians, it's the people who have seen this shit time and again (eg. developers).
Roll out breaking changes and users will complain no matter what, it's that simple. Same reason that politicians can never do anything right: there is no breaking change which doesn't step on someone's toes.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

Notice how everyone defending this say there were good changes but don't actually list anything and just default to "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT CUZ ITS DIFFERENT!"

Nice link tho
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/613/502/fdf.png

whatthefuckerver said:
Notice how everyone defending this say there were good changes but don't actually list anything

Can't say I noticed that.

watsit said:
Can't say I noticed that.

I sincerely doubt anyone will actually find some sort of use to being able to make a 40-tag research. Especially when it comes at the price of being forced to log in to have full access to the posts hosted on this website.
Auto-completion and more tags aren't worth a ruined UI, loss of favorites, and tags who requires you to create an account, fill in your personnal info, and log in in order to be able to access them at all.

nukedukemii said:
I sincerely doubt anyone will actually find some sort of use to being able to make a 40-tag research.

Maybe not a full 40, but many people were hitting the previous limit of 5 that the old site could handle.

nukedukemii said:
Auto-completion and more tags aren't worth a ruined UI, loss of favorites, and tags who requires you to create an account, fill in your personnal info, and log in in order to be able to access them at all.

As far as the blacklist on logged out users go, that seems to be orthogonal to this whole update. It was a convenient time to add it since the rest of the site was being changed anyway, but the way it seems to me, that was going to happen regardless of anything else. The UI issues are temporary and will be worked out.

darkspinehellsonic8 said:
Nor does anyone owe you any respect or credence to your capabilities when you can't fucking handle not being insulting for several seconds. Reflects very poorly on you, and I'd personally place little value in your takes on anything with an approach like that.

Maybe instead of saying "that's not what it means" you could've shown your so called expertise in good faith from the get go and avoided this entire back and forth? Just a small, SMALL thought. Just like you COULD say you don't care about my take on your approach, but where there's one there's more.

Seeing how you handled yourself later on in this thread though, I'm not waiting around.

I only care that my clients respects my capabilities, which they do, so thanks but I don't need that from you anyways, if you're interested in hiring me though I might have some time for a consultation, paid of course. As far as posting on a site like this, people do owe me the same respect as anybody else insofar as I don't deserve to be attacked and called names for stating factual information about how websites are developed.

Just because one side of this argument is upset with how the admins are choosing to move in a different direction with handling the site than they'd like doesn't give them an excuse to be belligerent and make childish attacks against others who don't agree.

There are quite a few users in here who don't realize that sometimes you have to break functionality before it can be improved. e621's process is just a tad more transparent about it. Issues to the design are already being fixed and will continue to be fixed over the coming days.

I don't find the argument that e621 shouldn't tend to the needs of the mobile user, because it will end up breaking some functionality for a temporary period of time as valid. It is more valid to complain about some content being put behind a registration wall, but not this. Even for that complaint, e621 allows your login session to last indefinitely. Once you have an account, you can set it and forget it until you need to log on a different device. e621 even allows you to be logged in at the same time on multiple devices, which other sites may not allow.

Yeah, hitting the 5-tag limit on a tag project is pretty trivial - have a look at some of the things in the Tagging Projects thread.

whatthefuckerver said:
Notice how everyone defending this say there were good changes but don't actually list anything and just default to "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT CUZ ITS DIFFERENT!"

I'm not advancing that opinion at all.

You may have valid objections.

This is obscured by the reality that users in general do react in that way, and an emotional reaction for a good reason or a bad reason is still just that, an emotional reaction. Irrelevant to improving things, and an impediment to reasonable discourse.

ie. you yourself are causing yourself to be put into that category.
If you don't want to be in it, make rational arguments instead of using emotionally charged language. Others have already demonstrated how to object reasonably, here on the forums and in blips.

As for whether the change is good, I'm personally indifferent, as with most changes on most sites. If it's technically better and less crufty, then the change is probably good, but I haven't checked that out personally.

iceink said:
because it was broken

No it wasn't.

whatthefuckerver said:
Because sadly website hosts love the idea of "If it ain't broke lets break it" because they can't add/fix shit people actually want but still need to justify their salary by fucking with things no one had issues with

This is the equivalent of trying to do a simple oil change on your car and breaking 5 other parts that worked fine, and your oil is still needs changing

^This.

savageorange said:
That's not the contrarians, it's the people who have seen this shit time and again (eg. developers).
Roll out breaking changes and users will complain no matter what, it's that simple. Same reason that politicians can never do anything right: there is no breaking change which doesn't step on someone's toes.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

>Comic
This never happens.

thisisfunny said:

>Comic
This never happens.

That's what you claim, but I've seen it repeatedly in open-source projects I monitor -- GIMP and DCSS being two examples. The vocal complainers seem to be a *minority*, but they also tend to, well, be the ones who are actually saying things.
Keep in mind this is specifically in relation to BREAKING changes. Backwards compatible changes don't tend to produce much salt.

Obviously the comic is a parody that has an insanely specific use case, but the real behaviour of users (for example, some recent claims on this forum.. the more wild claims of things being totally "broken" and "disgusting") also seems like a parody, so..

ccoyote said:
What a load of intellectually lazy tripe that is.

Horseshoe Theory

Far-right and far-left get closer in their methods and mindesets. Like I said before, leftist mobs regulary set cars of other parties on fire, regulary attack buildings, the police or companies here in Germany to push their view of a "open society" (limitless migration with 100% money payment). Everybody who disagrees with it gets targeted in the name of "protecting" minorities.
(Not to mention the idea of the most left party we have [the guys that shot civilians on the German-German boarder] to execute the 1% of the richest here or to put them in gulags openly)

There are also plans to teach other EU states how "moral right" politic has to look... last time somebody tried that here was 1939. Tell me, what distinguish the methods (not views) of hardcore SWJs from hardcore Nazis?

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." - Christopher Dawson

______________________________

I'm not a webdesigner or something, but from somebody with a business degree:

I read that the new design makes it easier to implement features, makes bug fixing easier and overall improves a lot (on the codeing site). As it's new we maybe should see where it goes, with some minor (my opinion) features cut on day 2 after introduction it's quite early to shame the devs.

We can't forsee by now if it also improves the experience for us as well, and it's maybe a good idea to clearly communicate how we users benefit from it.

TBH I think using 'authoritarianism' would be a hell of a lot more accurate than 'fascism'. Communist authoritarianism and fascist authoritarianism have plenty of similarities, but they are not the same thing, neither in theory nor practice.

Horseshoe theory is not credible when you know a bit about the research into the relationship between temperament and political persuasion. People of different (self identified) political persuasions are different AS PEOPLE, reliably, even if they, you know, share the property of being human beings. Conscientiousness is a solid predictor of conservative political alignment, for example.

If you don't believe me, look up Aydin Paladin -- who has sociology training, a general familiarity and some degree of alignment with your stated politics.. and scoffs at horseshoe theory for just being, well, bad sociology and straightforwardly contradicted by the research. (and also goes into some of the research I've mentioned)

If I tried to make an argument that matched your general thrust, with less flaws, I think it would be something like 'PC Authoritarians (SJWs, or Bolsheviks if you prefer) are a natural tool ("useful idiot") of authoritarian statist utopians. Utopians are always bad and almost always authoritarians.'

To be fair, 99% of other image sites 'out there' were far less 'responsive' (as in, fast to load and navigate and use in general, to be pedantic) than e621. Now we're even more ahead of them on fast load times. Navigation is mixed bag but getting wrinkles ironed out. General use has been receiving fixes since beta started.

Also, do we have an ignore user feature? j/k

watsit said:
Maybe not a full 40, but many people were hitting the previous limit of 5 that the old site could handle.

Sadly, a lot of the stuff I look up barely has a page of results after 3 tags.

And Dawson was a god damn optimist. Their evil is likely even worse because it makes them feel like they're helping.

@fluffy_tail @D4rk ―

If you think advocating for civil rights, equal treatment, equal pay, and housing stability for people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups of human beings is the same thing as fascism or nazism, then there really isn't enough common ground for us to continue this discussion.

If just hearing someone else's experience is too much work for you to be bothered, then there's no reason to explain it.

If you'd rather cite obscure internet theories than just allow someone the simplest, most common human dignity? What does that say about you?

I've said everything I have to left say in this thread.

In that case, I'll just point out that you deflected the key question and engaged in gaslighting. Is there anyone who actually thinks "advocating for civil rights, equal treatment, equal pay, and housing stability for people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups of human beings" are the methods of "hardcore SWJs"?

d4rk already cited an example of the methods of "hardcore SWJs" -- violence against political heretics (from context, presumably *strategic* violence). The question of how this differs from hardcore Nazis is, if anything, obvious.

ccoyote said:
@fluffy_tail @D4rk ―

If you think advocating for civil rights, equal treatment, equal pay, and housing stability for people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups of human beings is the same thing as fascism or nazism, then there really isn't enough common ground for us to continue this discussion.

If just hearing someone else's experience is too much work for you to be bothered, then there's no reason to explain it.

If you'd rather cite obscure internet theories than just allow someone the simplest, most common human dignity? What does that say about you?

I've said everything I have to left say in this thread.

We already have equal pay for the same jobs. Pay discrimination for the same job based on gender, race, religion, etc is illegal. It doesn't happen in the western world. Anywhere.

fluffy_tail said:
We already have equal pay for the same jobs. Pay discrimination for the same job based on gender, race, religion, etc is illegal. It doesn't happen in the western world. Anywhere.

That is flat-out incorrect.

It's also kind of weird to imply that making something illegal means it won't happen. That depends a lot on how reliably identifiable it is (not very, even with a lot of employees, in this case), whether people are actually inclined to report it, and whether anything is actually done about reports that are made.

d4rk said:
Horseshoe Theory

Far-right and far-left get closer in their methods and mindesets. Like I said before, leftist mobs regulary set cars of other parties on fire, regulary attack buildings, the police or companies here in Germany to push their view of a "open society" (limitless migration with 100% money payment). Everybody who disagrees with it gets targeted in the name of "protecting" minorities.
(Not to mention the idea of the most left party we have [the guys that shot civilians on the German-German boarder] to execute the 1% of the richest here or to put them in gulags openly)

There are also plans to teach other EU states how "moral right" politic has to look... last time somebody tried that here was 1939. Tell me, what distinguish the methods (not views) of hardcore SWJs from hardcore Nazis?

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." - Christopher Dawson

Can you provide actual examples with credible sources and prove that these are real problems? Right now you are just repeating talking points of a discredited political theory that is more of a joke than anything. The wiki page you linked provides a good example of its criticism.

I can't look up anything of what you said because you didn't mention any specific events or even the name of the party you gave as an example. I don't even know what you mean by "sjw." Is it just people that are pro-immigration? The left in general or some of its parts? The progressives or the marxists? LGBT+ advocates? People that are aggressive when advocating for minority rights on Twitter? The violent protestors? Those who take it too far? If so, how far is too far?

It's actually impossible to tell since the term is often used online to label anything progressive. It doesn't help to lump all of these things under a single word. And this conversation started from someone claiming that this website was ruined by those nebulous sjws. Like, which ones exactly? How is it ruined?

Same thing about asking what methods the "extreme" sjws and Nazis both use - I have no clue what groups of people you are talking about. I guess I haven't seen people on the left advocating for mass deportation / genocide of social minorities? Not many casualties from the left-wing extremists compared to actual Nazis either.

savageorange said:
In that case, I'll just point out that you deflected the key question and engaged in gaslighting. Is there anyone who actually thinks "advocating for civil rights, equal treatment, equal pay, and housing stability for people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups of human beings" are the methods of "hardcore SWJs"?

d4rk already cited an example of the methods of "hardcore SWJs" -- violence against political heretics (from context, presumably *strategic* violence). The question of how this differs from hardcore Nazis is, if anything, obvious.

That was not a citation, they only claimed that it's a thing that is supposedly regularly happening. It's really hard to answer something like this with no definition of sjw and no bar set for what counts as hardcore Nazism and sjw-ism(?)

So, here I'm assuming that by the hardcore Nazis and hardcore sjws we actually mean right-wing and left-wing terrorism since that's what I feel is implied by "leftist mobs regularly setting cars on fire and attacking buildings." If so, the latter is far less common, mainly targets property and institutions of power. The former is what you see in the news after another mass shooting, usually with actual casualties. This seems to be supported by this article I found. Direct link to the data
And that is ignoring the recent terror attacks. Couldn't find a better source, but here's a wiki page. Check links for June and October, there are 2 far-right terrorist attacks listed in Germany.

Another one happened last month

Anyway, maybe you meant something else by methods or you were talking about a different type of sjw, but the difference seems to be fairly clear.

CCoyote's response seems reasonable since the whole talk about sjws started as the admins giving in to their complaints (which I guess means changing the intersex tags and enforcing website rules). In this context sjw means a person with progressive views, which is what CCoyote defended. The idea that those views are connected to fascism is ridiculous.

Later on in the thread people started pushing the horseshoe talk about how sjw ideas lead to fascism until the word lost all its meaning when the "far-left mobs setting cars on fire" were brought up. Now an sjw (or "hardcore" sjw, though still no clear difference) is an active violent political extremist.

Essentially the two meanings of the word got mixed up, if they were ever distinct to begin with. So a person who supports the progressive part of "sjw ideology" is asked defend the "violent" part, the threat of which is still in question since again, no citations were given.

Seriously though, using "sjw" in 2020 is ridiculous. It can literally mean anything.

@juslookin: You have so much more patience for this than I do. Thank you for a well-reasoned, intelligent, civil, informed response.

ccoyote said:
That is flat-out incorrect.

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that. For one example the only reason us women as a whole make on average less then men do is we tend to take easier, less physically demanding and dangerous jobs. Jobs that usually result in less pay. Everyone at your local stores and franchises whether they are stocking shelves, working the registers or flipping burgers, no matter your race, gender, or age makes the same amount. Unless they've worked there longer and received raises, everyone makes the same doing the exact same job.

@cleo:

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. When women do the same work as men with the same level of skill and experience, they get paid less. That is a fact established by years and decades of research and acknowledged by executive management in most fields. (As always, there are exceptions to the rules, such as federal government employees in the USA.)

juslookin said:
[good shit]

fucking thank you, finally a voice of reason. i find it absolutely insane that people on a FURRY PORN WEBSITE (yes i know it's technically an archive) of all things, where most of us aren't even fully heterosexual, are *still* rambling on about muh SJWs, muh far left antifa are the real fascists, muh horseshoe in 2020... like come on, you realize if you use this website fascists want to kill you for being 'degenerate' right? just grow up already. and they always find a way to bring it up at irrelevant times, like here, which was supposed to be a thread about the redesign

ccoyote said:
@cleo:

That is also factually inaccurate. When women do the same work as men with the same level of skill and experience, they get paid less. That is a fact established by years and decades of research and acknowledged by executive management in most fields. (As always, there are exceptions to the rules, such as federal government employees in the USA.)

I can give you an example of why that happens as well. Lets take the women's soccer/football league which was a pretty recent thing and in the news. Yes they put the same amount of work, effort and training and get out there on the field and give it their all just like the men do and yes, they get paid far less then the men.

The reason for that is the money is just not there for them. They don't have the huge viewership, sponsers, merchandising and attendance like the men do. Sucks but it's just a fact of life. Even most women who are into soccer/football prefer watching the men play over the women. If they were paid the same amount as the men, the women's league would literally go flat broke.

It's like lets say you open up a bagel shop, you're making decent enough money to stay a float and live a comfy life but not nearly as much as the other bagel shop down the street. Your just not bringing in the customers like they do. You can't demand that you make the same amount of money per week as they do.

ccoyote said:
@cleo:

I should also add that if you look at it percentage wise, the women actually make more then the men in soccer/football. Being the amount of revenue pulled in vs salary.

d4rk said:
Horseshoe Theory

Far-right and far-left get closer in their methods and mindesets. Like I said before, leftist mobs regulary set cars of other parties on fire, regulary attack buildings, the police or companies here in Germany to push their view of a "open society" (limitless migration with 100% money payment). Everybody who disagrees with it gets targeted in the name of "protecting" minorities.
(Not to mention the idea of the most left party we have [the guys that shot civilians on the German-German boarder] to execute the 1% of the richest here or to put them in gulags openly)

There are also plans to teach other EU states how "moral right" politic has to look... last time somebody tried that here was 1939. Tell me, what distinguish the methods (not views) of hardcore SWJs from hardcore Nazis?

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." - Christopher Dawson

What is this "the means justify the ends" shit?
Guys, come on, as long as we're all CIVIL and POLITE, it doesn't matter what ideological differences we may have!
(even if those differences are on the subject of human rights)

inspection_drone_7 said:
What is this "the means justify the ends" shit?
Guys, come on, as long as we're all CIVIL and POLITE, it doesn't matter what ideological differences we may have!
(even if those differences are on the subject of human rights)

tbf the 'enlightened' centrists absolutely do have their own outlook of "the ends justify the means" they just like to reconcile this by making it seem like the suffering, immiseration, and exploitation of an underclass is some kind of divinely inevitable outcome that must be accepted, at least until *they* become personally negatively affected by the way the status quo works

@cleo: You've just described one set of jobs in a very tiny microcosm of the employment world. I did acknowledge there are exceptions to the rule, but what you've given is not the experience of the average employed woman.

This is enough politics for one thread, thank you.

nightfire said:
IDK about all that fancy web design behind the scenes but it's not rocket science to me.

As it stands the old site was sleeker and easier on the eyes with minimal (but beneficial) styling.

It's also slower to load pages by a small amount which is actually a bit aggravating.

I presume you mean post/index/ pages?
If so, that was discussed in advance, the staff eventually came down on the side of 'I don't want to see stuff I have blacklisted, even for a few seconds'. (the result being that there is some additional time spent populating the non-blacklisted thumbnails; as opposed to the old scheme, which basically did the reverse, send all the thumbnails as is and there would be a delay before the blacklisted items were hidden)

AFAICS if that is what you mean, some degree of delay is inherent in that design (although doubtless there is some room for optimization).

ccoyote said:
@cleo:

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. When women do the same work as men with the same level of skill and experience, they get paid less. That is a fact established by years and decades of research and acknowledged by executive management in most fields. (As always, there are exceptions to the rules, such as federal government employees in the USA.)

Nope. You're not gonna get paid more than me for the same job cause you have a vagina, and the fact that statistics can be confusing. Sorry.

ccoyote said:
When women do the same work as men with the same level of skill and experience, they get paid less. That is a fact established by years and decades of research and acknowledged by executive management in most fields. (As always, there are exceptions to the rules, such as federal government employees in the USA.)

Wrong. Women are paid equally. The "gender pay gap" only exists because men seek higher paying jobs. Women also are more likely to fill part-time positions. There is no sexual discrimination.

caphistas said:
Wrong. Women are paid equally. The "gender pay gap" only exists because men seek higher paying jobs. Women also are more likely to fill part-time positions. There is no sexual discrimination.

Exactly. Spot on. Raising women's pay in any would make it so they are paid more than men for the same jobs. Which would be actual sexual discrimination. Uninformed gullible people who believe the wage gap exists are dangerous. They just hear "it's for women's rights!" and that's enough for them to support it. No further research, no skepticism, no nothing. Because "you wouldn't be against woman's rights, would you?!?". The whole thing is based around ignorance, and shaming people who know better.