epantsimator said:
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.

I see no reason to believe this is true any more than the idea that I'd thinking that, well, maybe the earth really is flat if some weirdo told me enough times. If it were "normalized" in my mind, I would just be left to be disappointed in how people could still believe such a thing. The argument about exposure = normalization seems like a non-starter to me. No real way to measure that. All I could possibly say is a lot of people are able to grow to hate the values of the communities they live in, let alone what some unpopular nutjob is shouting at them on the street. You did say that someone might listen to them and not everyone. But I would argue that the would-be listener here already had an issue in the first place.

I will say though that it's a good point that you could normally provide a counter-argument in that scenario, and e621 does not generally allow that. On the other hand, I don't think anyone got in trouble for saying racism is bad on that post even if maybe technically they could if the rules were creatively interpreted enough, so I am not sure if it really is an issue. And as savageorange said, you can still counter it with other posts. They're still allowed too.

A bigger problem I have is that some people (not specifying) seem to be leaning for, well,

a site-wide policy on hate speech

when I don't think it's what they actually want at all. I'm curious what this could possibly entail. Racism provokes an emotional response from a lot of people but where were these threads when people were posting porn of the prophet Muhammad drawn as a pig or Jesus getting fucked by the devil? Just because these things don't happen to offend the primary demographics of e621 doesn't make them any less hateful, so those have absolutely got to go if we take that route, or else it's just going to be a complete sham. Is it only racism we're going to prohibit, and not sexism or any other form of hatred? Should we also be careful about posts that demean women? But is it somehow okay if it's part of a kink? I don't know what solution people actually want here. A post like the one that started this topic falling through the cracks once in a while is probably a fair trade for not having things go in that direction, as, again, I cannot conceive of a scenario where this actually hurts someone any more than those other things I mentioned.

I feel it shouldn't be this controversial.

1. e621 is a not a hotspot for racists AFAIK, and if they do reside here they keep to themselves. It's not like this image has opened the flood gates for racist material. The flood gates have been open for a long time. When other sites were banning content left and right (including FAs recent ban on depictions of hate groups BTW), e621 chose not to jump on the censor bandwagon. I highly respect their efforts, especially when some of these topics are so heavily weaponized these days.

2. It's a political cartoon. It is likely going to be an exaggerated point of view, and possibly not meant to be taken literally by any means. I've heard plenty of racist jokes by peers, and by professional comedians. It was uploaded from FunnyJunk after all. Are we expected to take the image seriously?

3. The image is 30 years old. The politics that influenced the cartoon are from a different era. So much has changed in that time that the messaging no longer has as much meaning or relevance in today's culture. Does anyone believe that the presence of this image will reignite the levels of racism that were present when the image was created?

We've had a talk about this between us, and came to the decision that we've been a bit lax in the enforcement of that particular rule, and will be changing that.

In concrete terms, and in order to stay less hypocritical, posts with blatant national/racial/ethical messages of hatred will have to actively prove that they're relevant to both the furry fandom and our mission to archive furry art.
In this case the animal is only there as a vehicle for the message on the sign and the elaboration on the top, the art itself is not the focus of the image. Combined with the fact that it's a "proper" animal and not an anthropomorphization makes it have it very little actual relevance to us.

Please make no mistakes, racist content will not be banned as a blanket, whether people use it as a story element or if it's used as one of the many facets of the degradation / humiliation kink, it will still have it's place on e621 besides all the other murder and rape stuff. It's just going to be very similar to how we deal with ads, if the art doesn't somehow eclipse the message it tries to push it is unlikely to have a place here.

At the same time, I cleaned out the racism tag of a few other pieces that are entirely irrelevant, all of the 5 deleted images had nothing but humans in it and I have no idea why in the hell those have been uploaded and approved in the first place.

step in the right direction tbh

savageorange said:
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.

Whoops, good catch.

savageorange said:
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.

The whole point of this thread was I could not tell if a precedent existed, and wanted to get this out in the open to help Staff figure out where they wanted to go, since it seemed to still be up in the air since 2013. In this respect, it looks to have done its job.

I feel like my participation in this thread was just a silly waste of time and effort. I actually thought I understood this site and was helping to explain things. I truly hope those who complained about the image are happy now. Then again, enough is never enough for some folk. Regardless, I'm proud to have stood up for liberal principles even if I'm at odds with the administration's final decision.

Enjoy the rest of the thread.

spankweasel said:
I truly hope those who complained about the image are happy now.

iceink said:
step in the right direction tbh

Does this answer your question? Of course they are not going to be happy when it was not even removed for the right reasons.

fenrick said: Of course they are not going to be happy

TIL that "step in the right direction" means "i am not happy with this decision".

Personally, I'm glad that this got resolved. That image barely even qualified as furry, while serving as nothing but a vehicle for hatred.

sometimes you just gotta lay your life on the line in the fight to uphold the liberal principle of being /pol-tier edgelord literally everywhere online no matter what

lets honor the fallen 'classical liberal' keyboard warriors in the holy war to grant freedom to spread nazi memes in nerdy subculture communities that would get wiped out instantly by actual nazis

thanks no thanks for your sacrifice rip in pepperoni

fenrick said:

Does this answer your question? Of course they are not going to be happy when it was not even removed for the right reasons.

I don't think you know what "step in the right direction" means.

This place has really gone to the dogs.

boxofcereal said:
This place has really gone to the dogs.

This thread had finally calmed down and you feel the need to kick the hornets nest? Why?

fenrick said:

Does this answer your question? Of course they are not going to be happy when it was not even removed for the right reasons.

You just couldn't resist one last dig, could you? The never-ending quest to get the last word.

thirtyeight said:
This thread had finally calmed down and you feel the need to kick the hornets nest? Why?

because a (very small section of) people aren't allowed to be full-range rude a-holes anymore

ohhhhh nooooo the sky is falling chicken little!!

ccoyote said:
You just couldn't stand one last dig, could you? The never-ending quest to get the last word.

They do this, consistently, in every thread on a hot button topic.
And then act like they have no idea what people are talking about.
Its annoying but its probably better to just ignore the user. Especially when this consistently is the only way they interact. You can blacklist users as well as tags IIRC so that may help.

No offence intended with this advice its just that they are never going to change that behaviour and the best course of action may be to just ignore them.

thirtyeight said:
This thread had finally calmed down and you feel the need to kick the hornets nest? Why?

That user likely made the account only for this sort of thing, after all, the account was made literally last month and its the first post its made. In this thread, only.

demesejha said:
They do this, consistently, in every thread on a hot button topic.
And then act like they have no idea what people are talking about.
Its annoying but its probably better to just ignore the user. Especially when this consistently is the only way they interact.

I haven't even been on the forum in months so I have no idea what you're talking about, lol. Do we know each other?

clawdragons said:
I don't think you know what "step in the right direction" means.

This may shock you, but it does not mean "I am perfectly content with how things are right now."

thirtyeight said:
This thread had finally calmed down and you feel the need to kick the hornets nest? Why?

It's not my fault you've got a hornet infestation.

demesejha said:
No offence intended with this advice its just that they are never going to change that behaviour and the best course of action may be to just ignore them.

But that's what they want us to do. They want everyone to stop complaining so that various (let's call them "right-leaning") groups can spew their hate-filled rhetoric in peace.
No, they won't change their opinions. They fully believe that they are in their right, and everyone who disagrees with them is a "rabid marxist". But this behavior needs to be called out.

fenrick said: This may shock you, but it does not mean "I am perfectly content with how things are right now."

Typical. You are not allowed to be happy unless you achieve a perfect result in one fell swoop. And if a perfect solution is impossible, then might as well not try at all.
Can we at least agree that if we say that we are happy with the action taken, it does in fact mean that we are happy with the action taken?

boxofcereal said: It's not my fault you've got a hornet infestation.

The furry community in general has a serious nazi problem.
No, not the "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" kind. Actual, real, supremacist kind.
People don't like to talk about it, but it does not make it any less of an issue.

bitwolfy said:
But that's what they want us to do. They want everyone to stop complaining so that various (let's call them "right-leaning") groups can spew their hate-filled rhetoric in peace.
No, they won't change their opinions. They fully believe that they are in their right, and everyone who disagrees with them is a "rabid marxist". But this behavior needs to be called out.

The furry community in general has a serious nazi problem.
No, not the "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" kind. Actual, real, supremacist kind.
People don't like to talk about it, but it does not make it any less of an issue.

This sudden idea of a nazi problem is such a typical talking point that, well.. My experience suggests that you are simply engaging in the same political theatre as the 'rabid marxist' guy, with a different coat of paint.
Maybe its true; that could be evidenced by, for example, multiple active discussion groups on the topic, which are consistently treated with abnormal leniency by the mods of the site in question. Personally, the amount of 'Nazi' things I've encountered on furry sites is.. maybe 10 in total? And that's including the ones where Nazism is used as a representation of extreme sadism.

As it stands, it's just a claim, and worse, one which strongly resembles a canard, just like 'rabid marxists'.

But if you were attempting to invoke Godwin's Law to bring the conversation to a halt, I guess you might have succeeded there.

boxofcereal said:
It's not my fault you've got a hornet infestation.

And you believe passive-aggressive remarks will get people to reconsider their opinion? Again I ask why? Why is no one capable of just discussing things like adults instead of insulting each other? The op image is vile and isn't truly art, just propaganda. It does not belong here. There are better hills to die on.

savageorange said: Personally, the amount of 'Nazi' things I've encountered on furry sites is.. maybe 10 in total?

There are currently 703 images on e621 tagged "nazi". I'd say that 703 is slightly larger than 10.
Of course, not all of them are depicting nazis in a positive light, but many are. Of course, nazifurs aren't as prevalent as, say, the folks in /r/yiffinhell try to claim, but it's kind of silly to deny that the phenomenon exists. And of course, some of them try to invoke the usual claim that it's just the aesthetic that they like, which is always amusing.
Do you think that it's fair to presume that the fine gentlemen in post #372477 are nazis, for example?

savageorange said: As it stands, it's just a claim, and worse, one which strongly resembles a canard, just like 'rabid marxists'.

I'm not claiming that Fenrick is a nazi. I didn't claim that anyone in this thread is a nazi.
In fact, I'm about 99% sure that Fenrick isn't one, just based on what they said in this thread. I didn't research their history or anything like that.

This is not going to "bring the conversation to a halt" either. Just watch, someone will accuse me of being the actual nazi any second now. That's how these threads tend to go.
And to be honest, I do kinda enjoy seeing this whole topic crash and burn.

thirtyeight said: And you believe passive-aggressive remarks will get people to reconsider their opinion?

I firmly believe that no argument on the internet has ever made anyone reconsider their opinion.

thirtyeight said: Why is no one capable of just discussing things like adults instead of insulting each other?

I would like to discuss whether, say, post #68665 qualifies as furry. IMHO, about as much as the image in OP.
Then, there is post #402251, which is just a screenshot of a post. How is that "furry artwork"? Same thing for post #136692 - that's just text.
Meanwhile, post #13789 is another wall of text with some background lore from an artist that has no other posts under their tag.

Although, discussion of stuff like this should probably belong in a separate thread.

bitwolfy said:
I would like to discuss whether, say, post #68665 qualifies as furry. IMHO, about as much as the image in OP.

A lot of older posts from older rules versions get to stay regardless of content.
Personally I'd say it's furrier than elves. Hell, I've seen Legend of Zelda porn here that doesn't even show non-human traits, though I believe that has to be part of a sequence to stay. It's also both less directly-offensive, and artistically superior in my own opinion.

I'm a little hazy on when the rules changed but I thought it was before post #402251
The last two I assume also have their approvals "grandfathered" from older rules versions and you could argue it's a credit to the administration that you had to go back that far to find more examples.

bitwolfy said:
There are currently 703 images on e621 tagged "nazi". I'd say that 703 is slightly larger than 10.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. If the furry community had a serious nazi problem, I would expect to encounter it casually at a rate greater than '10 in my entire history in the furry community'. That's the point of giving that number.
Your number, conversely, is what you get if you go looking for it, and conclude that # posts is an indication of prevalence, without even taking it as a percentage of all our posts.

Just for a start, number of uploaders [normalized against total number of e621 uploaders] would be a much more plausible measure of prevalence. Number of upvoters (normalized against numbers of downvoters) might also be relevant but is not available IIRC. Number of commenters that are not overtly negative towards nazism, perhaps (assuming you can nail down 'overtly negative towards nazism' into a usable metric). Number of favorites? You're still not getting anywhere near to a decent point yet (You need to normalize for how many people actually saw the post, for example.. do you think people who are actual nazifurs might search nazi more often than the average browser..?)

Finally, by using e621's stats in this way, you are also treating e621 as a representative sample of the furry community as a whole, which it may possibly be, but again is an extremely non-trivial claim; it would be more workable to make a claim about specifically e621 (or specifically whatever other site you can extract stats from)

Of course, nazifurs aren't as prevalent as, say, the folks in /r/yiffinhell try to claim, but it's kind of silly to deny that the phenomenon exists.

Don't you think that this is just what the "rabid marxists" guy would say, swapped out to refer to nazis instead?

I believe that some genuine nazifurs exist. The number you gave supports the much more modest claim that there are some nazifurs on e621.
Your claim was that we "have a serious nazi problem" -- ie. we have, at the least, proportionally more nazis than a random sample of the populace. And you cite 703 posts (about 0.07% of e621's total posts, btw) as evidence.

And of course, some of them try to invoke the usual claim that it's just the aesthetic that they like, which is always amusing.
Do you think that it's fair to presume that the fine gentlemen in post #372477 are nazis, for example?

I'd say the display case introduces a lot of doubt about that. I guess if they were collectors then they might have that, but generally I don't expect to see display cases in people's homes.

I'd place a lot more certainty on them being irreverent dumbasses, possibly also edgelords, than on being Nazis, based on what you can see in that post. If this could be confirmed as actually someone's home, that would change things a lot.

I'm not claiming that Fenrick is a nazi. I didn't claim that anyone in this thread is a nazi.
In fact, I'm about 99% sure that Fenrick isn't one, just based on what they said in this thread. I didn't research their history or anything like that.

Hmm... fair enough.

I would like to discuss whether, say, post #68665 qualifies as furry. IMHO, about as much as the image in OP.
Then, there is post #402251, which is just a screenshot of a post. How is that "furry artwork"? Same thing for post #136692 - that's just text. post #13789 is just some background lore from an artist that has no other posts under their tag.

Although, discussion of stuff like this should probably belong in a separate thread.

That's not too hard.
13789 and 68665 are almost certainly grandfathered in, considering their post numbers. 402251 may also be but I'd have to check the timeline of the rule change prohibiting screenshots.

magnuseffect said: Personally I'd say it's furrier than elves.

The distinction between furry and non-furry content is pretty hazy.
How furry does a character have to be in order to qualify as such? Elves are technically not human, but for example, Princess Peach seems to be accepted as well.

magnuseffect said:
you could argue it's a credit to the administration that you had to go back that far to find more examples.

Didn't go back that far at all, just looked up wall of text.
It's a tag that I ran into before. I kinda dislike it, but it has its uses.

savageorange said: ... stuff

You know what, fair enough. You make very good points. The amount of that kind of content is pretty much statistically insignificant.
I'm not sure why I've been running into nazi-related furry content so much lately. It's actually slightly worrying me now.

savageorange said: Don't you think that this is just what the "rabid marxists" guy would say, swapped out to refer to nazis instead?

I would accept the idea that "rabid marxists" also exist. Never met one personally, but there are all sorts of fascinating freaks on the internet.

savageorange said:
I'd say the display case introduces a lot of doubt about that. I guess if they were collectors then they might have that, but generally I don't expect to see display cases in people's homes.

I'd place a lot more certainty on them being irreverent dumbasses than on being Nazis.

What kind of museum has windows with drapes like that?
It strikes me more as someone's private collection. But there is no concrete evidence to definitively prove it one way or another.

Of the three people in the picture, the only one who I could look up is Amran, and he does not seem to be a Nazi. He has a furaffinity page, but it's been abandoned for years.
The "raven-wolf" person is rather difficult to google due to that incredibly creative name. No idea who the third guy is.

Also, the eyes on the fursuit in the middle creep me out.

I dunno, personally never understood the whole "ironic" and "irreverent" thing. Just never felt the need to pose and take pictures in front of a swastika, you know?

I mean, AFAICS that's basically the same thing as repurposing words to mean the opposite of what they previously meant ('sick', for example), or sleeping with someone because you know your parents wouldn't approve, or getting drunk because you're an adult now and you do what you want. Stupid unselfaware rebellion (which could easily lead into, say, becoming an actual Nazi, that should certainly be admitted.).

I agree the curtains are a valid counter point, which is why I wasn't willing to say 'nah that's definitely a museum'.

bitwolfy said:
The distinction between furry and non-furry content is pretty hazy.
How furry does a character have to be in order to qualify as such? Elves are technically not human, but for example, Princess Peach seems to be accepted as well.

How far do you look into these before you post? The human-only Princess_Peach posts I can see are all quite old or part of a sequence. There's a lot that look human-only but unfortunately the Mario universe has the habit of slapping eyes on everything.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want most of the humanoid tag family here either.

bitwolfy said:
Didn't go back that far at all, just looked up wall of text.
It's a tag that I ran into before. I kinda dislike it, but it has its uses.

Bashing out a wall_of_text zero_pictured inpool:false search is still going back when your three available examples are all under 500k post ID (I'm not counting the first one as it's in a parent/child chain)

bitwolfy said:
But that's what they want us to do. They want everyone to stop complaining so that various (let's call them "right-leaning") groups can spew their hate-filled rhetoric in peace.
No, they won't change their opinions. They fully believe that they are in their right, and everyone who disagrees with them is a "rabid marxist". But this behavior needs to be called out.

Dont get me wrong. I didnt say to not engage entirely. If theres a thread going on say what needs to be said and debate from your standing.

But theres no conspiracy. Block out and ignore those people. That is the ONLY way to deal w them bc they will not be convinced.

Im not asking you to give them a free platform.

Im explicitly saying to ingore their platform. Talk to the people who are rational and reasonable and let the altreich piss and moan because theyre never gonna change.

Since this thread's showing no sign of ending anytime soon, I guess I'll give a play-by-play for those who are dimly aware of what just happened. To start, OP created a thread complaining about an image he didn't like, which is against the rules. But because he conflates this with an ambiguity in the rules, he gets a free pass. It's like if someone breaks the "Failure to cite a minimum of 4 tags to an uploaded post" but then overturns the record by making a thread complaining that the rules should say "Failure to cite a minimum of 4 tags to a post upon upload" and that technically they did add more than 4 tags shortly after uploading (this is a common pitfall for those who speed compete for high-quality uploads). Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but the point is the rules have ambiguities and typos. And apparently these ambiguities and typos can be exploited to overturn administrative decisions. But only if you can stir up enough outrage, which OP intentionally did. He admitted as much with his "kicking the hornet's nets" comment.

So what's next? If I want an image removed that has a character saying something creepy, I can make a thread demanding the image be taken down invoking the creepy comments rule? Or perhaps I can use the "Creating a post, forum post, or thread that is an inappropriate reference to real-life bestiality, sexual relations, or bodily functions" rule to get admins to remove bestiality drawings. It clearly states "post", which means image uploads according to the glossary. Have the admins been lax with enforcing this rule too? Or is it a typo, as the whole site except OP seemed to be under the impression was the case with the "Creating posts, threads, or comments with hateful content" rule? Even Lance Armstrong, the janitor, thought the same when he said, "References to 'post' in the rules could be changed to 'comment' to avoid confusion." I think he meant change "posts" to "forum posts" for the hateful content rule, but whatever.

I believe these are misapplications of the rules; but then again, I didn't write the rules. Because of this thread, we have now started down the path of thought policing art. As far as I know, this is the first instance of this happening on here. Now the message of art is grounds for approval/rejection; whereas before, it was never taken into consideration. Great job all around.

spankweasel said:
Since this thread's showing no sign of ending anytime soon, I guess I'll give a play-by-play for those who are dimly aware of what just happened. To start, OP created a thread complaining about an image he didn't like, which is against the rules. But because he conflates this with an ambiguity in the rules, he gets a free pass. It's like if someone breaks the "Failure to cite a minimum of 4 tags to an uploaded post" but then overturns the record by making a thread complaining that the rules should say "Failure to cite a minimum of 4 tags to a post upon upload" and that technically they did add more than 4 tags shortly after uploading (this is a common pitfall for those who speed compete for high-quality uploads). Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but the point is the rules have ambiguities and typos. And apparently these ambiguities and typos can be exploited to overturn administrative decisions. But only if you can stir up enough outrage, which OP intentionally did. He admitted as much with his "kicking the hornet's nets" comment.

So what's next? If I want an image removed that has a character saying something creepy, I can make a thread demanding the image be taken down invoking the creepy comments rule? Or perhaps I can use the "Creating a post, forum post, or thread that is an inappropriate reference to real-life bestiality, sexual relations, or bodily functions" rule to get admins to remove bestiality drawings. It clearly states "post", which means image uploads according to the glossary. Have the admins been lax with enforcing this rule too? Or is it a typo, as the whole site except OP seemed to be under the impression was the case with the "Creating posts, threads, or comments with hateful content" rule? Even Lance Armstrong, the janitor, thought the same when he said, "References to 'post' in the rules could be changed to 'comment' to avoid confusion." I think he meant change "posts" to "forum posts" for the hateful content rule, but whatever.

I believe these are misapplications of the rules; but then again, I didn't write the rules. Because of this thread, we have now started down the path of thought policing art. As far as I know, this is the first instance of this happening on here. Now the message of art is grounds for approval/rejection; whereas before, it was never taken into consideration. Great job all around.

All of that would matter if we were discussing art that conveyed unpleasant opinions or emotions. That is not the case. There was no artistic intent behind the image, it was just a vehicle for someone's hate. I believe that art should never be censored, but that is not art.

thirtyeight said:
All of that would matter if we were discussing art that conveyed unpleasant opinions or emotions. That is not the case. There was no artistic intent behind the image, it was just a vehicle for someone's hate. I believe that art should never be censored, but that is not art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. To be clear, I wouldn't call it art either, but there are people who think someone tossing a crucifix in a bucket of piss is a work of art. I personally think those people idiots, but I can't objectively say they're wrong. Then you have things like The Birth of a Nation, at its core nothing but a vehicle for hate, yet something which people still study for its contributions to cinematography.

fenrick said:

Art is in the eye of the beholder. To be clear, I wouldn't call it art either, but there are people who think someone tossing a crucifix in a bucket of piss is a work of art. I personally think those people idiots, but I can't objectively say they're wrong. Then you have things like The Birth of a Nation, at its core nothing but a vehicle for hate, yet something which people still study for its contributions to cinematography.

My definition of art is something that communicates a concept or emotion that could never be expressed in plain speech. There's nothing expressed in that image beyond "be afraid, be angry, we are good and they are bad."

thirtyeight said:
All of that would matter if we were discussing art that conveyed unpleasant opinions or emotions. That is not the case. There was no artistic intent behind the image, it was just a vehicle for someone's hate. I believe that art should never be censored, but that is not art.

Like Fenrick said, if Piss Christ, Jackson Pollock (I actually like his work), Barnett Newman, and garbage contemporary art counts as art, that racist cartoon does too. The question was never, "Is this art?" It was, "Is this art relevant to furries?" The administration decided yes. But because of manufactured outrage, they then decided, "No, this is too racist to be relevant to furries." This means that the art is objectively relevant to furries, but subjectively not so much. I think the admins should be objective in their actions on the site. The subject matter of the art should play no role in whether it stays or goes.