Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: Regarding hateful content

Posted under Art Talk

This topic has been locked.

By the standards of almost every TOS this side of the dark web, post #2209048 is a textbook example of hate speech, and its author Nick Bougas (AKA A. Wyatt Mann) is a known white supremacist. Predictably, the comments have been a three-way tug-of-war between people who don't understand how it was approved, "lol triggered", and those that don't like it but acknowledge it technically doesn't break any rules.

But, doesn't it?

Millcore's rationale cites the upload guidelines, which do not qualify hate speech, and the site rules, which do:

National, Racial, or Ethnic Hatred
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days
This category includes:

  • Promoting national, racial, or ethnic hatred
  • Creating posts, threads, or comments with recognized national, racial, or ethnic slurs
  • Creating posts, threads, or comments with hateful content
  • Alluding to symbols of national, racial, or ethnic hatred

This is intended to make sure people aren’t outwardly offending people’s national, racial, or ethnic pride. This is something that we need to gauge by intent, not just presentation. There are acceptable forms of art that present shock value, or an unpopular point of view, but where we need to step in is if someone is deliberately being malicious.

Note that the Glossary defines a Post as "An image or other content uploaded to e621, on the posts section of the website. Not to be confused with a 'forum post'."

Under the strictest interpretation, any upload featuring racist themes would be unacceptable, but needless to say that is not current practice; indeed, response to most tickets on the issue is typically a curt "use your blacklist". It is understandable the site would justify acceptance of ostensibly-racist content that is ironic, satirical, or "in-universe" under the auspice of artistic merit. But post #2209048 is literal hate propaganda, and the rules as they stand do not define clear public parameters for policing such content compared to more "acceptable" cases.

This appears to be because the Site Rules are intended for policing user behaviour, and are not the standards for the site entire. These instead are outlined in the Terms of Service, which as of current revision do not link either to Site Rules or Upload Guidelines, only Tagging Guidelines. Beyond complicating an easy index of The Rules, it muddies the scope of their appropriate jurisdictions: so far as I can tell, hate speech is not defined with explicit application to the entire site, ergo, hateful content is deemed permissible so long as it is not targeting the e621 user base by name.

The problem, of course, is determining what constitutes an attack short of direct and deliberate call-outs. One angry user uploading nothing but hate pieces mirroring flaming on the board is demonstrating clear intent; another that sprinkles such works in between unrelated uploads and does not wear their politics on their sleeve can make a convincing argument it's purely for posterity, even if their end motivation is the same.

I am not challenging Millcore's rationale (which was upheld by NMNY), nor am I suggesting the post uploader was acting with malicious intent. My concern is that official policy as currently written contains interpretive ambiguities that, as the description to post #2209048 seems to suggest, risk being abused by malicious rules-lawyers to push edge cases.

I created this topic for three reasons:

1) In researching this topic, including a trawl through racism, I am left without a clear definition nor identifiable precedent for what qualifies actionable hate speech in an upload beyond admin fiat;

2) As of their current revision, e621's primary rules are located in three separate locations without easy reference to each other;

3) Pursuant to 2) above, I am unclear as to whether e621 has a general policy on hate speech and discriminatory content encompassing the entire website.

tl;dr: Does e621 have a bedrock, site-wide policy on hate speech, and if so, where can we find it?

Updated by NotMeNotYou

epantsimator said:
By the standards of almost every TOS this side of the dark web, post #2209048 is a textbook example of hate speech, and its author Nick Bougas (AKA A. Wyatt Mann) is a known white supremacist. Predictably, the comments have been a three-way tug-of-war between people who don't understand how it was approved, "lol triggered", and those that don't like it but acknowledge it technically doesn't break any rules.

But, doesn't it?

Millcore's rationale cites the upload guidelines, which do not qualify hate speech, and the site rules, which do:
Note that the Glossary defines a Post as "An image or other content uploaded to e621, on the posts section of the website. Not to be confused with a 'forum post'."

Under the strictest interpretation, any upload featuring racist themes would be unacceptable, but needless to say that is not current practice; indeed, response to most tickets on the issue is typically a curt "use your blacklist". It is understandable the site would justify acceptance of ostensibly-racist content that is ironic, satirical, or "in-universe" under the auspice of artistic merit. But post #2209048 is literal hate propaganda, and the rules as they stand do not define clear public parameters for policing such content compared to more "acceptable" cases.

This appears to be because the Site Rules are intended for policing user behaviour, and are not the standards for the site entire. These instead are outlined in the Terms of Service, which as of current revision do not link either to Site Rules or Upload Guidelines, only Tagging Guidelines. Beyond complicating an easy index of The Rules, it muddies the scope of their appropriate jurisdictions: so far as I can tell, hate speech is not defined with explicit application to the entire site, ergo, hateful content is deemed permissible so long as it is not targeting the e621 user base by name.

The problem, of course, is determining what constitutes an attack short of direct and deliberate call-outs. One angry user uploading nothing but hate pieces mirroring flaming on the board is demonstrating clear intent; another that sprinkles such works in between unrelated uploads and does not wear their politics on their sleeve can make a convincing argument it's purely for posterity, even if their end motivation is the same.

I am not challenging Millcore's rationale (which was upheld by NMNY), nor am I suggesting the post uploader was acting with malicious intent. My concern is that official policy as currently written contains interpretive ambiguities that, as the description to post #2209048 seems to suggest, risk being abused by malicious rules-lawyers to push edge cases.

I created this topic for three reasons:

1) In researching this topic, including a trawl through racism, I am left without a clear definition nor identifiable precedent for what qualifies actionable hate speech in an upload beyond admin fiat;

2) As of their current revision, e621's primary rules are located in three separate locations without easy reference to each other;

3) Pursuant to 2) above, I am unclear as to whether e621 has a general policy on hate speech and discriminatory content encompassing the entire website.

tl;dr: Does e621 have a bedrock, site-wide policy on hate speech, and if so, where can we find it?

It has a policy on banning users who TYPE racist things. I like to look at blocked users out of morbid curiosity to see what they did, and I recently saw a guy who was banned for suggesting a lewd stereotype directed at an ethnicity four years ago. Seemingly that only really applies to comments on posts and posts here on the forum, and not portrayals in artwork. Even then, I could still find the comment in question so I don't think it was censored, but the mods probably leave it for source reasons.

Updated

epantsimator said:
Note that the Glossary defines a Post as "An image or other content uploaded to e621, on the posts section of the website. Not to be confused with a 'forum post'."

I think it's important to note that the phrase post, thread, comment, (and derived phrasing) is instead forum post, thread, comment, in many places on the same page.
I agree there should be less ambiguity; the rules page should be looked over and anywhere that post is in fact supposed to read as forum post it should be corrected, and post on its own should be reserved for image posts, as defined in the glossary section.

It makes more sense to read this simply as an oversight by whomever wrote the passages using the former, than to assume that post, thread, comment and forum post, thread, comment are intended as distinct cases.
If you look at some of the edit history, you can see some places where forum has been added where it was missing.

Updated

magnuseffect said:
It makes more sense to read this simply as an oversight by whomever wrote the passages using the former, than to assume that post, thread, comment and forum post, thread, comment are intended as distinct cases.

I'm not so sure. EDFDarkAngel1, TonyCoon (former staff) and DasaDevil (active admin) implied it covers uploads, though the definition of "intent" is still left to interpretation.

felix_nermix said:
So you want this site to ban anything that does not align with your views.

That's not what they said. Stop trying to derail or highjack the conversation with oversimplifications.

ccoyote said:

felix_nermix said:
So you want this site to ban anything that does not align with your views.

That's not what they said. Stop trying to derail or highjack the conversation with oversimplifications.

Sorry. Please check this link.

bitwolfy said:
Hey, that's a very interesting point. Here's something else that you might want to check out
Also, check out this link. Pretty interesting read.
How about this one? Worth a look.
Or this one. Could be interesting too.

Am I doing this right? Is this how you win arguments?

No, i do not always do that.

Now, in my own words: Someone will claim something, and actually be right, but failing to take account other details. There is something called black supremacism, also there is asian supremacism, and the list can go on. There is a Victoria beer advertisement broadcasted in Mexico in 2019 that one could say advocate mestizo supremacism, it seems like no one cared. If any company broadcasted a similar advertisement in the USA and just changed mestizo (brown) beer for light beer, it will cause people to get angry and boycott that company. See the double standard?

felix_nermix said:
No, i do not always do that.

Now, in my own words: Someone will claim something, and actually be right, but failing to take account other details. There is something called black supremacism, also there is asian supremacism, and the list can go on. There is a Victoria beer advertisement broadcasted in Mexico in 2019 that one could say advocate mestizo supremacism, it seems like no one cared. If any company broadcasted a similar advertisement in the USA and just changed mestizo (brown) beer for light beer, it will cause people to get angry and boycott that company. See the double standard?

Does any of this have thread relevance? I don't recall anyone in this thread positing that statements about any specific ethnicity do or do not qualify as hate speech.
The question is whether hate speech is allowed as a core element of a site post. Whether the OP even holds the beliefs that you're assigning to them isn't relevant, because they haven't been made a part of this argument.

Updated

magnuseffect said:
Does any of this have thread relevance? I don't recall anyone in this thread positing that statements about any specific ethnicity do or do not qualify as hate speech.
The question is whether hate speech is allowed as a core element of a site post. Whether the OP even holds the beliefs that you're assigning to them isn't relevant, because they haven't been made a part of this argument.

What is hate speech anyway? You say X about Y , and Alice thiks it is hateful, but Bob does not. Conversely, you say X about Z , and Bob thinks it is hateful, but Alice does not. If Alice and Bob agree about something regarding Y or Z , someone will still find it hateful.

felix_nermix said:
What is hate speech anyway?

National, Racial, or Ethnic Hatred
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days
This category includes:

Promoting national, racial, or ethnic hatred
Creating posts, threads, or comments with recognized national, racial, or ethnic slurs
Creating posts, threads, or comments with hateful content
Alluding to symbols of national, racial, or ethnic hatred

This is intended to make sure people aren’t outwardly offending people’s national, racial, or ethnic pride. This is something that we need to gauge by intent, not just presentation. There are acceptable forms of art that present shock value, or an unpopular point of view, but where we need to step in is if someone is deliberately being malicious.

A better question would be "What is malice, anyway?"
Maybe that is the essence of the discussion here. The bolded passage would imply that creating an image post featuring National, Racial, or Ethnic Hatred with malicious intent is in fact in breach of site rule.

It's also worth pointing out the discussion doesn't seem to be about keeping the content or not; but the following:

epantsimator said:
The problem, of course, is determining what constitutes an attack short of direct and deliberate call-outs. One angry user uploading nothing but hate pieces mirroring flaming on the board is demonstrating clear intent; another that sprinkles such works in between unrelated uploads and does not wear their politics on their sleeve can make a convincing argument it's purely for posterity, even if their end motivation is the same.

I am not challenging Millcore's rationale (which was upheld by NMNY), nor am I suggesting the post uploader was acting with malicious intent. My concern is that official policy as currently written contains interpretive ambiguities that, as the description to post #2209048 seems to suggest, risk being abused by malicious rules-lawyers to push edge cases.

the definition of "intent" is still left to interpretation.

My current interpretation is that this thread is an inquiry into the possibility of somebody camouflaging their genuine malice by sprinkling relevant content sparingly alongside regular content. It would certainly be difficult to ascertain if there were nothing but descriptionless uploads in the users history, or if everything was heavily laced with satire.

The administration have made it clear that such content is allowed on the site, but whether a given user can post it depends upon their motive for doing so.

felix_nermix said:
Why do you think anyone thinking that stuff like post #2209048 is okay is a right winger?

Just gonna point out you're currently assigning definite meaning (whether accurate or inaccurate) to indefinite language.
Is it okay for you to judge the context of a statement, but not for others to do the same?

I'll point out again the OP isn't even asking for the deletion of the post in question, this is a thread about what the site rules mean. They used phrasing such as literal hate propaganda, but by established site definitions that is a factual statement about the subject matter and shouldn't necessarily be read as opinion. Whether it is also opinion is irrelevant.
They're not even talking about trying to tighten site rules, only about how the current rules apply.

Can't wait to see what political positioning you assign to me based entirely on this post.

Updated

magnuseffect said:

felix_nermix said:
Why do you think anyone thinking that stuff like post #2209048 is okay is a right winger?

Just gonna point out you're currently assigning definite meaning (whether accurate or inaccurate) to indefinite language.
Is it okay for you to judge the context of a statement, but not for others to do the same?

Sorry for that, i was busy and added a "Why" for some reason.

I just realised i was being a bit toxic. Now that i cleaned up my mind, what i was trying to say was:
I think everyone should be able to express their opinion regardless of how hurtful it could be. After all, ideas alone can not physically harm you. As long as you do not mistreat anyone, there should be no problem. For me, free speech means that everyone may say whatever they want to say, as long as they do not force others to listen.
As for e621 ; i think posts like post #2209048 should be tagged as hateful content and not safe for feelings, so users can add it to their respective blacklist.
By the way, i do not use my blacklist.

felix_nermix said:
I just realised i was being a bit toxic. Now that i cleaned up my mind, what i was trying to say was:
I think everyone should be able to express their opinion regardless of how hurtful it could be.

That's easy to say when you're not the target of those opinions.

After all, ideas alone can not physically harm you. As long as you do not mistreat anyone, there should be no problem.

Yes, emphatically, they can. Furthermore, people mistreat other people based on misguided opinions every stinking day.

For me, free speech means that everyone may say whatever they want to say, as long as they do not force others to listen.

That doesn't mean websites like e621 have to give them platforms to spew their racist, bigoted ideas.

As for e621 ; i think posts like post #2209048 should be tagged as hateful content and not safe for feelings, so users can add it to their respective blacklist.

"Not safe for feelings" is not less toxic. We can see you blowing the dog whistle.

Your entire post lacks understanding of the topic, empathy for other people, and nuance for the subjects being discussed.

[Edited for grammar and clarity.]

Updated

bitwolfy said:
This argument is often used by specific kinds of people - those who incidentally believe that stuff like post #2209048 is perfectly okay - to try and push their disgusting beliefs upon others.

Fascinating stuff

"Bad person did a thing, so it's bad for you to do that thing" is not a good argument.

ccoyote said:
Yes, emphatically, they can. Furthermore, people mistreat other people based on misguided opinions every stinking day.

Putting these ideas out in the open by itself does not harm anyone. You assume that for these ideas to be openly exposed is to perpetuate them but that's not always the case. You shouldn't be afraid to shine a light on something as stupid as racism, unless you actually believe the arguments for it are more compelling than yours.

Updated

bitwolfy said:
This argument is often used by specific kinds of people - those who incidentally believe that stuff like post #2209048 is perfectly okay - to try and push their disgusting beliefs upon others.

Fascinating stuff

Maybe instead of banning and censoring extremist beliefs because they are considered "hate speech", we should discuss and argue with those people about why they believe that and try to persuade them to changing their beliefs? Because BTFOing them off of the Internet will only make them think they are in the right and won't change how they think, they will just post their views on less mainstream platforms.

Wtf happened in here?? Wildly off topic.

I recognize several of you from the FA forum topic on whether we will survive another Drumpf term... Do some of you literally spend all day seeking out politics and arguing?? Does being combative to obvious trolls avail you anything or change their mind? Obviously not, because they aren't open to changing their mind. They are here to metaphorically poke a bear with a stick for amusement and nothing else.

fenrick said: "Bad person did a thing, so it's bad for you to do that thing" is not a good argument.

If bad people tend to do a thing, then it stands to reason that someone who gleefully does a thing is a bad person.

randomguy85 said: try to persuade them to changing their beliefs

It is very naive of you to think that arguing with someone over the internet has ever, EVER led to them changing their beliefs.
They already think they are completely in the right. Purging them from mainstream platforms simply makes said platforms a more pleasant place to visit for the rest of us.

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts going on about free speech it's always "we have to protect the poor racists and homophobes!"?

Like, the ToS contains a lot of other stuff we're not allowed to talk about. We can't talk about politics, drugs, bestiality, or religion either, but you notice none of those are ever pointed out. No, it's the outright bigotry that people jump straight to defending.

Perhaps we shouldn't be worrying about hypothetical situations. The site admins will take action if they feel it is necessary to take action.

Anyone who does not want to be exposed to offensive points of views can decide to not be exposed to such content. If anyone decides to upload grossly racist material without tagging racism suggests malicious intent or at least an ignorant or insensitive view on how it might affect others. It would be difficult to effectively victimize those who truly don't want to be exposed to that content.

clawdragons said:
Ever notice that whenever anyone starts going on about free speech it's always "we have to protect the poor racists and homophobes!"?

Like, the ToS contains a lot of other stuff we're not allowed to talk about. We can't talk about politics, drugs, bestiality, or religion either, but you notice none of those are ever pointed out. No, it's the outright bigotry that people jump straight to defending.

Out come the go-to "isms and phobes". No one is defending the message that the art sends but the ToS doesn't apply to artwork for any of those examples either. I've seen tons of political satire images, drugs in images, drawn bestiality, and religion based content on here. I won't tell you how to 'feel' about something, but censorship based on "muh feelings! I'm UFFENDED!! Reeeeeee!" is a very slippery 90 degree slope covered in crisco because I've seen things that here that made my blood boil, including the controversial image above. But I'm glad I now know WHO made it so I can blacklist them and avoid them like the plague, as the site is designed. I do agree we should have a hateful content tag, but I am glad I can use their lack of anonymity to shun them.

Of course I fully expect to be branded an ism or phobe as well for defending their right to out themselves as a person I'd like to avoid altogether. Otherwise they would be able to hold their hateful beliefs in peace and anonymity and that helps no one to avoid or shun it.

sh1tzor said:
Out come the go-to "isms and phobes". No one is defending the message that the art sends

Then why are you getting so upset that I called the message of the art racism? You've immediately jumped to taking that as a personal attack. If I call an obviously, overtly, intentionally racist thing racist, and your instant reaction is "I bet you'd call me racist then", how am I supposed to interpret that?

Honestly my earlier post wasn't even directed at you at all because you weren't one of the ones dogwhistling up a storm. If you're so hilariously upset by hearing the word "racist" and "homophobe" maybe you ought to leave the discussion of how we ought to deal with such content to the people who can handle it.

---

As to whether this site should host content like that listed in the OP, I'm of the opinion that, in addition to the image being ultra racist, it shouldn't really be considered site-relevant to begin with. Yes, it's got an animal in it. So does every political cartoon that has a donkey or an elephant in it. It clearly wasn't made as furry art, and since e621 is an archive of furry art, that means it's not site-relevant.

I've expressed this opinion before in other contexts. For instance, when bring up not accepting content featuring elves, or other basically-human-humanoids. Basically, I think approvals ought to actually consider the intent and audience of a piece of art. The world we interact with is not primarily one of objects but of concepts. In attempting to hold so strongly to an "objective" standard, you're not being more reasonable, you're being intentionally obtuse.

Should racist images be allowed on the site? I don't know. Should that particular racist image be allowed on the site? No.

Newgrounds has a rule that I really like: along with all of the normal rules they have, you also get banned if you attempt to smart-ass your way around the rules. That's literally the wording, "Attempting to smartass your way around these rules" is bannable.

I'm not saying e621 necessarily needs a rule like that, but if it had it, the post in the OP would certainly apply. Especially with that description, "Heh, I guess this technically qualifies, right? Bet you stupid-heads won't take this one down!"

harrybenson said:
Newgrounds has a rule that I really like: along with all of the normal rules they have, you also get banned if you attempt to smart-ass your way around the rules. That's literally the wording, "Attempting to smartass your way around these rules" is bannable.

I'm not saying e621 necessarily needs a rule like that, but if it had it, the post in the OP would certainly apply. Especially with that description, "Heh, I guess this technically qualifies, right? Bet you stupid-heads won't take this one down!"

Such a rule is very subjective, and I believe e621 rules are specifically made to be as objective as possible.

bitwolfy said:
If bad people tend to do a thing, then it stands to reason that someone who gleefully does a thing is a bad person.

So like... drinking water, wearing clothes, and breathing are off the table? Where do we draw the line to decide when something that bad people happen to do is wrong because they're the ones doing it? Is it only when they do something which we already disagree with? That would be awfully convenient. If you actually think something's wrong to do, it should be because you disagree with the principles of that action, not because bad people also do that thing sometimes.

clawdragons said:

Like, the ToS contains a lot of other stuff we're not allowed to talk about. We can't talk about politics, drugs, bestiality, or religion either, but you notice none of those are ever pointed out. No, it's the outright bigotry that people jump straight to defending.

The other guy got way off topic but he had a point when he mentioned those things are all allowed in images, just not comments, and that doesn't really tend to inspire these kinds of threads. But no, that particular image wasn't really furry.

Updated

fenrick said:
The other guy got way off topic but he had a point when he mentioned those things are all allowed in images, just not comments, and that doesn't really tend to inspire these kinds of threads. But no, that particular image wasn't really furry.

I DO go off on tangents sometimes, but wouldn't the primate's anthropomorphic ability to speak particularly and form (highly irrational) thoughts technically qualify as a form of furry similar to any number of talking ferals(Simba, Jenna, Bolt, Spirit, etc) out there? Furry is such a broad term when something as simple as humanizing the eyes and adding human-like intellect can be anthropomorphic but it IS very iffy. I wonder if this can be banned under those reasons either, but I think we should all take a second to blacklist it and the artists alias.

I sure did.

I for one am glad this site doesn't content police beyond checking if a post is animal-related. While I don't care for the image you made this forum post about, it stands as a testament to e621's uncompromising stance on freedom of artistic expression. Art is granted the right to be beautiful, arousing, and inspiring. But it can also be ugly, disgusting, and offensive. Art showcases our better angels, our grandest dreams and noblest aspirations. But it also lays bare the worst of human and animal experience, the dark side of nature, the hateful and malicious stuff. Art can trigger strong emotional reactions. Some would argue this is the hallmark of truly great art. And some of us not only don't mind feeling the full gamut but actively seek out evocative work, not just colorful eye candy.

The admins have performed their duties in this case without bias as is expected. It is incumbent upon us to use the blacklist this site has gifted us if we don't wish to feel a certain way. It's a small ask which also happens to be a rule.

It does feel a bit... loophole-y if people can just say whatever they want as long as it's in the form of an upload.

Given that a) in most cases, the uploader of an artist's work is not the artist themself, b) we have quality standards which prevent you from just uploading whatever, and c) duplicate posts are not permitted, I question the premise that people can use uploads to say whatever they want.

I'm not saying it's likely, but in theory, anyone who's decent at doodling could draw some character saying whatever in god's name.

strikerman said:
I'm not saying it's likely, but in theory, anyone who's decent at doodling could draw some character saying whatever in god's name.

savageorange said:
Given that a) in most cases, the uploader of an artist's work is not the artist themself, b) we have quality standards which prevent you from just uploading whatever, and c) duplicate posts are not permitted, I question the premise that people can use uploads to say whatever they want.

Let me play devil's advocate...

And therein lies the issue. Nothing was "said". And even if the words were banned, a solely visual picture can say more than a hundred words can. For instance, what if the image above contained no words at all, but used pictograms instead? Then it wouldn't be "saying anything" and that questionable piece would still be protected even with a new rule against "hateful content" on the books.

clawdragons said:
Ever notice that whenever anyone starts going on about free speech it's always "we have to protect the poor racists and homophobes!"?

Like, the ToS contains a lot of other stuff we're not allowed to talk about. We can't talk about politics, drugs, bestiality, or religion either, but you notice none of those are ever pointed out. No, it's the outright bigotry that people jump straight to defending.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But the topic is actually about allowing certain images. There are thousands of bestiality and drugs images, and a few hundred overt politics images.

The rules don't actually ban talking about the existence of bestiality, illegal drugs, or crimes. You just can't advocate for doing them or expose your level of creepiness.

epantsimator said:
its author Nick Bougas (AKA A. Wyatt Mann) is a known white supremacist.

Identity of the artist shouldn't matter. Roman Polanski, Adolf Hitler the III, or whomever should be able to upload here as long as they follow they uploading guidelines.

References to "post" in the rules could be changed to "comment" to avoid confusion.

strikerman said:
It does feel a bit... loophole-y if people can just say whatever they want as long as it's in the form of an upload.

I'm not saying it's likely, but in theory, anyone who's decent at doodling could draw some character saying whatever in god's name.

It is a good hole. The default should be to permit more speech, not less.

strikerman said:
Does that extend to comments?

Comments are already covered under several rules. A lot more offensive material is allowed in image uploads because that is the point of the site, not users getting into heated multi-paragraph arguments with each other in the comment sections.

If we had quality artists drawing good art just to argue with each other or preach, that would be amusing. But that is rare and the rules are mostly for user interactions.

honestly racism and bigotry is acceptable to a lot of people here, seeing as they're not the ones who have to experience their lives being damaged by it, there's way too many edgelords here that would never do anything about any social issue until it starts to affect them

also free speech doesn't mean you can't be banned from an internet forum for being an asshole, it just means the government can't arrest you

iceink said:
honestly racism and bigotry is acceptable to a lot of people here, seeing as they're not the ones who have to experience their lives being damaged by it, there's way too many edgelords here that would never do anything about any social issue until it starts to affect them

also free speech doesn't mean you can't be banned from an internet forum for being an asshole, it just means the government can't arrest you

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, does living that trauma and having my life damaged by resulting PTSD entitle me to ask that explicit shota/loli content be scrubbed? No. I would never ask for that despite being 'affected' especially because I can blacklist it. It should be clear that the artist is a TROLL and attention seeker wanting a rise out of people and has far more control over some individuals' emotional states than I would be comfortable giving. Aside from that real-life forms of racism are a far more pressing issue than a big bad internet image on a furry porn site that let's you blacklist your own content anyway, so priorities?

If every piece of content someone finds offensive is purged, the site would be devoid of content.

sh1tzor said:
As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, does living that trauma and having my life damaged by resulting PTSD entitle me to ask that explicit shota/loli content be scrubbed? No. I would never ask for that despite being 'affected' especially because I can blacklist it. It should be clear that the artist is a TROLL and attention seeker wanting a rise out of people and has far more control over some individuals' emotional states than I would be comfortable giving. Aside from that real-life forms of racism are a far more pressing issue than a big bad internet image on a furry porn site that let's you blacklist your own content anyway, so priorities?

If every piece of content someone finds offensive is purged, the site would be devoid of content.

so? so am I. That doesn't give you a right to talk down over other victims to diminish their harm and suggest that nothing be done to mitigate it. Imagine if there were a street where every fourth person who walked down it was raped, and the people getting raped said 'police should patrol this area because there's sexual predators!' but the three people who walked down that street the same day shout 'no no! I was never raped and I walked down that street multiple times!' who are you going to listen to? cp stuff shouldn't be around because it's used to groom children, and anyone who defends that stuff always seems creepy to normal people anyways. if it's so obvious that someone is a troll, than uhm, ban them? trolling is supposed to be prohibited, but besides, not doing anything is still creating more problems than it would solve to get rid of them, you're basically just condoning their trolling at that point

iceink said:
so? so am I. That doesn't give you a right to talk down over other victims to diminish their harm and suggest that nothing be done to mitigate it. Imagine if there were a street where every fourth person who walked down it was raped, and the people getting raped said 'police should patrol this area because there's sexual predators!' but the three people who walked down that street the same day shout 'no no! I was never raped and I walked down that street multiple times!' who are you going to listen to? cp stuff shouldn't be around because it's used to groom children, and anyone who defends that stuff always seems creepy to normal people anyways. if it's so obvious that someone is a troll, than uhm, ban them? trolling is supposed to be prohibited, but besides, not doing anything is still creating more problems than it would solve to get rid of them, you're basically just condoning their trolling at that point

Okay so, let's dissect your points one by one.

1) Harm? What tangible harm is caused by an image online? The only harm caused is what you allow it to. You give that person both the power to harm you and others by drawing attention to it. If no one cared, this person would be another anonymous blip on e621 and nothing else, but the attention that artist garnered by YOUR reactions, including this thread post, ensures that there are now dozens more people who know their name, even if it's just infamy or notoriety. Bad publicity is publicity.

2) Comparing moderators on a furry porn site to police is disingenuous, because none of them are in danger of getting shot for your right to live, and no one is getting raped here. Again, if it weren't for this thread hanging a big matinee sign over that post, it would be nothing but obscurity, and if users use the blacklist like they are supposed to, no 'naughty content' police would be needed. Aside from that, anyone with any sense can see the content is prejudiced without someone censoring it.

You leave that up, so people can see their prejudice and judge them for it.

3)Shota/Loli/Cub art may not be my cup of tea, and may trigger my PTSD, but it's definitely not comparable to child porn which is not allowed on e621. No one is tangibly hurt by shota/loli/cub and I'm okay with it existing. If it's creepy to defend an artist's right to post what they want, no matter how vile I find it, then I'm proud to be creepy.

4)Ban who? The artist? Or uploader? If we remove the post, the artist will get to be anonymous again, rather than having outed themselves as prejudiced. I'd rather their dumb artwork remain here so people can know who that is, and judge them for it.

5) It's not technically racism by the progressive definition, which implies specifically institutionalized racism. This is just a poorly drawn representation of an angry bitter man's prejudicial beliefs. Prejudice? Yes. Racism? No.

6) No one is condoning their trolling. That is like implying a public defense lawyer condones the actions their client is accused of because they are sworn to defend them. In this case, I am pointing out that censorship doesn't benefit your cause or solve REAL racism, no rules were violated, the newly proposed rule of applying comment guidelines to posts can also easily be skirted, and your content may be next to be censored by someone who is sensitive to it. And hey, what right would you have to talk down over their reasons to be offended by your content?

I won't stop you from burying your head in the sand, but here's an idea: Use. Your. Blacklist! That would mitigate the problem from ever arising again~ ;D

The Town Square and the Museum

Here's an analogy that might help. Imagine there's a monument in a town square that no longer aligns with the townspeople's values. The townsfolk come together and decide the monument should be removed, so visitors don't get the wrong impression and a new, more representative monument can take its place. But what to do with the old monument? "Do we destroy it?" they ponder. No, instead they decide to move the old monument to a museum, so anyone can go see it and learn about the town's history. This site is like the museum, not the town square. The purpose is preservation and retrieval, not promotion. Artists do use this site to promote their work (including the ideologies/fetishes therein), but that's beside the point.

Updated

sh1tzor said:
Okay so, let's dissect your points one by one.

1) Harm? What tangible harm is caused by an image online? The only harm caused is what you allow it to.

victim blaming 101

2) Comparing moderators on a furry porn site to police is disingenuous,

not rly, they both have to exercise authority to prevent inappropriate behavior

No one is tangibly hurt by shota/loli/cub and I'm okay with it existing. If it's creepy to defend an artist's right to post what they want, no matter how vile I find it, then I'm proud to be creepy.

uhm this is 100% wrong, pls learn what grooming is, there are definitely artists of this type who have used their art to groom and prey on children. And you do seem very creepy for defending that behavior.

4)Ban who? The artist? Or uploader? If we remove the post, the artist will get to be anonymous again,

good, they should die in obscurity

5) It's not technically racism by the progressive definition, which implies specifically institutionalized racism.

what makes you think progressives only care about institutional racism and only stop there? that's just a senseless assertion

6) No one is condoning their trolling. That is like implying a public defense lawyer condones the actions their client is accused of because they are sworn to defend them. In this case, I am pointing out that censorship doesn't benefit your cause or solve REAL racism

it's not censorship. enforcing rules and banning obnoxious people from a site isn't censorship. Site owners are allowed to enforce any rules they like, don't like it, leave.

I won't stop you from burying your head in the sand, but here's an idea: Use. Your. Blacklist! That would mitigate the problem from ever arising again~ ;D

rules that concern user behavior are enforced because they're about sustaining a certain set of sensibilities and conduct that the community finds acceptable. Saying 'just black list it' doesnt rly apply here because it's more than just some kink content, it's a type of objectively bad and harmful belief system (racism) which is encouraged in your community if you allow it. It's basically saying 'it's okay for you to be racist here, and we encourage more racists on this site'

if a site wants to do that, I guess they can, but hey, dont be surprised if there's criticism over that, cuz it's a shitty thing to do

iceink said:
also free speech doesn't mean you can't be banned from an internet forum for being an asshole, it just means the government can't arrest you

Free speech is an ideal which is not limited strictly to the first amendment of the US constitution.

Anyway, I'd be right with you if I had literally any reason to believe that this image being on this site is actually, genuinely causing anyone real harm, that can even remotely be compared to any traumatic experience. You say it like it's just self-evident that it greatly hurts people, but it's clearly not so obvious to everyone else given the disagreement here, so maybe an explanation beyond calling people victim blamers is in order. I'm not being disingenuous, I just really do not see it. We looked at cartoons like that in my school textbooks, and for good reason.

The reaction to the image was not exactly positive. I doubt that the image existing on this site is leading to a net increase in racism. So what, really, is hurting people? The fact that the image is here at all, that it even exists on the internet? The ADL archives racist images while dissecting them and I doubt that's perpetuating racism. Pretty much everyone recognized it as stupid and bigoted, and to me, that seems like it should be the endgoal, not something to be avoided. Everyone immediately seeing this stuff for the idiocy it is and dismissing it. Exposing these kinds of things doesn't seem so bad when it's clearly lost in the court of public opinion. There is no reason to want it gone unless you think it's actually more convincing than what others have to say.

Updated

fenrick said:
The ADL archives racist images while dissecting them and I doubt that's perpetuating racism.

Yes, such racist symbols like It's Okay To Be White and the OK hand gesture, which both, in their origin, are not racist symbols, but thanks to 4chan's trolling campaign, they've been successfully made to look like genuine hateful symbols, and they have been classified as such due to them being used a few exempt times by actual racists. Hell, they even used a cropped photo of Brenton Tarrant as an example of the OK hand gesture. You know, the shooter that planned out his whole attack to make as many vague associations for the media to rage about as possible, including the hand sign, and the "Subscribe to PewDiePie" meme. They took the bait, which is what the shooter wanted to happen. And let's be honest, like with news articles, people won't read into the specifics of those symbols, and will only see a vague summary of them on their website and assume that these are exclusively hateful symbols. And ironically, the Anti Defamation League uses defamation to force people to comply with their demands, like with their recent campaign against Steam. So all in all, they aren't a trustworthy organization to begin with.

fenrick said:
Free speech is an ideal which is not limited strictly to the first amendment of the US constitution.

and it literally doesn't work the way you think it does: allowing everyone to say *anything* doesn't actually promote free speech, it stifles it, because people who otherwise would have spoken out against bigotry stop doing so out of fear of retaliation. Please understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you don't tolerate the intolerant.

Everyone immediately seeing this stuff for the idiocy it is and dismissing it. Exposing these kinds of things doesn't seem so bad when it's clearly lost in the court of public opinion. There is no reason to want it gone unless you think it's actually more convincing than what others have to say.

"Those anti-racists are just secretly convinced by this racist image that it's right, that's why they want it destroyed!!"

seriously this is one of the most naive things I've seen written.

not everyone *IS* seeing this stuff as idiocy, there a people who absolutely are convinced that some races are genetically, ethically, and culturally superior to others. With disinformation and propaganda absolutely anyone can be convinced of anything, and you are not immune to it. Through the right emotional manipulation, someone can be convinced to give away all their personal and financial information to that prince from Nigeria that emailed you. By carefully leveraging political power and influencing the masses with rhetoric, people can be convinced that a tiny minority of the population with practically no social and legal power and rights is engaged in a vast conspiracy to take over an entire society and needed to be stopped through genocide.

The paradox of tolerance is not and cannot be an argument, it's a paradox. If you think it advocates anything, you haven't understood it.

It's purely a description of a paradoxical situation that exists. There is no solution, that's why it's a paradox.

iceink said:
and it literally doesn't work the way you think it does: allowing everyone to say *anything* doesn't actually promote free speech, it stifles it, because people who otherwise would have spoken out against bigotry stop doing so out of fear of retaliation. Please understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you don't tolerate the intolerant.

It's always the paradox of tolerance. Why does everyone always completely ignore what Popper was actually trying to say with that?

Karl Popper:
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

That does not sound like it goes against what I said at all, in fact it seems that it would support what I said more than anything else. That quote is about running into problems when you give people literally unlimited tolerance when things get to the point of actual, physical violence. It's not about people saying intolerant things. Popper was a huge advocate of the court of public opinion idea.

not everyone *IS* seeing this stuff as idiocy, there a people who absolutely are convinced that some races are genetically, ethically, and culturally superior to others. With disinformation and propaganda absolutely anyone can be convinced of anything, and you are not immune to it. Through the right emotional manipulation, someone can be convinced to give away all their personal and financial information to that prince from Nigeria that emailed you. By carefully leveraging political power and influencing the masses with rhetoric, people can be convinced that a tiny minority of the population with practically no social and legal power and rights is engaged in a vast conspiracy to take over an entire society and needed to be stopped through genocide.

While this is true, I do not see how it is relevant to something like that particular image. I just cannot believe that someone finding that garbage on e621 is going to be what sows the seeds of doubt. Someone would have to already have been pretty far gone already for that to register as anything but ridiculous. At that point it doesn't really matter whether it's here or not.

uhm that's ridiculous, if you're waiting until the point physical violence happens, you waited way way too long because that violence is already justified in the culture that spread the idea that the violence was accepted, and now you can't do *anything* to stop it, besides the violence is already happening and has been happening for a long time, why do you think police who have killed or arrested people just because of their race or sexual orientation have just been left unpunished so many times in the history of the US?

savageorange said:
The paradox of tolerance is not and cannot be an argument, it's a paradox. If you think it advocates anything, you haven't understood it.

It's purely a description of a paradoxical situation that exists. There is no solution, that's why it's a paradox.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what the purpose of the concept of "the paradox of tolerance" is and the fact that the name despite being "the paradox" carries very little relevance to its intent.

It's a thesis. That means it is an argument in and of itself.

The entire statement is a philosophical argument and debate point over the lines that must be drawn to maintain a functioning and healthy society structure and keeping the strata intact.

Id really recommend looking it up and how it works, it's a fascinating discussion piece.

Either way the statement "a paradox" (which this isn't actually) cannot be used to discuss or advocate things is fallacious at best and at worst malicious and deceptive.

Especially when in this explicit case it IS a specific thesis on advocating for limits to be placed for the perpetuity of functional society.

demesejha said:

It's a thesis. That means it is an argument in and of itself.

It's arguing the case that things exist in a certain state. I agree with the argument, but that doesn't mean that it can be used to further another argument, particularly if it is a genuine paradox.

Id really recommend looking it up and how it works, it's a fascinating discussion piece.

I've read it multiple times. Not opposed to reading it again, just wanted to make it clear your assumption is wrong.

Either way the statement "a paradox" (which this isn't actually) cannot be used to discuss or advocate things is fallacious at best and at worst malicious and deceptive.

It's clear that Popper didn't think the situation he described was an actual paradox, but I doubt that it is not a paradox in practice
(since 99% of the people I've seen citing Paradox of Tolerance stand out starkly as the least tolerant person in the conversation, and typically they make their motive quite obvious -- 'people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me on X and Y, which I have infallible insight into').

Obviously that's only anecdotal evidence, but I have zero reason to trust that someone citing Paradox of Tolerance as an argument is trying to do anything other than enforce the flavour of bigotry they particularly favour (and thus be on the opposite side of the equation as the one they present themselves as being on).

Probably the most proper way to put what I am trying to say is, citing Paradox of Tolerance (which is invariably framed as an attempt to maintain a tolerant society) seems to be in practice a performative contradiction.

Updated

iceink said:
victim blaming 101

not rly, they both have to exercise authority to prevent inappropriate behavior

uhm this is 100% wrong, pls learn what grooming is, there are definitely artists of this type who have used their art to groom and prey on children. And you do seem very creepy for defending that behavior.

good, they should die in obscurity

what makes you think progressives only care about institutional racism and only stop there? that's just a senseless assertion

it's not censorship. enforcing rules and banning obnoxious people from a site isn't censorship. Site owners are allowed to enforce any rules they like, don't like it, leave.

rules that concern user behavior are enforced because they're about sustaining a certain set of sensibilities and conduct that the community finds acceptable. Saying 'just black list it' doesnt rly apply here because it's more than just some kink content, it's a type of objectively bad and harmful belief system (racism) which is encouraged in your community if you allow it. It's basically saying 'it's okay for you to be racist here, and we encourage more racists on this site'

if a site wants to do that, I guess they can, but hey, dont be surprised if there's criticism over that, cuz it's a shitty thing to do

I can't even begin to unpack this box of nope. Ready for TL;DR?

No one is a "victim" of a DRAWING. That is not grounded in reality. The worst it can do is make you feel rage, or give you a papercut and that is more power than it deserves. ^w^ It's typical progressive playbook to try and put responsibility on a site or media for the content users post to essentially BLACKMAIL them into censoring.

I'd say I know what grooming is since it fucking happened to me... but you sure presume a lot about me. No one is hurt by taboo art, and that is from a victim of childhood sexual abuse who has that shit on their blacklist. There is no evidence to indicate that art of that nature leads to abuse, and I strongly believe you pulled that suspect statement right from where the California sun won't shine. That's like saying furry porn leads to zoophilia. If a person is effed up enough to do it eventually, they were already broken before coming into contact with that media. Also, maybe parents should have a little more involvement in their child's online activities to begin with, but using drawn porn as an outlet is a far healthier alternative than the real thing. Period. What's more creepy is how some leftist wants to police what kind of porn and images private citizens can view in their free time. What vested interest do you have in people's fetishes? xD Seems a little more creepy to me.

Disagree, they should be recognized everywhere they go for their stupidity, because they outed themselves as prejudiced. Would you want that person getting a job at YOUR locality because they aren't a KNOWN racist? Hiding a problem does not fix it. You may as well just drywall over some leaky pipes and pretend everything is okay so your fee fees aren't hurt, but then it just stagnates and gets worse while your head is buried in the sand.

Progressives don't care about anything but personal clout and retweets. I've seen how they behave on sites like Ferzu and it's funny to watch them cannibalize each other and throw one another under the bus for a few likes. I mean, do you actually believe removal of that image would fix the problems POC actually care about? Housing inequity, being shot by LEOs, being followed around the store, etc? No they don't, you just want to censor for your own jollies because you know you have no real power in your life and that scares you. Shyte, you can't even control your emotions when looking at poorly drawn art some
prejudiced trailer junkie jotted down to get a rise out of you.

It IS censorship, because no rules were violated and therefore there is no rule to 'enforce'. What you are asking for is the mods to arbitrarily and selectively enforce a rule you want made so you can impose your own narrow artistic viewpoints on others when a system is in place to vet content you don't like already. No amount of twisting can feng shui this around on me. But you're right, the site owners are allowed to enforce any rules they like, and in this case they chose not to enforce yours and I support their decision 100%. Speaking of rules: You mean like using a blacklist? Have YOU read the rules? Failure to use a blacklist is on there. Don't like it? Leave. I was here before you, I'll be here long after you. Don't like that either? Come back, and then leave again.

A certain set of sensibilities is progressive code for 'only everything to the left of Josef Stalin'. There are already clear rules against being racist, sexist, transphobic and so on so don't be surprised if people can see your little game for what it is and decide to be as loud in their support of their decision because I am very thankful you have no mod power here. But I'd love to keep debating you!~

Updated

sh1tzor said:
I was here before you, I'll be here long after you.

Expect to see a lot of them if you hang around these kind of threads.

sh1tzor said: Progressives don't care about anything but personal clout and retweets.

I do love when people tell me what I do and don't care about.

I don't care about paradoxes or moral conundrums. However, it is a simple fact that allowing blatantly xenophobic images on the site normalizes things that they depict.
I believe that it is a rather irresponsible thing to do.

sh1tzor said: Don't like it? Leave.

I fucking hate this argument.
No, don't try to improve a website and a community that you like. Just fucking leave. Start a new community of your own.
And if that takes off, and it gets overrun by xenophobes? Just fucking leave again.
Amazing logic.

sh1tzor said: I was here before you, I'll be here long after you.

"I've been here longer than you, this means that I'm right".

Updated

bitwolfy said:
I do love when people tell me what I do and don't care about.

I don't care about paradoxes or moral conundrums. However, it is a simple fact that allowing blatantly xenophobic images on the site normalizes things that they depict.
I believe that it is a rather irresponsible thing to do.

I fucking hate this argument.
No, don't try to improve a website and a community that you like. Just fucking leave. Start a new community of your own.
And if that takes off, and it gets overrun by xenophobes? Just fucking leave again.
Amazing logic.

"I've been here longer than you, this means that I'm right".

Excuse me? Are you simping for someone? I'm not the one who told someone to leave for having a valid argument. What iceink said was uncalled for on a thread that INVITES debate. Not my fault if your panties bunch up over a crude drawing with obviously prejudiced beliefs that anyone with half a brain cell can tell is obviously wrong. My point remains. Prejudiced people will be that way EVEN IF they don't view garbage-tier art on a furry porn site. Your little 'quest' is pointless and simply a censorship based power grab. You want to solve racism? You need to fix people. Not hide it and pretend nasty images don't exist.

I can't help but notice you didn't dispute my points. That's because you can't and neither can they, so you resort to calling anyone who disagrees a xenophobe, which is... xenophobic! Surprise. The rabid marxist left is full of hypocrites in that regard, and are often the most fascist to "wrong think". You know what's great? I'm MtF but you think I don't belong here only because I disagree with your view. This isn't Ferzu, and you can squad me all you like. I will remain vocal in my support of free expression, and if you can't respond like an adult, I recommend you go find your safe space somewhere where there's coloring books for your age range.

Updated

bitwolfy said:
I do love when people tell me what I do and don't care about.

I don't care about paradoxes or moral conundrums. However, it is a simple fact that allowing blatantly xenophobic images on the site normalizes things that they depict.
I believe that it is a rather irresponsible thing to do.

I fucking hate this argument.
No, don't try to improve a website and a community that you like. Just fucking leave. Start a new community of your own.
And if that takes off, and it gets overrun by xenophobes? Just fucking leave again.
Amazing logic.

"I've been here longer than you, this means that I'm right".

Wowie momma. Look at all dem snowflakes. Itsa winter wonderland!

bitwolfy said:
I don't care about paradoxes or moral conundrums. However, it is a simple fact that allowing blatantly xenophobic images on the site normalizes things that they depict.

This is handwaving. Non trivial sociological claims are not 'simple facts', they're appeals to intuition.

Since I rarely see 'normalizes' used in a solid, honest argument, and I do see it used in dishonest arguments, my intuition says .. 'this argument is probably bullshit'

Of course, feel free to back up your intuition with a link to sociological research on the topic (actual published research papers, not journalism about research -- which is all I could find on this topic when I checked).

I fucking hate this argument.
No, don't try to improve a website and a community that you like. Just fucking leave. Start a new community of your own.
And if that takes off, and it gets overrun by xenophobes? Just fucking leave again.
Amazing logic.

Personally I regard it as an appropriate response to unreasonableness. If you have concluded from experience that a person is not interested in being reasonable, you don't reason with them. You just draw a line.

Obviously a different response can be given to someone who you believe IS interested in actually improving things.

sh1tzor said: ... stuff

This is amazing. No, seriously.
You want me to address your points? I can try.

TL;DR There are no actual points in this post, just a bunch of insults and buzzwords.

sh1tzor said: Are you simping for someone?

Of course, you start your argument with an insult. As we all know, an ad hominem attack is the best way to win an argument.

sh1tzor said: I'm not the one who told someone to leave for having a valid argument.

sh1tzor said: Don't like it? Leave. I was here before you, I'll be here long after you. Don't like that either? Come back, and then leave again.

Hmm. Are you sure that you are not the one who told someone to leave? Really, REALLY sure?

sh1tzor said: What iceink said was uncalled for on a thread that INVITES debate.

What exactly offended you so in their post? From what I see, they make good points.
Honest question. If something triggers you so badly, I won't mention it in my own posts.

sh1tzor said: Not my fault if your panties bunch up over a crude drawing

That's insult #2.
And I don't have my "panties bunched up". You are the one who's acting very emotional right now.
Maybe you should calm down before posting? Just a though.

sh1tzor said: anyone with half a brain cell can tell is obviously wrong

Yeah, you say that. But there are quite a few people in the US who would agree with that image. The current government has certainly brought out the worst people out into the spotlight.

sh1tzor said: My point remains. Prejudiced people will be that way EVEN IF they don't view garbage-tier art on a furry porn site.

sh1tzor said: You want to solve racism? You need to fix people. Not hide it and pretend nasty images don't exist.

I agree with the first part, disagree with the second. Racism and prejudice will exist no matter what. It cannot be fixed through debate, since its underlying causes lie in the lack of education and economic stability. People searching for scapegoats to make their shitty lives appear less shitty by bringing down others.
I never said that removing racist posts will "fix" racism. However, leaving them up normalizes racism, makes it appear like some common, everyday thing. There is no benefit to leaving them up either, since it's unlikely that people who create and post that sort of content have any kind of intelligent arguments. After all, racism is inherently illogical.

sh1tzor said: Your little 'quest' is pointless and simply a censorship based power grab.

sh1tzor said: I'm MtF but you think I don't belong here only because I disagree with your view.

You keep labeling me as something that I am not.
You keep assigning me an agenda that I don't have.
You keep claiming that I have views that I don't hold.

I don't have a "quest". I'm not interested in power. I never said that you don't belong here.
I have no idea where you got any of that from. But then again:

sh1tzor said: Don't like it? Leave.

I feel like you might be projecting.

sh1tzor said: you resort to calling anyone who disagrees a xenophobe, which is... xenophobic!

... where did I call you a xenophobe?
No, seriously. Please, provide a quote. I'm at a loss here.

sh1tzor said: The rabid marxist left is full of hypocrites in that regard, and are often the most fascist to "wrong think".

Insults #3 and #4.
I'm also not a marxist. Neither am I a fascist. Just wanted to point that out because you just won't stop claiming me to be things that I am not.

sh1tzor said: This isn't Ferzu, and you can squad me all you like.

No idea what "Ferzu" is.

sh1tzor said: I will remain vocal in my support of free expression

Good for you?..

sh1tzor said: if you can't respond like an adult, I recommend you go find your safe space somewhere where there's coloring books for your age range.

Insults #5 and 6.
Also, "safe space". Got any more buzzwords?

It is sad to see that Epantsimator's original question has digressed to this mess. They brought up an interesting question and it is being ignored in favor of name calling and other non-related issues. I hope this thread can get back on topic because the question of what material is allowed in posts is pretty damn interesting.

With regards to the second point made by Epantsimator, the rules do not seem too scattered. Two locations for the rules are wiki pages and the third is a warning for new users. They seem pretty compact and well organized to me. The upload guidelines extend the rules but only apply to image-posts. They are hard to even call rules as janitors could approve any image they want.

But the main question this thread asks, "What rules govern content in posts, specifically hate speech.".

Obviously the upload guidelines would be a start, but, as Epantsimator says, there is no mention of hate speech. In fact, there are very little limitations on the message a post can have, limiting only advertisements. The rules do provide more information, specifically the " National, Racial, or Ethnic Hatred " rule, stating "Creating posts, threads, or comments with hateful content" is against the rules. I am inclined to believe MagnusEffect's thought that

magnuseffect said:
It makes more sense to read this simply as an oversight by whomever wrote the passages using the former, than to assume that post, thread, comment and forum post, thread, comment are intended as distinct cases.

Citing that this error has been made in the past and was corrected. While Epantsimator points out previous admins have said the rules are intended to cover image-posts, those forum posts were made six years ago. An updated statement from the admins feels like it would be in order.

If the point of e621 is to archive furry art, then I do not see a reason why the artwork's message is something that should be taken into consideration. Refusing to accept work based on its message leads to good artwork being unarchived. Having admins choose what messages are acceptable is a step in the wrong direction. We would have to accept their dictates on unacceptable messages, whether it is blatant racism, political activism, drug use, or portraying certain countries. The uploading guidelines account for their own possible oversight and waive the no-advertising requirement on work that has "artistic and entertainment value that far outweigh their nature to sell goods or services.". Extending this to cover all messages, not just advertising, seems to, for me, embody the ideal of e621's mission statement: " To archive the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork, regardless of content, for all those who wish to view it. ".

I am with Lance Armstrong. I think that image-posts should remain less moderated and allow freer expression. But, I could see people using e621 as a platform to spread whatever message they want. If the image-posts were devoid of moderation then users could attack others through a shroud of genuine artwork. Lance says this would be amusing, and I agree, but this is the issue that should be discussed. It seems evident that e621 will accept and host racist material, but when will it recognize a user using the site to further their hateful agenda. As MagnusEffect said

magnuseffect said:
The administration has made it clear that such content is allowed on the site, but whether a given user can post it depends upon their motive for doing so.

Restricting some uploadable content to only those that can prove themselves good actors seems odd. Users are just the metaphoric messenger and do not have to hold the same views as the artist. It would be weird to not allow content from certain users because of other posts they have uploaded. The source of where an image comes from should not matter. If two artists created the same piece, one in earnest and the other sarcastically, I do not think there is any difference in the message of the piece. The only thing that should determine if an image is acceptable is that image's content, not the context around the image. Judging what users are maliciously uploading content is hard to judge and it is better not judged at all. My reasons for uploading a specific image should not be brought into question, only the image should be questioned.

The "Harassing or Defamatory" appears to prevent attacks on specific users and may extend to include posts. But if it did, many image-posts would be removed for "[making] a member from being uncomfortable in the forums or on the site.". Instead we are told to blacklist offending material. This would probably be extended to attacks on users through image-posts: attacked users would be told to blacklist their attackers. An interesting thought is if image-posts are unmoderated on content, what is stopping an artist from including a QR code to content that breaks other site rules. I am certain if the offending content was bad enough, the admins would take action against it.

savageorange said: This is handwaving. Non trivial sociological claims are not 'simple facts', they're appeals to intuition.

Sorry, bad wording. I meant something along the lines of "common sense". Which I realize isn't a good argument either.
I honestly don't care enough about this argument to go looking up scientific papers on sociology, of all things.

savageorange said:
Personally I regard it as an appropriate response to unreasonableness. If you have concluded from experience that a person is not interested in being reasonable, you don't reason with them. You just draw a line.

Depends on your definition of "reasonable", of course.

It is quite obvious that no one in this thread is interested in changing their minds. Nothing will change, just a bunch of people will get very upset with each other, until someone goes off the rails and gets banned, and the thread gets closed.
Is it reasonable to continue participating in this debate?

Look, I just don't think an ambiguous rule against "hateful content" which is a very broad subjective term is a good idea because it can be applied arbitrarily and unevenly to certain artworks simply because a vocal minority is hurt by something that isn't even real. It's an insult to every POC that experiences real racism to suggest taking down images on a furry porn site improves their situation. That's all.

The above image might make someone who is already a bigot feel more justified, but it's not gonna just convert normal well-rounded people to bigotry. I hate to be that person but the human condition dictates those crappy people will always exist, and nothing short of fixing PEOPLE will solve that. I'd rather this stay here so it can follow that smug A-hole Bougas for the rest of his pathetic life, because once it's on the internet, the internet never forgets!

idem said: If the point of e621 is to archive furry art, then I do not see a reason why the artwork's message is something that should be taken into consideration. Refusing to accept work based on its message leads to good artwork being unarchived.

That depends on whether you accept images with such a message as "good artwork". But that is rather subjective.

idem said: An interesting thought is if image-posts are unmoderated on content, what is stopping an artist from including a QR code to content that breaks other site rules.

I don't think that it would have to be a QR code, although there are quite a few of those, and I would bet that nobody checked all of them.
What about having a comic that's 10% image, 90% text? With the text that, if posted in a comment or on the forums, would definitely qualify as ban-worthy?

idem said:

The "Harassing or Defamatory" appears to prevent attacks on specific users and may extend to include posts. But if it did, many image-posts would be removed for "[making] a member from being uncomfortable in the forums or on the site.".

Presumably the logic is that comments and forum threads facilitate the targeting of a particular individual, while posts do not (you can attack an individual in the description, for example, at least until someone reports you, but there is no guarantee that that individual will see your attack)

An interesting thought is if image-posts are unmoderated on content, what is stopping an artist from including a QR code to content that breaks other site rules. I am certain if the offending content was bad enough, the admins would take action against it.

Wow, ok, I had to reread that a few times before I got it. I guess you're right, but mostly I think it would fall in the same category as the 'abusive description' case above ("it's against the rules but also not very effective").

There's also the old 'append non-image content (zipfile etc) to image' trick , which could potentially be used to dox someone or coordinate an attack, if e6 doesn't specifically check for extra data.

Updated

bitwolfy said:
That depends on whether you accept images with such a message as "good artwork". But that is rather subjective.

There is a difference between the objective artistic quality of an image and the message a post sends. This is something that the janitors are tasked with, approving image-posts impartially and approving only image-posts that show a certain level of artistic quality. I do not think people would argue post #2222571 lacks a level of artistic quality to belong on e621. The message it sends is definitely separable from the piece of art. If the quality of artwork depends on the message it sends, images promoting objectionable content, such as drug use, could be removed for being low quality. This sounds absurd and is absurd.

savageorange said:
Presumably the logic is that comments and forum threads facilitate the targeting of a particular individual, while posts do not (you can attack an individual in the description, for example, at least until someone reports you, but there is no guarantee that that individual will see your attack)

The second half of my quote is weak. Many images would not be removed because they make a user feel unwelcome. But if the rules were followed to the letter, posts that would be blacklisted should be removed for offending some users. Someone attacked on e621 through image-posts has little recourse. An artwork's copyright holder can insist it remains on the site, even at the behest of owners of character in the artwork. I believe it has happened on e621 before, but the artist's control of their artwork is absolute.

sh1tzor said:
I hate to be that person but the human condition dictates those crappy people will always exist, and nothing short of fixing PEOPLE will solve that.

and here is the ubiquitous and painful all-or-nothing fallacy that the extreme right uses to try to weasel out of any responsibility to ever do anything positive for the world:

"we can't make all PEOPLE not bad, so doing anything to make some of them not isn't worthwhile!" "we can't ERASE poverty, so systems of welfare are just wasteful and doomed to failure!" "we can't ELIMINATE gun violence, so doing anything to mitigate it is just anti-freedom, why do you hate america??"

this type of thinking frames problems as requiring permanent solutions before we can do anything to address them, and it capitalizes on people's tendency to be paralyzed on the face of it, and it's especially prone to work towards someone's preconceived biases, but when you use it for something we already accept as worth doing, it's obvious why it doesn't make sense: "human nature dictates we can't get rid of ALL suicides, so mental health treatment isn't worth pursuing" "there's no way to CURE cancer, so we have to accept that chemotherapy is just doing patients more harm than good" "not all traffic fatalities can be ELIMINATED, so seatbelt laws are unjustified government aggression, don't tread on me!"

we do, in fact, have the power to diminish bigotry, anywhere and everywhere, whether we can eliminate it or not is not the point

why is everyone so sensitive on the internet,
why can't we let sensitive people learn how to accept the world?

idem said:
Someone attacked on e621 through image-posts has little recourse.

How does someone attack you with an image? Like, just close your eyes. Lie down and take a nap if you have to. And if all else fails, blacklist the artist. If you want to see the rest of the artist's work, just blacklist the post number of the offending image.

I agree with some of the points you made in your previous post. In particular, your reminding us the mission statement and:

Judging what users are maliciously uploading content is hard to judge and it is better not judged at all.

Yes, this is a healthy attitude. We shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about people based on what they upload. We're all friends here. And if not, we should strive to be good neighbors at least.

Updated

idem said:
It is sad to see that Epantsimator's original question has digressed to this mess. They brought up an interesting question and it is being ignored in favor of name calling and other non-related issues. I hope this thread can get back on topic because the question of what material is allowed in posts is pretty damn interesting.

I should have given advance thanks/apologies to the mods. I knew this would kick the hornet's nest, but...

post #112006

epantsimator said:
I knew this would kick the hornet's nest, but...

And yet you did it anyway. If your intention was to prevent people from viewing the image this thread is about, then you achieved the opposite effect. Congrats. This is known as the Streisand effect.

spankweasel said:
And yet you did it anyway. If your intention was to prevent people from viewing the image this thread is about, then you achieved the opposite effect. Congrats. This is known as the Streisand effect.

inorite? Curse my galaxy brain for directly citing the post three times in the OP to a public forum thread!

Though I would like to bring up "The Town Square and Museum" analogy because it's one of the few moments where this free-speech tangent actually veers back toward relevance to the original topic. The difference between a modern museum or professional art gallery, and a booru like e621, is the content of the former is actively curated. Exhibits are organized thematically, you have little plaques explaining them, and it's all generally built around some sort of through-narrative. Visitors may disagree with that narrative, may even dispute the factual validity of the plaques (see the controversy over the Canadian War Museum's handling of Bomber Command), but there is conscious decision-making to what is exhibited and how it is framed, and the curator accepts responsibility for it. An exhibit on the Holocaust may include vintage Nazi propaganda, but you can be sure there will be an inbuilt critique to how it's presented.

Boorus do not curate. If it's furry and meets a minimum threshold of technical competence, e621 considers it fair game. It's a far more democratic experience: you can self-curate to a ridiculous level of specificity (assuming things are tagged right), you can exclude what you don't want, and apart from copypaste descriptions from the original sources there's no narrative imposed from on high. It's a double-edged sword: certain themes, certain artists will attract perennial trolling, if not outright flame wars, as users go at each other over warring interpretations until the mods step in to enforce decorum. So it goes. What we lose in deliberative cohesion we gain in sheer variety of content.

The problem arises when this devolution of curatorial responsibility to individual users brushes up against content like post #2209048. What everyone who's been touting the primacy of "free speech" here seems to forget is this is not practiced as a two-way street. A post can say anything; a comment cannot—this is not unfair, there's no need to emulate a public toilet like rule34 or an outright cesspool like 4/8chan. Yet many of the same users here speaking so fanatically about the right to artistic expression are also dismissing criticism offhand with "No-one's forcing you to see this, use your blacklist!". Hopefully one can appreciate the double standard: I have a right to broadcast my message, you don't have a right to challenge it.

I understand why kinkshaming is a fast track to a ticket; I've seen the records, the mods want to head off aimless drama. Hate speech isn't so cleanly-cut. There seems to be a consistent correlation between arguing the onus is on individual users not to get "triggered" by avoiding hateful content, and an assumption that majority opinion will shame said content into obscurity. Notwithstanding I've seen people touting downvotes as a badge of vindication, a dismissive scoff is not the same as vocal disapproval: to build off iceink's statements above, if there's a bigot on the street screaming into a megaphone that all gays should be lynched, ignoring him doesn't make him go away; and even if you learn to tune him out, odds are someone will listen, and if no counternarrative is presented, his daily ravings start to seem normal—after all, no-one's challenging him, so it's acceptable, right? Thus if we're talking individual responsibility, every person walking through the square has a choice each day: keep silent and imply consent, or speak out against it.

But here's the twist: absent a site-wide policy on hate speech, preference is given to the man with the megaphone. Staff maintains a policy of editorial neutrality not unlike Cloudflare did until the Daily Stormer became too heavy a public relations albatross. Once the post is approved, it only comes down through DMCA, artist/owner request, or to be replaced by a better version. Comments are a different matter: it's never been clear to me when legitimate criticism becomes "refusal to use blacklist" even outside landmine cases; vote score gives us the aggregate majority opinion but it says nothing about why a post is disliked. The message remains unchallenged.

e621 users are a pretty clever bunch. They doll up their disdain in layers of sarcastic joshing that's at once crystal-clear and yet not blunt enough to warrant infraction. But consider if the mods adopted a zero-tolerance approach and carded anyone who expressed anything remotely resembling a "failure to blacklist". At best, posts like these drift through the tubes un-commented—but that doesn't mean they're forgotten. I've known a forum whose moderation was so iron-fisted about decorum that simply calling out trolling got people carded, and you weren't allowed to talk politics in the political cartoons thread; rather than prevent hate speech, it ended up fostering an encyclopedia's worth of coded messaging that everyone could tell stank but no-one could plainly confront, and the board wound up inundated with half-wits, conspiracy theorists, and borderline génocidaires isolated in a hundred layers of bubblewrap for the sake of "civility and inclusivity".

At worst, you get a parade of yes-men who, like the above, know how to couch their rhetoric in ways that are juuust ambiguous enough to pass a ticket's smell test. Hell, there are comments on the post that think it's actually a satire. And it's precisely by straddling Poe's Law that hate propaganda like this is able to fester.

In approving post #2209048, Staff has granted the floor to one side of the argument. The question is what we have to respond.

Updated

Hell, there are comments on the post that think it's actually a satire. And it's precisely by straddling Sturgeon's Law that hate propaganda like this is able to fester.

I think you mean Poe's Law. Technically Sturgeon's original law might vaguely apply here, but it would be pretty confusing to call the original law Sturgeon's Law.

epantsimator said:
In approving post #2209048, Staff has granted the floor to one side of the argument.

In approving post #2209048, Staff has granted the floor to one side of the argument in one instance.

Maybe it's just me, but what you (didn't) say made it sound like this is some kind of lasting precedent rather than one judgement call made by one individual.

Updated

  • 1
  • 2