Frosku 
Vox Exercitus
There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to what I should see on Derpibooru. The first school of thought, which has been the status quo up until now, is that Derpibooru should largely serve as a free market of ideas where people can post (mostly) anything that’s on topic and within the law, and that you as a user are responsible for deciding what you want to see on the site via the filtration system. The only responsibility this places on the artists, uploaders, and moderators is to enforce that images are tagged correctly so that the filters work as intended.
The second school of thought is that some expression is not fit for consumption by anyone. That is, even if you want to draw those topics or see art around those topics, that decision should not be yours to make because they are inherently harmful to minority groups. Filtration, under this school of thought, is somewhat like turning a blind eye to its existence whilst still tacitly allowing it to go unchecked. This group argues that limiting creativity away from these subjects is a price worth paying to ensure that the content isn’t available.
The first school argue that the second school are unnecessarily restrictive, that art deserves special protection from censorship, and that there is a place for uncomfortable symbolism in creative works. World War II movies and videogames, they argue, would not be nearly as impactful without their brutal depictions of Nazis complete with swastikas and associated iconography.
The second school argue that the first school are putting their principle before other users’ safety. Unchecked hate speech, they argue, could be a recruitment tool for Nazis and other violent extremists, and serve to normalize horrific ideas. Some, though from what I can tell they are a vocal minority, in the second group argue that anyone who wants to see depictions of Nazis allowed to remain on Derpibooru must themselves be Nazis.
There are definitely nuances between individuals’ views as to what should be allowed and what shouldn’t. Most people that I’ve interacted with would agree with or be willing to tolerate a ban on
calls to violence, low effort shitposts, and direct attacks on other members of the community. From there though, we largely break into two categories: those who would rather follow a “first amendment” approach to artwork, and those who believe that Derpibooru as a platform should offer a more curated and inclusive experience, even if that comes at the cost of limiting freedom of expression.
What that ultimately leaves you with is an uncomfortable choice: do you want (nearly) complete freedom of expression within the law, along with the chance that something on the site might be perceived as harmful, offensive, or even dangerous; or would you prefer to have more limits on creativity which in turn create less potential for other users to be uncomfortable? I don’t think there is a perfect answer here, I do think that we would all serve ourselves and our community better by admitting that it’s difficult, and it’s not “the Nazis” on one side and “the screeching SJWs” on the other, and I admit I have been a part of this at times and will endeavor to do better.
I really hope I’ve summed up both arguments fairly and without bias – please let me know if you think I haven’t captured your argument or have made a straw man of it, I want to have a constructive debate (and with the exception of some rude background ponies on both sides, I think we have had constructive debates) about where the responsibility lies for a person’s comfort, and whether uncomfortable art depicting hateful symbolism should be allowed to have a platform at all.
The second school of thought is that some expression is not fit for consumption by anyone. That is, even if you want to draw those topics or see art around those topics, that decision should not be yours to make because they are inherently harmful to minority groups. Filtration, under this school of thought, is somewhat like turning a blind eye to its existence whilst still tacitly allowing it to go unchecked. This group argues that limiting creativity away from these subjects is a price worth paying to ensure that the content isn’t available.
The first school argue that the second school are unnecessarily restrictive, that art deserves special protection from censorship, and that there is a place for uncomfortable symbolism in creative works. World War II movies and videogames, they argue, would not be nearly as impactful without their brutal depictions of Nazis complete with swastikas and associated iconography.
The second school argue that the first school are putting their principle before other users’ safety. Unchecked hate speech, they argue, could be a recruitment tool for Nazis and other violent extremists, and serve to normalize horrific ideas. Some, though from what I can tell they are a vocal minority, in the second group argue that anyone who wants to see depictions of Nazis allowed to remain on Derpibooru must themselves be Nazis.
There are definitely nuances between individuals’ views as to what should be allowed and what shouldn’t. Most people that I’ve interacted with would agree with or be willing to tolerate a ban on
calls to violence, low effort shitposts, and direct attacks on other members of the community. From there though, we largely break into two categories: those who would rather follow a “first amendment” approach to artwork, and those who believe that Derpibooru as a platform should offer a more curated and inclusive experience, even if that comes at the cost of limiting freedom of expression.
What that ultimately leaves you with is an uncomfortable choice: do you want (nearly) complete freedom of expression within the law, along with the chance that something on the site might be perceived as harmful, offensive, or even dangerous; or would you prefer to have more limits on creativity which in turn create less potential for other users to be uncomfortable? I don’t think there is a perfect answer here, I do think that we would all serve ourselves and our community better by admitting that it’s difficult, and it’s not “the Nazis” on one side and “the screeching SJWs” on the other, and I admit I have been a part of this at times and will endeavor to do better.
I really hope I’ve summed up both arguments fairly and without bias – please let me know if you think I haven’t captured your argument or have made a straw man of it, I want to have a constructive debate (and with the exception of some rude background ponies on both sides, I think we have had constructive debates) about where the responsibility lies for a person’s comfort, and whether uncomfortable art depicting hateful symbolism should be allowed to have a platform at all.
