Topic: [REJECTED] Ralsei smoking a BUR

The bulk update request #1406 has been rejected.

create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt (150) -> ralsei (8200)
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt (150) -> marijuana_blunt (397)
create implication marijuana_blunt (397) -> marijuana (5183)
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt (150) -> meme (62734)
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt (150) -> smoking (25922)

Reason: Applying related implications to the ralsei_smoking_blunt tag since it seems to have just been created recently

Edited to remove redundant implications

EDIT: The bulk update request #1406 (forum #317894) has been rejected by @slyroon.

These are unnecessary:

create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> deltarune  # already implied through ralsei
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> drugs      # already implied through marijuana

I would also make a marijuana_blunt -> marijuana implication instead of having a ralsei_smoking_blunt one.

bitwolfy said:
These are unnecessary:

create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> deltarune  # already implied through ralsei
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> drugs      # already implied through marijuana

I would also make a marijuana_blunt -> marijuana implication instead of having a ralsei_smoking_blunt one.

Is there a way to edit a BUR?

cringebird said:
Is there a way to edit a BUR?

Yeah, that's the one of benefits of BURs.
Click on "bulk update request #1406" in your original post, then click "Edit" at the bottom.

cringebird said:
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> marijuana
create implication ralsei_smoking_blunt -> drugs

marijuana already implicates drugs, so the meme also implicating drugs alongside marijuana is redundant.

Fixed the BUR to remove redundant implications and made a marijuana_blunt -> marijuana implication part of the BUR

Do we really make that many implications on a meme tag? I could see people theoretically doing variations/ parodies of this meme, that doesn't feature Ralsei, marijuana/blunt or smoking. Even if it's in the name of the meme, we don't make implications based on that.

For example: girl_staring_at_man's_chest, even if there's girl, staring, man and chest in the name of the meme. We don't implicate female, stare, looking_at_another, male and pecs, because obviously there are variations that could still be seem as that meme, but that doesn't feature any or partially of these things.

That said, I'll present my thoughts on these implications:

Implication Smoking

"Smoking is a practice in which a substance, such as tobacco or marijuana, is burned and the smoke is tasted or inhaled." - smoking
post #2960796
Is Ralsei smoking here by TWYS or by following the Wiki's definition? He's only holding it, if he was exhaling smoke, we could tell he was indeed smoking, but in this post I'd say he isn't. We can't even tell this is indeed a marijuana blunt.

Implication Marijuana Blunt/ Marijuana

I even more confused with this, how can someone tag these posts with marijuana following only TWYS:

post #2964755 post #2963464 post #2955290

I understand they seem to be marijuana blunts, but you don't see marijuana there. As they seem to be marijuana blunts, I think it should be fine to tag as it, but not as marijuana, because this would break TWYS and cause mistags.

Implication Ralsei

I couldn't find any examples, but it's entirely possible for someone to make a parody of this meme, without featuring Ralsei (in the same way girl staring at... does). Like someone could just get the original image and make a paintover with some other character. This would make that image easily recognized as an parody of that meme without presenting Ralsei, they could even change the blunt to be something else.

sieghelm_lockayer said:

I couldn't find any examples, but it's entirely possible for someone to make a parody of this meme, without featuring Ralsei (in the same way girl staring at... does). Like someone could just get the original image and make a paintover with some other character. This would make that image easily recognized as an parody of that meme without presenting Ralsei, they could even change the blunt to be something else.

The meme itself is based on this edited image of Mario that is also a meme. The tag, however, is based on Ralsei version, therefore requiring Ralsei to qualify

cringebird said:
The meme itself is based on this edited image of Mario that is also a meme. The tag, however, is based on Ralsei version, therefore requiring Ralsei to qualify

Then maybe alias it to either the Mario version or some version that ignores both characters.

furrin_gok said:
Then maybe alias it to either the Mario version or some version that ignores both characters.

There is no tag for the Mario version to my knowledge, plus most of the art in the tag is specifically referencing the Ralsei version so aliasing to the Mario version wouldn't be right either way

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Is Ralsei smoking here by TWYS or by following the Wiki's definition? He's only holding it, if he was exhaling smoke, we could tell he was indeed smoking, but in this post I'd say he isn't. We can't even tell this is indeed a marijuana blunt.

The ralsei_smoking_blunt tag represents all versions and drawovers of the Ralsei Smoking a Blunt meme, plus the description of that piece clearly mentions a variation of the meme that inspired it:

Text is based on the acclaimed masterpiece Ralsei Smoking Weed the Movie

sieghelm_lockayer said:
I understand they seem to be marijuana blunts, but you don't see marijuana there. As they seem to be marijuana blunts, I think it should be fine to tag as it, but not as marijuana, because this would break TWYS and cause mistags.

marijuana_blunt literally implies there is weed being smoked in the blunt, according to TWYS marijuana could easily be applied because marijuana blunts are pretty distinctive compared to, say, tobacco cigarettes or crack pipes

cringebird said:
There is no tag for the Mario version to my knowledge, plus most of the art in the tag is specifically referencing the Ralsei version so aliasing to the Mario version wouldn't be right either way

I don't understand, if this meme is a parody of that Mario image, I belive it should be the main tag nonetheless. If the tag doesn't exist, create it.

cringebird said:
The ralsei_smoking_blunt tag represents all versions and drawovers of the Ralsei Smoking a Blunt meme, plus the description of that piece clearly mentions a variation of the meme that inspired it:

Text is based on the acclaimed masterpiece Ralsei Smoking Weed the Movie

From what I know, using descriptions or dialogue is TWYK not TWYS. There are of course some tags that can only work if we use outside knowledge, but I doubt smoking is one of these tags. There's not much to say Ralsei is smoking in that post, he seems to simply holding the blunt. The fact that it's from the Ralsei Smoking Blunt meme doesn't change that and simply using the name of the meme to tag smoking, is clearly TWYK.

cringebird said:
marijuana_blunt literally implies there is weed being smoked in the blunt, according to TWYS marijuana could easily be applied because marijuana blunts are pretty distinctive compared to, say, tobacco cigarettes or crack pipes

I still not convinced, as a rule of thumb if you don't see it, you don't tag it and I don't see the marijuana in all marijuana blunts. An example of tag that implies something on the name, but it don't implicate tags are the *_outline tags, like penis_outline or nipple_outline.

We see the outline of these body parts, but we don't see them directly, that's why it doesn't get implications. The same principle can be applied to marijuana blunts, it does have characteristics that make it distinct from tobacco, cigarettes, etc... But in some posts we don't directly see the marijuana, so it shouldn't be implicated nor tagged as marijuana.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
I don't understand, if this meme is a parody of that Mario image, I belive it should be the main tag nonetheless. If the tag doesn't exist, create it.

The images in the ralsei_smoking_blunt tag don't directly reference the Mario image, aside from 2964755 (and 2961409 if you want to push it), there's no reason for the ralsei_smoking_blunt tag to alias to a Mario smoking a blunt tag.

From what I know, using descriptions or dialogue is TWYK not TWYS. There are of course some tags that can only work if we use outside knowledge, but I doubt smoking is one of these tags. There's not much to say Ralsei is smoking in that post, he seems to simply holding the blunt. The fact that it's from the Ralsei Smoking Blunt meme doesn't change that and simply using the name of the meme to tag smoking, is clearly TWYK.

If we were to go by TWYS there is still a reference to getting high in the image, which implies the blunt is weed and has been smoked.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
I still not convinced, as a rule of thumb if you don't see it, you don't tag it and I don't see the marijuana in all marijuana blunts. An example of tag that implies something on the name, but it don't implicate tags are the *_outline tags, like penis_outline or nipple_outline.

We see the outline of these body parts, but we don't see them directly, that's why it doesn't get implications. The same principle can be applied to marijuana blunts, it does have characteristics that make it distinct from tobacco, cigarettes, etc... But in some posts we don't directly see the marijuana, so it shouldn't be implicated nor tagged as marijuana.

Blunts inherently have marijuana in them, this isn't something like penis_outline where a penis is implied, to roll a blunt or joint you need weed to roll the rolling paper onto

cringebird said:
Blunts inherently have marijuana in them, this isn't something like penis_outline where a penis is implied, to roll a blunt or joint you need weed to roll the rolling paper onto

Which is Tag What You Know, not What You See. You don't see the marijuana there, you only know it's there or that it should be there. I used penis_outline as an example, because it's the same thing you know there's a penis there, but you don't see it, therefore it doesn't get tagged as penis. The only posts that seems to have marijuana blunts which you can also see the marijuana on the blunt are: post #2276953 and post #2314485, everything else you would only be able to tag as marijuana if there's something else that resembles it on the post, which in some there are.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Which is Tag What You Know, not What You See. You don't see the marijuana there, you only know it's there or that it should be there.

I think it's well enough implied that a marijuana blunt would have marijuana. All it basically is is some rolled up paper with marijuana inside, so if you can't assume marijuana, it would just be rolled up paper and not a marijuana blunt.

watsit said:
I think it's well enough implied that a marijuana blunt would have marijuana. All it basically is is some rolled up paper with marijuana inside, so if you can't assume marijuana, it would just be rolled up paper and not a marijuana blunt.

Exactly this. This is what I'm trying to say

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Which is Tag What You Know, not What You See. You don't see the marijuana there, you only know it's there or that it should be there. I used penis_outline as an example, because it's the same thing you know there's a penis there, but you don't see it, therefore it doesn't get tagged as penis. The only posts that seems to have marijuana blunts which you can also see the marijuana on the blunt are: post #2276953 and post #2314485, everything else you would only be able to tag as marijuana if there's something else that resembles it on the post, which in some there are.

Penis_outline and penis are separated for searching purposes. If you’re searching for penises, you probably don’t want just the outline, and vice versa. I don’t think this is the case with marijuana. If you’re looking for marijuana-related imagery, I’m certain that a blunt would suffice.

I think, while we’re at it, cigarette and cigar should probably imply tobacco. Sure, *technically* there could be something besides tobacco in a cigar or weed in a blunt, but it’s fairly pointless to assume it contains anything otherwise. Cigars and cigarettes and blunts all have distinct appearances, so the external appearance indicates what’s inside.

And following along with what bitWolfy said, if we can’t assume that a blunt contains marijuana and a cigarette contains tobacco, we should just alias all these different smoking devices to rolled_paper or something like that. That would be extremely impractical for searching and tagging, however.

Along the same line of reasoning, why do we have cocktail imply alcohol? How do we know that any cocktail is alcohol and not some other liquid? Again, the appearance dictates what’s inside. A martini glass with liquid inside is easily presumed to be alcohol, even though there’s no way to tell between alcohol and some other liquid just from an image. Therefore, if something can be visually identified as a blunt, it contains marijuana. Same for cigars and tobacco, and martinis and alcohol.

scaliespe said:
How do we know that any cocktail is alcohol and not some other liquid? Again, the appearance dictates what’s inside. A martini glass with liquid inside is easily presumed to be alcohol, even though there’s no way to tell between alcohol and some other liquid just from an image.

Ok but imagine a martini made out of motor oil, it'd taste absolutely horrible but it'd totally mess with people

Also this is my 69th forum post according to e6, nice

user_860811 said:
The meme itself is based on this edited image of Mario that is also a meme. The tag, however, is based on Ralsei version, therefore requiring Ralsei to qualify

Unfortunately they can't reply anymore, but I'll let this here, because I wasn't able to find an real example at the time on why imply ralsei_smoking_blunt -> ralsei was a bad implication:

post #2971277

Clearly referencing the meme, Ralsei is only drawn at the hoodie, but it's a pretty close example on why that is a bad implication, it could have variations with other characters without featuring Ralsei whatsoever.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Unfortunately they can't reply anymore, but I'll let this here, because I wasn't able to find an real example at the time on why imply ralsei_smoking_blunt -> ralsei was a bad implication:

post #2971277

Clearly referencing the meme, Ralsei is only drawn at the hoodie, but it's a pretty close example on why that is a bad implication, it could have variations with other characters without featuring Ralsei whatsoever.

In that case, shouldn’t the tag be mario_smoking_a_blunt, since the original meme was with Mario instead? And that way, images like this aren’t necessarily associated with Ralsei.

We could even keep the ralsei smoking tag, and have it imply the Mario smoking tag, since it seems to be quite common to see ralsei in this meme. Then have the ralsei smoking meme imply ralsei AND mario_smoking, and use the mario_smoking tag for any character who is doing this. Again, since mario was the original meme, and the ralsei spin-off is specifically with ralsei.

I see one problem: ralsei_smoking_blunt shouldn't imply ralsei since the former is also widely used to tag parodies that don't actually include Ralsei.

There is now also a tag mario_smoking_weed.

yeah ralsei_smoking_blunt should probably be aliased to mario_smoking_weed or to something more generic

Super Mario Smoking Weed The Movie (released july 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf_VZd1R_Ik
the Ralsei themed parody film (released september 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQegCNknM2w
early ralsei smoking weed meme that directly references the soundtrack and links to the parody: post #2960796

The bulk update request #1406 (forum #317894) has been rejected by @slyroon.