Some of the garbage Im seeing uploaded to the site recently that I don't wanna see, but can't blacklist them right now because there are no tag to use.

All posts that make a direct or implied call for violence should be tagged 'call_for_violence', so they can be blacklisted. I would blacklist them; out of all of them, I have liked none of them and have downvoted all the ones I've seen.

If there is a better tag name than 'call_for_violence' that conveys the same idea hen I would like to hear it.

Do you have some examples where it would apply?

I agree please post examples, and this sounds like potentially a good tag idea, but also:
If this is about violent fluffy pony art, the tag you should blacklist is fluffy_pony. That'll get all of it and none will seep through

scth said:
Do you have some examples where it would apply?

cloudpie said:
I agree please post examples

Here's one I've seen:
post #2995330

Yeah, that seems like it would be useful.
As for actually creating the tag, it's as simple as adding it to images you think it should apply to. Eventually, if enough people see the tag, you won't be the only one adding it.
You should also define it with a wiki article at call_for_violence.
Assuming what Watsit posted is what you mean, of course.

No matter any one upload and it's nature or context, it's readily apparant that there is material on this site that is allowed, (it doesn't go against the terms of service) but regardless of how agreeable it is, whether a reason exists or doesn't, it will be acted on just the same.
And people will ruthlessly attack each other in comments for their reason.

So I think I'm for this.

I'd even argue the tag ought to be a default item in a new user's blacklist.
That you would have to intentionally remove it to view everything tagged with it.
Everyone knows you don't just accidentally view certain things, already.
You have to look for it.
It should probably be the same for what stuff is still permitted here that implies a threat towards someone.
Or yourself, even.

The last time I looked out the window, I saw and heard a whole lot of people screaming about killing each other, out there.

Maybe we should be doing our best to keep it out there.

letforeverdieslow said:
No matter any one upload and it's nature or context, it's readily apparant that there is material on this site that is allowed, (it doesn't go against the terms of service) but regardless of how agreeable it is, whether a reason exists or doesn't, it will be acted on just the same.
And people will ruthlessly attack each other in comments for their reason.

So I think I'm for this.

I'd even argue the tag ought to be a default item in a new user's blacklist.
That you would have to intentionally remove it to view everything tagged with it.
Everyone knows you don't just accidentally view certain things, already.
You have to look for it.
It should probably be the same for what stuff is still permitted here that implies a threat towards someone.
Or yourself, even.

The last time I looked out the window, I saw and heard a whole lot of people screaming about killing each other, out there.

Maybe we should be doing our best to keep it out there.

It's only being used on lgbt_pride and trans rights related posts, half of the posts that are even tagged with this new loaded tag are already tagged as gore anyway.

Considering it's easier to just blacklist lgbt_pride, gore, or politics rather than make a new tag to only be used against trans vent art and artists, I say it's not a good idea

smuglytherat said:
It's only being used on lgbt_pride and trans rights related posts, half of the posts that are even tagged with this new loaded tag are already tagged as gore anyway.

Considering it's easier to just blacklist lgbt_pride, gore, or politics rather than make a new tag to only be used against trans vent art and artists, I say it's not a good idea

You've already removed it from three posts that do explicitly call for violence (primarily saying "kill _"). Given that that is exactly what the tag is for, that's kind of tag vandalism.
(I didn't re-add, as I'd rather avoid a tag war)

Also, the tag is about text in the image, making it entirely separate from gore. It's not really politics either.

smuglytherat said:
It's only being used on lgbt_pride and trans rights related posts, half of the posts that are even tagged with this new loaded tag are already tagged as gore anyway.

Considering it's easier to just blacklist lgbt_pride, gore, or politics rather than make a new tag to only be used against trans vent art and artists, I say it's not a good idea

post #4163693 post #2995330 post #4163511 post #3356883 post #2357947 post #2202152 post #1644957 post #2974041 post #2974405 post #2311180
Please explain, in thorough detail, which of these posts you consider to be LGBT-related, and which of these posts you think should have call_for_violence.

lafcadio said:
post #4163693 post #2995330 post #4163511 post #3356883 post #2357947 post #2202152 post #1644957 post #2974041 post #2974405 post #2311180
Please explain, in thorough detail, which of these posts you consider to be LGBT-related, and which of these posts you think should have call_for_violence.

I feel like call_for_violence is an already loaded tag that delends on who's tagging it. And considering it's been used by someone to add only to posts they personally don't like makes it similar to adding tags like "based" or "cringe"

All of those examples you've shown me can properly be tagged with politics anyway which the OP could've blacklisted instead. And since pride posts bother him so much, he should also just blacklist lgbt_pride lgbt_history_month, something he also added the call_for_violence tag to

The whole point of the TWYS policy is objectivity to what's in the post, but the strong language of call_for_violence bleeds into opinionated territory, and is being used as such

I also don't think it's fair to put words into he mouths of creators who are using art to express themselves through violent imagery as calling for or approving of violence, and if you want to say it does then that's hypocritical considering this site has beastiality and cub tags on spite of the fact that actually admitting to doing/ bring into any of that is against e621TOS. That's a whole other can of worms if we take the conversion in the direction.

Last thing I want to say as I've been told by BitWolfy back when they were a mod "you should keep in mind that the artist's opinion, as well as the text in the image, are considered to be external sources, and are not to be used for tagging."

(Also to prove my point about blacklisting already existing tags instead of making this new one, I had to turn mine off just to see your examples because I have both Nazi and Gore blacklisted, I didn't want to see it so I didn't)

smuglytherat said:
I also don't think it's fair to put words into he mouths of creators who are using art to express themselves through violent imagery as calling for or approving of violence, and if you want to say it does then that's hypocritical considering this site has beastiality and cub tags on spite of the fact that actually admitting to doing/ bring into any of that is against e621TOS. That's a whole other can of worms if we take the conversion in the direction.

Last thing I want to say as I've been told by BitWolfy back when they were a mod "you should keep in mind that the artist's opinion, as well as the text in the image, are considered to be external sources, and are not to be used for tagging."

It's not about violent imagery, approving of violence, or artist opinion. It's just about the text in the image literally calling for violence. An image can be politics without advocating for violence, and an image can call for violence without being political (as is the case with quite a few of Lafcadio's examples).

Also, text in the image is valid for tagging, for tags based on dialogue. profanity, for instance.

I would also disagree with it being opinionated. Does the image have text advocating the viewer to violence, against any group or individual? That's relatively objective.

smuglytherat said:
Last thing I want to say as I've been told by BitWolfy back when they were a mod "you should keep in mind that the artist's opinion, as well as the text in the image, are considered to be external sources, and are not to be used for tagging."

text on an image can't be used to tag visual-based stuff like gender or age. the content of dialogue/text is still used to tag dialogue spesific stuff like profanity, explicitly_stated_nonconsent, and the tag in question.

cloudpie said:
I agree please post examples, and this sounds like potentially a good tag idea, but also:
If this is about violent fluffy pony art, the tag you should blacklist is fluffy_pony. That'll get all of it and none will seep through

Annoyingly, there's also hugbox which could be used to avoid the hurtbox stuff, but it is a community-specific tag that means several ambiguous things with e621 community's standards.

scth said:
It's not about violent imagery, approving of violence, or artist opinion. It's just about the text in the image literally calling for violence. An image can be politics without advocating for violence, and an image can call for violence without being political (as is the case with quite a few of Lafcadio's examples).

Also, text in the image is valid for tagging, for tags based on dialogue. profanity, for instance.

I would also disagree with it being opinionated. Does the image have text advocating the viewer to violence, against any group or individual? That's relatively objective.

sipothac said:
text on an image can't be used to tag visual-based stuff like gender or age. the content of dialogue/text is still used to tag dialogue spesific stuff like profanity, explicitly_stated_nonconsent, and the tag in question.

Yeah, it should be considered against the tagging abuse rules to use it on something other than obvious calls to violence? Language and other text-related tags are still based only on the image, not the description/lore or other images, so I guess it seems consistent. You WILL get fools tagging everything with nazi symbols or other controversial things with it even if there's not an explicit mention of violence in the actual image, though. :(

Some of those listed have violence without it being explicitly mentioned in the image. You'll get people tagging it for implied violence like the Knuckles one. You can't fix stupid.

alphamule said:
Yeah, it should be considered against the tagging abuse rules to use it on something other than obvious calls to violence? Language and other text-related tags are still based only on the image, not the description/lore or other images, so I guess it seems consistent. You WILL get fools tagging everything with nazi symbols or other controversial things with it even if there's not an explicit mention of violence in the actual image, though. :(

Some of those listed have violence without it being explicitly mentioned in the image. You'll get people tagging it for implied violence like the Knuckles one. You can't fix stupid.

I would absolutely consider Nazi symbols to be an implicit call for violence, because what did the Nazis do? What were their goals with regards to Jews, LGBT people, Poles, Romani and many other minorities? There's other dogwhistles I would absolutely consider to be plausibly deniable calls for violence (e.g. the groomer panic). How would that be enforced in tagging?

This isn't really a bothsides thing, and for that reason, I think the tag is way too loaded to be used here.

peacethroughpower said:
I would absolutely consider Nazi symbols to be an implicit call for violence, because what did the Nazis do? What were their goals with regards to Jews, LGBT people, Poles, Romani and many other minorities? There's other dogwhistles I would absolutely consider to be plausibly deniable calls for violence (e.g. the groomer panic). How would that be enforced in tagging?

This isn't really a bothsides thing, and for that reason, I think the tag is way too loaded to be used here.

The most recent post under this tag is literally nothing BUT nazi imagery and dogwhistles and I cannot help but feel like it was posted purely for dramabait.

Moderation has deleted posts which are just focused on inspiring hate or violence before, if anything posts like these likely shouldnt even be here to begin with.

demesejha said:
The most recent post under this tag is literally nothing BUT nazi imagery and dogwhistles and I cannot help but feel like it was posted purely for dramabait.

Moderation has deleted posts which are just focused on inspiring hate or violence before, if anything posts like these likely shouldnt even be here to begin with.

I think a better solution to deleting offensive content is to just lock the comments by default. There is value in archiving harmful art, but it shouldn't be promoted. (For instance, Triumph of the Will is racist crap, but it should be archived for its historical value.)

alphamule said:
Annoyingly, there's also hugbox which could be used to avoid the hurtbox stuff, but it is a community-specific tag that means several ambiguous things with e621 community's standards.

I don't really think we'd need tags spesifically for hugbox (or weirdbox or neutral or whatever) fluffy stuff. I think the abuse themed stuff is really the main thing that's out of the ordinary enough here to need a tag.

and also, to be fair, it kinda seems like most of the stuff we have is fluffy pony abuse, we don't have stuff from any of the notable non-abuse artists being uploaded right now.

darryus said:
I don't really think we'd need tags spesifically for hugbox (or weirdbox or neutral or whatever) fluffy stuff. I think the abuse themed stuff is really the main thing that's out of the ordinary enough here to need a tag.

and also, to be fair, it kinda seems like most of the stuff we have is fluffy pony abuse, we don't have stuff from any of the notable non-abuse artists being uploaded right now.

My process is to grab whatever I see from fluffy-community. Mindless violence is fun, but I feel the fandom has a lot of emotional depth that could be explored. That said, most images are abuse so most of what I upload is abuse. Plus I have a finite upload limit, I'm doing my best to consider quality standards and I'm really lazy.

https://e621.net/posts/4119162 Check this image out, for instance. It's saying more than most. I'm excited for the next image but I can't force the artist to work any faster.

This is not a good tag by any stretch of the imagination.

Any person is going to assume their own side is using the speech as a figurative call for action while believing for the other side it's meant to be a literal call for violence, as helpfully illustrated by the OP's selection of posts and not even an attempt at expanding it to BoTh SiDeS in the past 3 weeks.

notmenotyou said:
This is not a good tag by any stretch of the imagination.

Any person is going to assume their own side is using the speech as a figurative call for action while believing for the other side it's meant to be a literal call for violence, as helpfully illustrated by the OP's selection of posts and not even an attempt at expanding it to BoTh SiDeS in the past 3 weeks.

Is there a way to rename to be better/more specific? I interpreted it as whether it was literal or not. I don't think any existing tag encompasses violence when it's only in text, though it is correlated with politics.

..................................................................................................

smuglytherat said:
It's only being used on lgbt_pride and trans rights related posts, half of the posts that are even tagged with this new loaded tag are already tagged as gore anyway.

Considering it's easier to just blacklist lgbt_pride, gore, or politics rather than make a new tag to only be used against trans vent art and artists, I say it's not a good idea

I really had to stop myself from hitting Submit, earlier, remind myself to cut and paste it into another Body, but,
the very intimate, carnal, personal history I have with the influential nature of content that demands """"Righteous"""" action truly requires I say this much publically:

I have known how convincing a sick society can be.

We all understand that, and I say this without prejudice, this is not an entirely well adjusted part of the internet.

Anyone can, as I said via metaphor, turn on the news, go on to social media, open an email, answer a phone call, even just glance absentmindedly at the periodicals on display on each check out at the grocery store, make the mistake of eating at a restaurant with a television on the wall, and be immediately, horrifically, violently made aware of some new horrible event.

The amoral, postmodern, profit seeking nature of the way information is distributed these days, it practically only requires that you exist in order to know all about the hot new outburst.
Readily identified as having been committed by someone who was compelled toward action by engaging with a manipulative presence that had gained his or her confidence by an argument that, if nothing else, was made convincing by sheer, hypnotic repetition.

So when I said all that I had said earlier, I wasn't just thinking of people that aren't straight,
I was also thinking of the people who pursue or espouse violence toward them.

I was thinking about everyone in a more whole and complete and total and absolute way than "everyone but ______________________________________".
I may be a very radical and peculiar kind of humanist, but more than know, I feel what I believe.

And what I feel is that we are at such a state, collectively, that no, really,

There Ought Be A Call_For_Violence Tag and We Could All Benefit From It's Default Inclusion In Blacklists.

I've swallowed my tongue on some other topics, but in so far as I can, I really do insist on this one.

If for no other reason, I have known Charm, myself.

letforeverdieslow said:
words

Okay, so make an argument. Why should there be such a tag and why should it be in default blacklists? From your post, what you've said essentially amounts to "society is bad so we need this tag". I don't really think that's a good line of reasoning.

letforeverdieslow said:

..................................................................................................

I really had to stop myself from hitting Submit, earlier, remind myself to cut and paste it into another Body, but,
the very intimate, carnal, personal history I have with the influential nature of content that demands """"Righteous"""" action truly requires I say this much publically:

I have known how convincing a sick society can be.

We all understand that, and I say this without prejudice, this is not an entirely well adjusted part of the internet.

Anyone can, as I said via metaphor, turn on the news, go on to social media, open an email, answer a phone call, even just glance absentmindedly at the periodicals on display on each check out at the grocery store, make the mistake of eating at a restaurant with a television on the wall, and be immediately, horrifically, violently made aware of some new horrible event.

The amoral, postmodern, profit seeking nature of the way information is distributed these days, it practically only requires that you exist in order to know all about the hot new outburst.
Readily identified as having been committed by someone who was compelled toward action by engaging with a manipulative presence that had gained his or her confidence by an argument that, if nothing else, was made convincing by sheer, hypnotic repetition.

So when I said all that I had said earlier, I wasn't just thinking of people that aren't straight,
I was also thinking of the people who pursue or espouse violence toward them.

I was thinking about everyone in a more whole and complete and total and absolute way than "everyone but ______________________________________".
I may be a very radical and peculiar kind of humanist, but more than know, I feel what I believe.

And what I feel is that we are at such a state, collectively, that no, really,

There Ought Be A Call_For_Violence Tag and We Could All Benefit From It's Default Inclusion In Blacklists.

I've swallowed my tongue on some other topics, but in so far as I can, I really do insist on this one.

If for no other reason, I have known Charm, myself.

NotMeNotYou just explained why it's a good tag better than I could myself, but if it gives you any idea of why I'm having a problem with this tag, the person who made it commented a bunch of articles featuring antisemetic conspiracy theories in response to the phrase, "punch a nazi". Then proceeded to add it to posts only from his prospective (that being transphobic or lgbt_pride related), including the post he'd already gotten a record for. This is just trolling as far as I'm concerned.

This already proves that this tag is subject to misuse and interpretation by the viewer along with every reason I provided earlier, and I'll say it again, he should've just blacklisted politics or lgbt_history_month instead of making his own personal "I disagree with this in particular" tag to blacklist

smuglytherat said:
It's only being used on lgbt_pride and trans rights related posts, half of the posts that are even tagged with this new loaded tag are already tagged as gore anyway.

Considering it's easier to just blacklist lgbt_pride, gore, or politics rather than make a new tag to only be used against trans vent art and artists, I say it's not a good idea

smuglytherat said:
I feel like call_for_violence is an already loaded tag that delends on who's tagging it. And considering it's been used by someone to add only to posts they personally don't like makes it similar to adding tags like "based" or "cringe"

All of those examples you've shown me can properly be tagged with politics anyway which the OP could've blacklisted instead. And since pride posts bother him so much, he should also just blacklist lgbt_pride lgbt_history_month, something he also added the call_for_violence tag to

The whole point of the TWYS policy is objectivity to what's in the post, but the strong language of call_for_violence bleeds into opinionated territory, and is being used as such

I also don't think it's fair to put words into he mouths of creators who are using art to express themselves through violent imagery as calling for or approving of violence, and if you want to say it does then that's hypocritical considering this site has beastiality and cub tags on spite of the fact that actually admitting to doing/ bring into any of that is against e621TOS. That's a whole other can of worms if we take the conversion in the direction.

Last thing I want to say as I've been told by BitWolfy back when they were a mod "you should keep in mind that the artist's opinion, as well as the text in the image, are considered to be external sources, and are not to be used for tagging."

(Also to prove my point about blacklisting already existing tags instead of making this new one, I had to turn mine off just to see your examples because I have both Nazi and Gore blacklisted, I didn't want to see it so I didn't)

I don't mind politics and lgbt_pride_colors, I do mind posts that say "defang fascists" and "kill your local pedophile". Most of the posts under that tag had nothing in common either other than their message, so you're telling me to blacklist politics, but that wouldn't work for the "kill your local pedophile" because there is nothing political about it. I have gore already blacklisted by the way and out of the 7 posts, 5 of these posts still pass through.

Even if you remove the tag I will just make it a set and promote it on my profile which wouldn't change anything on my side and probably yours if folks pass-by.

notmenotyou said:
This is not a good tag by any stretch of the imagination.

Any person is going to assume their own side is using the speech as a figurative call for action while believing for the other side it's meant to be a literal call for violence, as helpfully illustrated by the OP's selection of posts and not even an attempt at expanding it to BoTh SiDeS in the past 3 weeks.

Any figurative call for action promotes violence, so regardless I'd tag that anytime I get the chance to.

Good luck doing BoTh SiDeS since the Nazis are less likely to have their art posted here, first because they hate most artistic mediums, 2 because nobody in their right mind would post something like this here. Give me any extreme right post that calls for violence other than the one made by a 4channer on desuarchive and I'll add the tag to it.

smuglytherat said:
NotMeNotYou just explained why it's a good tag better than I could myself, but if it gives you any idea of why I'm having a problem with this tag, the person who made it commented a bunch of articles featuring antisemetic conspiracy theories in response to the phrase, "punch a nazi". Then proceeded to add it to posts only from his prospective (that being transphobic or lgbt_pride related), including the post he'd already gotten a record for. This is just trolling as far as I'm concerned.

This already proves that this tag is subject to misuse and interpretation by the viewer along with every reason I provided earlier, and I'll say it again, he should've just blacklisted politics or lgbt_history_month instead of making his own personal "I disagree with this in particular" tag to blacklist

I don't like hard-leftists they're violent and bigoted, I have made it clear. When not about politics I have no problem with anyone and I have faved several lgbt-related posts. I am probably gay or bi myself.

I won't blacklist politics and lgbt_history_month because it won't hide the posts I don't wanna see and I do like seeing pride month pictures. Again, how do you expect anybody to blacklist "kill your local pedophile" with something as broad as politics if the issue is not political to begin with.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't like hard-leftists they're violent and bigoted, I have made it clear. When not about politics I have no problem with anyone and I have faved several lgbt-related posts. I am probably gay or bi myself.

I won't blacklist politics and lgbt_history_month because it won't hide the posts I don't wanna see and I do like seeing pride month pictures. Again, how do you expect anybody to blacklist "kill your local pedophile" with something as broad as politics if the issue is not political to begin with.

Statistically speaking, right-wing terrorism is far, far more common than left wing terrorism. https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022

I do think the "kill your local pedophile" image is a dogwhistle but blacklisting the artist seems to be a better solution.

peacethroughpower said:
I do think the "kill your local pedophile" image is a dogwhistle but blacklisting the artist seems to be a better solution.

Yes, then another artist shows up and draws the same kind of fucked-up pictures. Further, what if, just what if the artist draws stuff that I like? At this point, it's just adding post IDs to the blacklist, it is no longer about blacklisting tags.

I swear I wish it was possible to blacklist all posts I have ever downvoted that would have been quicker. I can guarantee equally as much given the discussion here that other folks downvote this shit because they are disgusted by it.

wolfmanfur said:
I swear I wish it was possible to blacklist all posts I have ever downvoted that would have been quicker. I can guarantee equally as much given the discussion here that other folks downvote this shit because they are disgusted by it.

I'm not sure if it works on the blacklist but try adding voteddown:Wolfmanfur and see if it does I guess.

wolfmanfur said:
Any figurative call for action promotes violence, so regardless I'd tag that anytime I get the chance to.

Good luck doing BoTh SiDeS since the Nazis are less likely to have their art posted here, first because they hate most artistic mediums, 2 because nobody in their right mind would post something like this here. Give me any extreme right post that calls for violence other than the one made by a 4channer on desuarchive and I'll add the tag to it.

There's only ~1k results under nazi but I guess none of those deserve checking. You're really not helping your argument of being impartial in this with just assuming that's all the posts that should have it, and not even putting in a minimum of effort to check beyond that.

But you also conveniently ignore other actual hard data in other areas, so that's not all that surprising either.

notmenotyou said:
But you also conveniently ignore other actual hard data in other areas, so that's not all that surprising either.

The tag would basically just be this.

post #4107855

notmenotyou said:
I'm not sure if it works on the blacklist but try adding voteddown:Wolfmanfur and see if it does I guess.

There's only ~1k results under nazi but I guess none of those deserve checking. You're really not helping your argument of being impartial in this with just assuming that's all the posts that should have it, and not even putting in a minimum of effort to check beyond that.

But you also conveniently ignore other actual hard data in other areas, so that's not all that surprising either.

I don't go through a 1k posts tag for the same reason I don't go through a 1k posts tag politics and a 255 posts tag communism to add the tag, it takes a lot of time. The only reason these 7 posts were picked were either because they appeared on the homepage, I saw a comment meltdown under the tickets or comments or I found it completely by accident. The only posts I could find that way were either already posted above by Lafcadio or they're this:
post #2047898 post #1020408
Hard to tell if it's supposed to be kinky or it's supposed to spread a call to action like the hard-left posts I've rated beforehand.

Meanwhile, the other posts that got the tag were "kill", "murder" and I found them not by seeking them out, I found them by simply checking the posts page, the comments page of the tickets.

Can you really pull a judgement over 7 posts?

The bothsidism argument only works if it is possible to match the 2 sides, but here t's not gonna happen because while hard-leftists have their art posted here, literal nazis either don't because of course they will get shit for being literal pieces of shit or in better likelohood because they view most artistic mediums as gross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art.

Is that kind of stuff even allowed here? This was deleted recently, I am not asking you to put it back up, but if you start deleting art made by hard-right nazis then a tag like call_for_violence would inevitably be tagged on more hard-left pictures than hard-right pictures.

peacethroughpower said:
The tag would basically just be this.

post #4107855

I don't care if it's leftist, centrist or rightist rhetoric, I don't wanna see trash when I browse an art archive, or according to some folks a porn website.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't like hard-leftists they're violent and bigoted, I have made it clear. When not about politics I have no problem with anyone and I have faved several lgbt-related posts. I am probably gay or bi myself.

I won't blacklist politics and lgbt_history_month because it won't hide the posts I don't wanna see and I do like seeing pride month pictures. Again, how do you expect anybody to blacklist "kill your local pedophile" with something as broad as politics if the issue is not political to begin with.

If you're not going to use your blacklist then that's a you problem, quit trying to make it everyone else's

smuglytherat said:
If you're not going to use your blacklist then that's a you problem, quit trying to make it everyone else's

What would you even blacklist for something like post #2995330? That's the type of thing I wanted the tag for, at least.

notmenotyou said:
This is not a good tag by any stretch of the imagination.

Any person is going to assume their own side is using the speech as a figurative call for action while believing for the other side it's meant to be a literal call for violence, as helpfully illustrated by the OP's selection of posts and not even an attempt at expanding it to BoTh SiDeS in the past 3 weeks.

So is your objection that uploaders will not tag it, or that it will lead to tag wars/tickets/bans?

If it's not either of those, is there any reason 'if you don't take it literally you are using the tag wrong' can't be baked into the definition? If you can't TWYS then you are not good at tagging correctly anyway.

I think people's tendency to take things on the internet both literally and uncharitably would actually work in favor of this tag being applied correctly, even if OP cannot be trusted to do so.

savageorange said:
even if OP cannot be trusted to do so.

I'm still waiting for a response from NotMeNotYou. The fact that they starts deleting posts made by nazis/bigots around the same time of this drama is very sketchy, and this is on top of the fact that they will ignore the fact I bring up that one subset of people is more likely to be found here than another.
That just screams excuses, they may have another problem with this tag that might be more political in nature rather than having anything related to its usage.

I agree that a tag like this would be nice, but how does one follow TWYS with something like this tag? Unless a character or text is explicitly stating "Go harm other", it's really subjective. Not to mention I feel a tag like this would be abused and mistagged nonstop because of the content it would inevitably end up on.

wolfmanfur said:
I'm still waiting for a response from NotMeNotYou. The fact that they starts deleting posts made by nazis/bigots around the same time of this drama is very sketchy, and this is on top of the fact that they will ignore the fact I bring up that one subset of people is more likely to be found here than another.
That just screams excuses, they may have another problem with this tag that might be more political in nature rather than having anything related to its usage.

You've been routinely toxic and ruined any good faith people might've had got you, stop trying to call out the mods for being partisan hacks when I know damn well you'd like it if they did the opposite. I'm done dealing with you after this.

smuglytherat said:
You've been routinely toxic and ruined any good faith people might've had got you, stop trying to call out the mods for being partisan hacks when I know damn well you'd like it if they did the opposite. I'm done dealing with you after this.

I don't think you're up to talk when I've seen you jump into fights with other folks plenty of times over.I remember when you were tag warring other folks over the trans_(lore) tag.

Also you showed here just to berate me and throw accusations my way.All the while misrepresenting the arguments made by many folks here for the tag. You don't ever wanna talk, all you ever wanna do is fight, fight and then fight some more.

No more fighting here. This was a perfectly reasonable topic, and it's been hijacked thrice over.

I ended up just blacklisting propaganda. Not exactly right, but close enough. Also not a very well defined tag unfortunately, but it's at least mostly a style.
(I know "blacklist quietly", but I think it's relevant that the tag exists and contains most of the offending content from this thread).

how about a violent_language tag? for just words like "murder" and "kill" as well as any other direct reference to physical violence hyperbolic or not.

it's a bit more broad and maybe a bit more objective, and pairing that with political or propaganda should blacklist most of the stuff being discussed.

sipothac said:
how about a violent_language tag? for just words like "murder" and "kill" as well as any other direct reference to physical violence hyperbolic or not.

it's a bit more broad and maybe a bit more objective, and pairing that with political or propaganda should blacklist most of the stuff being discussed.

I'd support that. It would also be possible to find lots of images to apply it to with OCR to get it started.

Might be best to make a new thread for it, though. Getting initial opinions, finding words to include.

sipothac said:
how about a violent_language tag? for just words like "murder" and "kill" as well as any other direct reference to physical violence hyperbolic or not.

it's a bit more broad and maybe a bit more objective, and pairing that with political or propaganda should blacklist most of the stuff being discussed.

That's certainly more specific, though there's also the issue of symbols like the swastika being an explicit and implicit call for violence against Jews, LGBT people, the Romani, Slavs and leftists. Really, I think it's rather unnecessary.

peacethroughpower said:
That's certainly more specific, though there's also the issue of symbols like the swastika being an explicit and implicit call for violence against Jews, LGBT people, the Romani, Slavs and leftists. Really, I think it's rather unnecessary.

It's a symbol, it's not words. Swastika is already handled under... well, itself and the more general assortment of Nazi tags. If you're hung up over wanting to tag that, hit it with Hate_Symbol or something. I don't view there as being anything wrong with wanting to avoid "inflict hurt//maim//kill on <GROUP>" content, bit of a fuckin' downer to have pop up in a search and such a tag would be useful for... get this, archival purposes. Shocking, I know, that we'd make a part of the furry art archive serve it's role as an archive of furry art.

Fucking hell, it's not even about politics at this point, give people a way to filter things and at the same time create a valid searchable tag for a topic that has research/historic merit for the future. It's weird we have all manner of meme tags, tags for shit that is entirely beyond the scope of TWYS, so on so forth, but this is what's an issue. It's either allowed and should be properly categorised both to be found and/or avoided, or it isn't allowed and should be deleted if found.

darryus said:
I don't really think we'd need tags spesifically for hugbox (or weirdbox or neutral or whatever) fluffy stuff. I think the abuse themed stuff is really the main thing that's out of the ordinary enough here to need a tag.

and also, to be fair, it kinda seems like most of the stuff we have is fluffy pony abuse, we don't have stuff from any of the notable non-abuse artists being uploaded right now.

And that needs to change? :P

wolfmanfur said:
Yes, then another artist shows up and draws the same kind of fucked-up pictures. Further, what if, just what if the artist draws stuff that I like? At this point, it's just adding post IDs to the blacklist, it is no longer about blacklisting tags.

I swear I wish it was possible to blacklist all posts I have ever downvoted that would have been quicker. I can guarantee equally as much given the discussion here that other folks downvote this shit because they are disgusted by it.

This is why we have a fluffy pony tag. Nod - I mean PTP got a lot of complaints even though tagging them all fluffy pony. Yeah, having to tag every new artist that gets uploaded, or blocking the non-offending art from same artist just because some offend you is not really a good solution. Blacklists are intended primarily for content, right? RIGHT?

I don't agree that it's (just) 2 sides, but definitely two groups are very actively vocal right now.

purelyforablacklist said:
I agree that a tag like this would be nice, but how does one follow TWYS with something like this tag? Unless a character or text is explicitly stating "Go harm other", it's really subjective. Not to mention I feel a tag like this would be abused and mistagged nonstop because of the content it would inevitably end up on.

It's part of why I wouldn't even tag it if not explicit. It would be like feeding chum to the giant super mutants troll lords.

sipothac said:
how about a violent_language tag? for just words like "murder" and "kill" as well as any other direct reference to physical violence hyperbolic or not.

it's a bit more broad and maybe a bit more objective, and pairing that with political or propaganda should blacklist most of the stuff being discussed.

That... almost sounds like what I was thinking with this tag. Thanks for suggestion - now to get people to use it!

:edit: Damn, had this typed up and forgot to post:

"punch a nazi" is a meme tag, right? Kind of joking, but it's not just incitement. People use it ironically to make fun of people who seemingly can't tell, anyways.

I'd assume that sanity would prevail and it would work like TWYS, so not really caring who the violence is targetted at, just that someone explicitely stated to do it, but I'm probably being overly generous in my evaluation of human nature?

Probably reiterating what I said before but this seems trollbait tag but good for blacklists. You can't win. :(

scth said:
I ended up just blacklisting propaganda. Not exactly right, but close enough. Also not a very well defined tag unfortunately, but it's at least mostly a style.
(I know "blacklist quietly", but I think it's relevant that the tag exists and contains most of the offending content from this thread).

Yeah, I'm gonna blacklist it as well. I personally think there should be a "call to violence" tag for when the text on the image explicitly instructs the viewer to commit violence (not just via symbolism) and I don't think it would be difficult to tag it, but it's certainly propaganda in any case so that tag will be close enough for my purposes until/unless a more accurate tag gets added.

Ironically, the definition of propaganda is much more ambiguous to me, and carries negative connotations, so being okay with "propaganda" as a tag but not "call to violence" seems like a preference for the status quo just because one tag already exists and the other is being proposed.

anonymless said:
Yeah, I'm gonna blacklist it as well. I personally think there should be a "call to violence" tag for when the text on the image explicitly instructs the viewer to commit violence (not just via symbolism) and I don't think it would be difficult to tag it, but it's certainly propaganda in any case so that tag will be close enough for my purposes until/unless a more accurate tag gets added.

Ironically, the definition of propaganda is much more ambiguous to me, and carries negative connotations, so being okay with "propaganda" as a tag but not "call to violence" seems like a preference for the status quo just because one tag already exists and the other is being proposed.

violent_propaganda j/k
Yeah, this entire subject is a flaming dumpster. No one really wants to deal with it.

alphamule said:
violent_propaganda j/k
Yeah, this entire subject is a flaming dumpster. No one really wants to deal with it.

I agree, this whole forum is proof enough of why the tag is a bad idea, especially since it's easier to just blacklist already existing tags.

My blacklist has filtered out everything I don't wanna see because I actually use it, and everyone else should just do the same instead of making niche tags to blacklist

smuglytherat said:
I agree, this whole forum is proof enough of why the tag is a bad idea, especially since it's easier to just blacklist already existing tags.

My blacklist has filtered out everything I don't wanna see because I actually use it, and everyone else should just do the same instead of making niche tags to blacklist

Not quite what I meant, but if it's a problem, someone can show us search results/copied list of thumb #'s as example of ones not caught by existing blacklists. If they're not granular enough, that's a problem. If they're too specific, and there's not a catch-all? Inconvenient but you can block groups of tags.