Implicating candy_gore → gore
Link to implication

Reason:

Like the title says, it's impossible to have candy gore without gore.

EDIT: The tag implication candy_gore -> gore (forum #210986) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

You literally made up that tag today. Care to explain how this tag would be useful and comparable to real gore, since I'm willing to say people who want to see blood and disembowelment don't want to see candy versions of it. I think keeping it seperate would be better.

Actually im fairly certain that they didn't "make up that tag today" that's been around for a while on many places and its the same kind of thing as regular gore in most instances. Gore would be a nice umbrella to avoid both since they are the same in a lot of ways.

+1 to this.
Also if they dont want to see candy gore they jsut need to add -candy_gore

GDelscribe said:
...its the same kind of thing as regular gore in most instances.

Except for the whole fact that instead of blood, guts, and quite a few medical terms that'd be too specific for common use (avulsions and amputations, both of which are correctly used for certain gore), but that will be specified later.

Also if they dont want to see candy gore they jsut need to add -candy_gore

That is no reason for an alias or implication to be correct...

And, back on topic, I am only against the implication towards gore, because it is already misused on site and this is very specific. An image with candy_gore can contain gore, that is logical, but the usage of gore on this site is more appropriately named guro, but is gore because it is generalized. A person can misinterpret the tag and apply it to things that aren't actually gore (even the on-site usage).

For instance, the eating of plain candy, from a bowl in the presence of a candy creature, can be considered gore and other respective tags despite not actually being gore. This is the same problem with infantilism, (read the wiki) and other tags (BDSM gear always construing forced sex, for me specifically) that can be taken too specifically because of interpretation. Hence why I am just against the implication.

And, for why I specified that it was made today, I could say an alias would work, my point on not wanting to see candy_gore with gore is me being specific to candy_gore, not to gore in general. I won't speak for everyone, obviously. The situation could be reversed, where candy_gore and normal gore exist on one image and candy_gore people might be disgusted by it. Quite interestingly, I know of a similar situation where an artist describes their character's scat as strawberry goop because they hate actual scat. In this case, I wouldn't believe that a tag just for such, or an implication towards scat if a tag existed, would be made. I say this is just far too specific to really merit an implication.

Well, I think there's nothing wrong with the tag as it does describe a unique feature that may be hard to find.

But as for implication to gore, it's hard to say due to above mentioned reasons.

Personally, if it's a candy character being disemboveled, leaking candy blood and what not, then I don't see the difference to normal gore. I think it's still nasty enough to be included in the blacklists that contain gore.

Delian said:
Well, I think there's nothing wrong with the tag as it does describe a unique feature that may be hard to find.

But as for implication to gore, it's hard to say due to above mentioned reasons.

Personally, if it's a candy character being disemboveled, leaking candy blood and what not, then I don't see the difference to normal gore. I think it's still nasty enough to be included in the blacklists that contain gore.

Except 'gore' does not, inversely, for one to look this up. Candy + Gore does not the subject matter make.

And, back on topic, I am only against the implication towards gore, because it is already misused on site

fixing the tags now :)

For instance, the eating of plain candy, from a bowl in the presence of a candy creature, can be considered gore and other respective tags despite not actually being gore.

going to be honest my man, that seems really pedantic for someone to tag like that

The situation could be reversed, where candy_gore and normal gore exist on one image and candy_gore people might be disgusted by it.

{ gore -candy_gore } works well too

fewrahuxo said:
fixing the tags now :)

Whoa there. Gore is gore, regardless of the art style. Those should absolutely remain tagged as such.

Genjar said:
Whoa there. Gore is gore, regardless of the art style. Those should absolutely remain tagged as such.

+1 While I'm unsure on candy_gore as a tag, I'd imagine posts it's tagged on like post #999131 and post #856301 would not want to be seen by people blacklisting gore.

fewrahuxo said:
fixing the tags now :)

Don't change the tag, the meaning is misused. Again, the name is gore but the usage is guro.

going to be honest, that seems really pedantic for someone to tag like that

Well, you made the tag, and you know how to use the tag, and you know what applies to it. To be blunt, no one else will know how to tag it at all. You, and only you, made the tag.

{ gore -candy_gore } works well too

That is the complete opposite of what I said, where a person doesn't want to see gore but wants to see candy gore, but their blacklists are tailored to not see gore. IE: gore being blacklisted but they searched for candy gore, because it looks and can act differently from actual gore.

What is candy gore, though? Bleeding out Reese's Pieces, from a wolf; a visual lollipop ribcage on a candy man; or a candy creature bleeding real blood with a head avulsion showing their real brain? How many people will attempt to tag it, you being the first and us in the forum currently excluded. This is, after all, just the day after the tag was introduced, and nobody bothered to tag it back then...

Furthermore, will you be the one who decides? Tags have changed because of how many times they were misused *cough cough all the */* tags (they used to only be sexual)*. This also seems to be a minor tag that won't garnish much attention, especially if you compare it to the "umbrella" tag gore, which is really just an umbrella for what causes gore, because thus far there is only one type of gore, which is blood, bones, and flesh.

Basically, we tag them the way they're used in the gaming industry: gore is a broad category that covers everything from open wounds to giblets and guts, etc.

Blood is tagged if there's just blood... but gore is for fleshy bits.

Given Siral's viewpoints and the elboration within, I totally understand how this could make for problems not only for users, but also for admins. As such, I concur.

I'm with @Siral_Exan: on this one. -1

So this tag is a real thing? <_<

HypnoBitch said:
So this tag is a real thing? <_<

It's a real genre :3

I like this kind of candy gore which I don't consider "Gore," but I dislike a lot of the things that are under candy gore right now, they really seem like they'd fit in gore and are just rainbow colored.

Bump. I like the idea of an implication, but this thread lists many conflicting situations. 0 meh.

Upvoted as imo this is a kind of gore and the average person who has gore blacklisted probably doesn't want to see it. And again like others have said, you can find and/or blacklist regular gore with gore -candy_gore. Personally I've already had this line in my blacklist for a long time since I don't mind candy gore and a lot of candy_gore pieces are also tagged gore.
OP certainly didn't invent the term, it has a wiktionary page and the earliest urban dictionary definition is from 2015. I'm pretty sure it's been around much longer than that, though.

Upvoted, this implication is just common sense, and candy gore is definitely a "theme" in artwork (and not always literally candy), even if some apparently hadn't heard of it six years ago.

Some candy gore is probably inoffensive to most, with characters bleeding candy blood, or having solid cake/fruit innards exposed through bites or slices taken out of them, like this

post #4055679

Other candy gore is identical to gore, with organs, bones and guts spilling out, but with sparkles, candy pieces or neon/pastel blood, and usually with cartoon exaggeration and a lack of pain/death

post #3923255 post #925428

Therefore it should be considered a subgenre of gore. If someone is okay with candy gore but not normal gore, they can always add gore -candy_gore to their blacklist.

The tag implication candy_gore -> gore (forum #210986) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #6289 is active.

create implication fruit_gore (41) -> candy_gore (597)
create implication cake_gore (35) -> candy_gore (597)
create implication fruit_gore (41) -> fruit (39108)
create implication cake_gore (35) -> cake (8899)

Reason: These are subgenres of candy gore, where the insides of a character are fruit or cake respectively. Fruit gore is very much a popular thing. Cake gore isn't as widely used of a term as fruit gore, but "thing is revealed to actually be a hyperrealistic cake" was a meme for a while and a bunch of furry artists jumped on it, so I think it's worth having its own tag.

Maybe they should imply living_cake and living_fruit instead of cake and fruit? Thoughts?
Alternatively, maybe they both imply food_gore and food_gore implies candy_gore? Remember, "candy gore" is a genre/aesthetic, it doesn't always literally mean candy.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6289 (forum #387745) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6289 (forum #387745) has been approved by @slyroon.