post #2282749 was deleted without it breaking any rules. It says on the page the reason for deletion was "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death". "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" is not against the rules, even if it was, that picture would still not break the rules because it does not depict or mention any real person.
I don't think that picture glorifies the death of any real person.

I am aware someone tried to reupload it. But i found the picture on another web site and i am asking for permission to reupload it.
By the way, depiction does not equal endorsement.

electricitywolf said:
I don't think that picture glorifies the death of any real person.

If you're not aware of what or who it's referencing, it's probably something you should read up on.

electricitywolf said:
I am aware someone tried to reupload it. But i found the picture on another web site and i am asking for permission to reupload it.

Never reupload previously deleted content. If you think something was deleted in error, you can talk to the moderator that deleted it, or NotMeNotYou, and make your case. If they agree with you, they can un-delete it without a second copy being uploaded.

watsit said:
If you're not aware of what or who it's referencing, it's probably something you should read up on.

Never reupload previously deleted content. If you think something was deleted in error, you can talk to the moderator that deleted it, or NotMeNotYou, and make your case. If they agree with you, they can un-delete it without a second copy being uploaded.

I am aware of who it is referencing, but as i said: It does not depict or mention any real life person. I know many people get offended by this kind of posts, and i can understand why. But the blacklist exists for a reason.

electricitywolf said:
I am aware of who it is referencing, but as i said: It does not depict or mention any real life person.

A depiction of a person doesn't have to be an exact life-like copy. The image is clearly modeled after an event involving real-life people, that resulted in the death of one of those people in real life, so even if it has fictional characters as stand-ins, it's still depicting what happened with those people.

watsit said:
A depiction of a person doesn't have to be an exact life-like copy.

I agree, a cartoony depiction is still a depiction.

watsit said:
The image is clearly modeled after an event involving real-life people, that resulted in the death of one of those people in real life, so even if it has fictional characters as stand-ins, it's still depicting what happened with those people.

Okay, but "Glorification of a real person's death" is not against the rules, and telling if something glorifies something is subjective.

electricitywolf said:
Okay, but "Glorification of a real person's death" is not against the rules, and telling if something glorifies something is subjective.

The deletion goes along with the site’s TOS. Any content posted on the site can be removed at any time, regardless of the reason.

Is that a weak sauce argument? Maybe, but it is what it is. This isn’t the first time a post was removed at the admins’ discretion, nor will it be the last.

electricitywolf said:
post #2282749 was deleted without it breaking any rules. It says on the page the reason for deletion was "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death". "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" is not against the rules, even if it was, that picture would still not break the rules because it does not depict or mention any real person.
I don't think that picture glorifies the death of any real person.

I am aware someone tried to reupload it. But i found the picture on another web site and i am asking for permission to reupload it.
By the way, depiction does not equal endorsement.

In this case it does. Marthasays, the creator of the art is a well known QAnon "fan" and has been doing art like this for ages specifically to incite anger, and does so because they genuinely do endorse that.

Your argument is flimsy to begin with and the abject lack of reasoning skills on why it was taken down as a piece of meritless art makes me question your motivation to begin with.

Ask yourself, why do you specifically want that image reuploaded when many other harmless deleted posts have far more value.

We dont have to ask. We know why.

This artwork was designed to depict George Floyd who was murdered by a cop causing an international debate on America's political climate and several national protests. It was all over the news and the infamous photo of the cop kneeling on his neck is directly what this image fetishizes.

You know this, by your own admission. Take a minute and drop the bad actor schtick, its not cute, its not helpful its not valuable.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/27228 already debated this into the ground.

While it has been debated really thoroughly over a few threads, I don't think the depiction of highly politicised or real-world tragic events were ever added to the current ToS's Prohibited Content list, to the best of my knowledge.
It can be argued that most of these protest-driven posts can fall under National, Racial, or Ethic Hatred, but other instances of the "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" don't really fit well into this category.

What is defined as a "real person"? Is it somebody easily named in the media, or it can include anybody being involved in the event?

• For example, while most 9/11 posts just feature characters interacting with the building itself, we have post #2483648 feature the "actual" people/victims of the event experiencing great pleasure about their circumstances. I don't know what to feel about these sort of content getting approved, on one hand I'm against blanket censorship while on the other we have inconsistent application of this specific clause.
• What if hypothetically we have depictions of the Holocaust where furry prisoners (in era-appropriate uniforms) are taken into the gas_chambers and instead of using toxic gas, they had used farts instead and the prisoners experience pleasure from it. Would this get approved? If actual toxic gas was used, would that get approved?
• If we had posts of generic furry characters engaged in tragic events (such as school_shootings or police_brutality incidents), would that get approved?
• What about parodies of tragic events, without exact ties to real-world events (e.g., post #2292375)?

Where do we actually draw the line?

The line is drawn in Gaussian Blur.

yeah. i'm of the opinion that things like this can be blacklisted rather than removed, but hey.

Well, the artist got banned from FA and Twitter, probably for the same reason this image was removed from e621. I don't think the staff/owners/users of these sites want to see that kind of content, even if a minority think it's okay.

thegreatwolfgang said:
While it has been debated really thoroughly over a few threads, I don't think the depiction of highly politicised or real-world tragic events were ever added to the current ToS's Prohibited Content list, to the best of my knowledge.
It can be argued that most of these protest-driven posts can fall under National, Racial, or Ethic Hatred, but other instances of the "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" don't really fit well into this category.

What is defined as a "real person"? Is it somebody easily named in the media, or it can include anybody being involved in the event?

• For example, while most 9/11 posts just feature characters interacting with the building itself, we have post #2483648 feature the "actual" people/victims of the event experiencing great pleasure about their circumstances. I don't know what to feel about these sort of content getting approved, on one hand I'm against blanket censorship while on the other we have inconsistent application of this specific clause.
• What if hypothetically we have depictions of the Holocaust where furry prisoners (in era-appropriate uniforms) are taken into the gas_chambers and instead of using toxic gas, they had used farts instead and the prisoners experience pleasure from it. Would this get approved? If actual toxic gas was used, would that get approved?
• If we had posts of generic furry characters engaged in tragic events (such as school_shootings or police_brutality incidents), would that get approved?
• What about parodies of tragic events, without exact ties to real-world events (e.g., post #2292375)?

Where do we actually draw the line?

if there's an influx of gas chamber or school shooting furry porn then perhaps a stand will be taken then. this doesn't seem like something that actually needs to be rules lawyered currently.

pheagleadler said:
Well, the artist got banned from FA and Twitter, probably for the same reason this image was removed from e621. I don't think the staff/owners/users of these sites want to see that kind of content, even if a minority think it's okay.

Marthasays/Ilovejudyhopps/maganick/beastarscuck is banned from multiple sites for a reason. This image is just the tip of the iceberg.

They routinely disobey site rules and post intentionally inflammatory "anti leftist" art because as prior mentioned they are part of the Qanon cult.

thegreatwolfgang said:
While it has been debated really thoroughly over a few threads, I don't think the depiction of highly politicised or real-world tragic events were ever added to the current ToS's Prohibited Content list, to the best of my knowledge.
It can be argued that most of these protest-driven posts can fall under National, Racial, or Ethic Hatred, but other instances of the "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" don't really fit well into this category.

What is defined as a "real person"? Is it somebody easily named in the media, or it can include anybody being involved in the event?
[Reduced for size]

Where do we actually draw the line?

Ignoring the facetious nature of this, art depicting nazism and world war 2 events in a positive light have already been taken down.

The simple fact remains you have to ask: who is the art for, who does it benefit, what value does it merit?

In all cases the answer is the piece is inflammatory and fetishizes the suffocation death of a real black man who was killed by cop brutality. It is not transgressive, it is not transformative, it is not reporting the event. It mocks the memory of the event and everything tied to it as well as the fact its creator, who should not be ignored in this instance, actively did so to "make (n word)s angry."

Do the math.

aversioncapacitor' said:
yeah. i'm of the opinion that things like this can be blacklisted rather than removed, but hey.

There are no blacklistable tags for abject racism like this.

If I were to comisssion and post art of my sona dressed like alex jones shooting the kids from sandy hook it would be taken down just as fast.

Your request is ridiculous.

demesejha said:
Ignoring the facetious nature of this, art depicting nazism and world war 2 events in a positive light have already been taken down.

The simple fact remains you have to ask: who is the art for, who does it benefit, what value does it merit?

In all cases the answer is the piece is inflammatory and fetishizes the suffocation death of a real black man who was killed by cop brutality. It is not transgressive, it is not transformative, it is not reporting the event. It mocks the memory of the event and everything tied to it as well as the fact its creator, who should not be ignored in this instance, actively did so to "make (n word)s angry."

Do the math.

In no way am I writing this as a joke, don't you misconstrue my intentions.
I'm pointing out the inconsistent ruling as well as the lack of an actual clause in the Terms of Service or the Uploading Guidelines in regards to content such as this.

The hypothetical WW2 post I used may not be the best example, but I'm trying to show the inconsistency in the "posts should not derive pleasure from a real-world tragedy" ruling.
Looking back at a previous comment by NMNY, he stated "If there ever shows up a 9/11 image you can identify individual people that have been turned into furries who really love dying for some reason it'll still be deleted for the same or a similar reason."

Then we have post #2483648 getting approved, albeit not depicting furry characters but humans.
I can see similarities between this and the post that was deleted:

• Context: 9/11 vs George Floyd's Arrest
• Tragedy: Destruction of the Twin Towers vs Murder
• Outcome: Pleasure of the characters involved

Marthasays' post understandably got taken down even if when did not directly depict the actual event/characters, but the 9/11 post says up because "satire"?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Looking back at a previous comment by NMNY, he stated "If there ever shows up a 9/11 image you can identify individual people that have been turned into furries who really love dying for some reason it'll still be deleted for the same or a similar reason."

Then we have post #2483648 getting approved, albeit not depicting furry characters but humans.

The key difference here is "individual". post #2483648 does not intend to depict a specific person who was identified as a victim of 9/11. There is no way to associate a real human being's identity to the (entirely fictional) human character in the image, unlike post #2282749.

gattonero2001 said:
The key difference here is "individual". post #2483648 does not intend to depict a specific person who was identified as a victim of 9/11. There is no way to associate a real human being's identity to the (entirely fictional) human character in the image, unlike post #2282749.

Alright, with that logic, depicting group of victims collectively in a tragic event (without singling out notable individuals) is allowed then? E.g., Fetishising events of terrorism, mass shootings, war crimes, etc.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Alright, with that logic, depicting group of victims collectively in a tragic event (without singling out notable individuals) is allowed then? E.g., Fetishising events of terrorism, mass shootings, war crimes, etc.

That would depend on certain other factors, such as whether the apparent intent of an image is to spread a hate message and just happens to have furry characters (post #2209048 comes to mind; the main focus of the image is to spread a racist message, and used a primate to do it, and while a primate is generally considered furry-relevant for the site, it wasn't meant as "furry art"). Plenty of people fetishize nazi uniforms, and there's plenty of posts under the nazi tag, but unlike the aforementioned post spreading a pro-racism message, they're not explicitly spreading a pro-nazi message, and have a more intentionally furry-relevant bend.

Ultimately no ruleset is going to be perfect. Words are imperfect. The rules as written give the intent of what the admins allow, but you will always find people trying to skirt them or do something the admins couldn't foresee, or that they don't know how to put in the rules without unintended consequences (i.e. forbidding things they want to allow), so they will sometimes have to just use their executive power to remove what they don't want here. But unless you're really trying to stir people up, it's not something you need to worry about.

watsit said:
That would depend on certain other factors, such as whether the apparent intent of an image is to spread a hate message and just happens to have furry characters ... But unless you're really trying to stir people up, it's not something you need to worry about.

From the surface and an outside perspective, post #2292375 didn't seem to carry a hate message targeting any specific groups of real-world people, other than the reference of the move used by officers in George Floyd's murder.
Granted I could not have known what was the actual intent of the picture prior to the deletion of the original source, it would be understandable should the management decide it would not be best interest to retain the picture considering the artist's background and their intention to harass people and stir drama.

Again, I am just pointing out the lack of a specific clause covering these sort of content since it's removal. There is no clear line between "Yes, this is satire and non-inflammatory." and "No, this is harassment and inflammatory."
Regardless of intentions, somebody is bound to create a scene which coincidentally references a high-profile case, then the question comes to whether or not people would be offended by its use.

The thread didn't even manage to make it to page 2 before the devil's advocates compared the bee movie scene parodying police brutality to a drawing explicitly referencing the murder of an individual by cops. Going so for as to copy the entire composition of a photo that made international news, and then turned it into a fetish thing.

No, the image will stay deleted, and we will be deleting other similar images.
We will also not be posting any detailed guidelines on where the line is, and any attempts to toe or identify the line will also be removed with extreme prejudice.