So recently I noticed a political picture saying "Bernie 2020" but when I went to see how many other political pictures there were I noticed someone had thier comment saying "trump 2020, change my mind" was removed please explain to me why art is ok but comments are not? I would also like to ask why me pointing out this double standard is considered trolling.
Source https://e621.net/posts/2172280#

The message I recieved was a neutral report and it said "please do not bait" my problem is I am almost positive if I had said "Bernie 2020" in the comments i would not have recieved this message is this site politically biased? should I not point out the fact that art with messages in them that could be portrayed as "baiting" are allowed but comments doing the same thing are not?

I'm pretty new idk how to use the forums let alone the site tbh so if someone could clear things up for me that would be great

I'd put it like this:

If it were a Trump pic, commenting 'Trump 2020' might not get hit. Were there any 'Bernie 2020' comments?
'Trump 2020, change my mind' -- the bold bit is the bait IMO, it's bait because political discussion is discouraged. 'Bernie 2020, change my mind' on a Bernie picture would still be bait, but slightly less so because it isn't obviously introducing conflict. On a Trump picture, the converse would be true. You aren't obviously saying "come at me bro" by merely affirming the message of the picture.

(political statements aren't necessarily approved of either, but neither are they necessarily bait.)

The art IS held to a different standard than comments. I won't attempt to fully account for that, but I will point out that making low effort shitposts is much easier if your format is text, than if your format is images which must be semi-original and of sufficient quality.

EDIT: after looking at the link (and the original post your linked comment referenced), I reaffirm the above. The original comment is bait in precisely the way I described.

savageorange said:
I'd put it like this:

If it were a Trump pic, commenting 'Trump 2020' might not get hit. Were there any 'Bernie 2020' comments?
'Trump 2020, change my mind' -- the bold bit is the bait IMO, it's bait because political discussion is discouraged. 'Bernie 2020, change my mind' on a Bernie picture would still be bait, but slightly less so because it isn't obviously introducing conflict. On a Trump picture, the converse would be true. You aren't obviously saying "come at me bro" by merely affirming the message of the picture.

(political statements aren't necessarily approved of either, but neither are they necessarily bait.)

The art IS held to a different standard than comments. I won't attempt to fully account for that, but I will point out that making low effort shitposts is much easier if your format is text, than if your format is images which must be original and of sufficient quality.

EDIT: after looking at the link (and the original post your linked comment referenced), I reaffirm the above. The original comment is bait in precisely the way I described.

No Bernie 2020 comments yet but I find it interesting how my comment gets a warning of sorts yet the clearly toxic downvoters and other comentors dont get one as well, I guess there isnt a rule for that. I like how Bernie 2020, change my mind doesnt cause conflic but "trump 2020, change my mind" does and therefore must be deleted or censored, if that's going to be the case then I dont think any politics should be allowed as that is clear favouritism, why should someone be punnished cause the opposing political side is toxic?

I am very curious to see what a trump 2020 picture would yield if it was of the same quality. As for my warning I wasnt trying to be a troll it just seemed unfair is all they should change or make a new catagory as I dont feel like what I did fits into the description I was givien.

elewd said:
No Bernie 2020 comments yet but I find it interesting how my comment gets a warning of sorts yet the clearly toxic downvoters and other comentors dont get one as well, I guess there isnt a rule for that. I like how Bernie 2020, change my mind doesnt cause conflic but "trump 2020, change my mind" does and therefore must be deleted or censored, if that's going to be the case then I dont think any politics should be allowed as that is clear favouritism, why should someone be punnished cause the opposing political side is toxic?

If you can't read what I wrote truthfully then fuck off.

The principle I described is NOT politically biased.

savageorange said:
If you can't read what I wrote truthfully then fuck off.

The principle I described is NOT politically biased.

Chill out orange, I'll go talk to him in private about it.

I mean, OK?
I'm not super bothered, I'm just pretty resolved that behaviour like that should be mercilessly cut off.

savageorange said:
If you can't read what I wrote truthfully then fuck off.

The principle I described is NOT politically biased.

Geeze ok bit of an agressive response compared to your first one, maybe I missunderstood or missread what you said but explain to me why

Bernie 2020, change my mind' on a Bernie picture would still be bait, but slightly less so because it isn't obviously introducing conflict.

It looks like to me you said that saying "bernie 2020" is less of a bait than saying "trump 2020" which sounds unfair to me

savageorange said:
I mean, OK?
I'm not super bothered, I'm just pretty resolved that behaviour like that should be mercilessly cut off.

Behaviour like what? you typed a reply I typed a reply then you told me to fuck off, what happend to being civil?

elewd said:
Behaviour like what? you typed a reply I typed a reply then you told me to fuck off, what happend to being civil?

Personally my impression was that you were first in line to answer that particular question. Because:

In the links you gave, you already received an explanation similar to the one I gave.

You then gave a completely lacking understanding of my post which really gave the impression you had not read it at all.

Thus, I concluded you were simply refusing to understand a (reasonably simple) point that had already been put to you previously.

ie. your previous behaviour is relevant here, and my impression was that putting your behaviour there and your behaviour here together, that you had crossed a line.

...

Assuming that I was wrong about that conclusion and my explanation just wasn't that clear, I'll rephrase, without some of the details I went through before:

Expressing an opinion in line with the OP picture in a given post is not obviously baiting conflict.
Expressing an opinion contrary to the OP picture in a given post IS obviously baiting conflict, especially when advocating any kind of action (hence why I bolded CHANGE MY MIND as the especially provocative element)

Which politics that favors in a given case is entirely dependent on what the OP picture in a given post is.
With a Trump-favorable OP image it would favor Trump.
With a Biden-favorable OP it would favor Biden.
With a Bernie-favorable OP, naturally, it favors Bernie.

[etc.]

As I pointed out before, this doesn't mean you won't get a record if you comment supporting the OP message in a way which is also provocative.

(it is kind of amazing to me that we even have pictures that cause this to be an issue, though)

savageorange said:
Personally my impression was that you were first in line to answer that particular question. Because:

In the links you gave, you already received an explanation similar to the one I gave.

Thus, I concluded you were simply refusing to understand a (reasonably simple) point that had already been put to you previously.

...

Assuming that I was wrong about that, I'll rephrase, without all the details I went through before:

Expressing an opinion in line with the OP picture in a given post is not obviously baiting conflict.
Expressing an opinion contrary to the OP picture in a given post IS obviously baiting conflict, especially when advocating action (hence why I bolded CHANGE MY MIND as the especially provocative element)

Which politics that favors in a given case is entirely dependent on what the OP picture in a given post is.
With a Trump-favorable OP image it would favor Trump.
With a Biden-favorable OP it would favor Biden.
With a Bernie-favorable OP, naturally, it favors Bernie.

[etc.]

(it is kind of amazing to me that we even have pictures that cause this to be an issue, though)

Sorry for the missunderstanding It just seemed like I was being targeted as I dont really comment on posts unless they are my own. Seeing such support for one political figure and such negativity towards another and then getting a warning for inquiring about something that seemed to be one sided didnt really send a clear message it just looked like bias and favouritism but I think I understand now, I also didnt like being accused of "baiting" as it wasnt my intention it was to call attention to what I thought was a double standard (which I guess is a "bait" of sorts but the incorrrect use of the word imo) thanks for clearing things up, I'm probably going to stick to non political yiff from now on all it does is cause controversy. I hate politics are in the fandom but i guess they are unavoidable

Yeah, I think I might not have moderated your message that way if it were me, but.. well, I suppose this whole episode has been a reminder of how it's hard to interpret tone on the internet, so I'm not surprised by the converse decision. Sorry for any offense caused by my hasty interpretation.

TBH staying away from political art seems like a solid bet, I haven't seen any that is actually good as art (usually verges on propaganda IMO) but we have kind of low standards here honestly.

savageorange said:
Yeah, I think I might not have moderated your message that way if it were me, but.. well, I suppose this whole episode has been a reminder of how it's hard to interpret tone on the internet, so I'm not surprised by the converse decision. Sorry for any offense caused by my hasty interpretation.

TBH staying away from political art seems like a solid bet, I haven't seen any that is actually good as art (usually verges on propaganda IMO) but we have kind of low standards here honestly.

No worries have a nice day ^_^ and thanks again for helping me, you could of been a complete asshole right from the get go but even after you went off you were still willing to be civil.

To chime in with an official voice: Political artwork is allowed, political discussion is not.

As such, two entirely different rules are applied here. Both "Trump 2020, change my mind" and "Bernie 2020, change my mind" would be dealt with in the same way as they're only said to start a political discussion.

You "pointing out" that this is a double standard is simply incorrect, as the double standard hasn't even been established yet. Nobody ever said Bernie 2020 in the comments yet, thus nobody could have gotten a record for it.
Since the rules that disallow political discussions aren't applicable to submitted images the assumption is you were trying to start drama by causing unrest with incorrect and unsubstantial claims.

The last part might have been unintentional, but it's hard to gauge intention correctly when the premise of the comment is rather dry cut incorrect.

notmenotyou said:
To chime in with an official voice: Political artwork is allowed, political discussion is not.

As such, two entirely different rules are applied here. Both "Trump 2020, change my mind" and "Bernie 2020, change my mind" would be dealt with in the same way as they're only said to start a political discussion.

You "pointing out" that this is a double standard is simply incorrect, as the double standard hasn't even been established yet. Nobody ever said Bernie 2020 in the comments yet, thus nobody could have gotten a record for it.
Since the rules that disallow political discussions aren't applicable to submitted images the assumption is you were trying to start drama by causing unrest with incorrect and unsubstantial claims.

The last part might have been unintentional, but it's hard to gauge intention correctly when the premise of the comment is rather dry cut incorrect.

This was a lot more clearer thank you, I dont agree with the rules but they wont be changing anytime soon, I think both should be allowed or none should be, images can speak just as loudly as words and it feels like a loop hole for people to post their political opinion without others being able to contest it

elewd said:
This was a lot more clearer thank you, I dont agree with the rules but they wont be changing anytime soon, I think both should be allowed or none should be, images can speak just as loudly as words and it feels like a loop hole for people to post their political opinion without others being able to contest it

e621 archives high-quality furry related images, unbiased and uncensored. Be it young content, scat or the most offensive political jokes imaginable. e621 does not archive comments. Art is the purpose, even if it's offensive, as long as it follows site rules, it stays. Comments are a bonus, if they cause drama, they get shut down. It's no more a loop hole than a book allowing characters glorifying murder, while admitting the same thing would get you yeeted into jail.