My only issue with the site has ever been it’s refusal to tackle hatred. In this case, specifically the case of an artist who repeatedly made art of people’s OCs having sex with his, or being depicted in offensive ways, that was obvious targeted harassment. Instead of dealing with it as what it was, the mods took it as a copyright issue and said that he was legally allowed to upload the art. It was such a cold and emotionless response. And that is what I hope to see change. We’re a site made by humans, for humans, let’s put in some humanity!
So naturally, I also don’t want nazi images to be banned. But images that target gays, black people, or women? That sounds like the kind of stuff to get rid of. We need to take care not to lump a set of clothing into the idea of being an attack. Not to lump a smybol, an arm gesture, into that. Nazis are not a problem to depict, they’re not something that can cause harm. It’s spreading their message that causes harm.
Sure, it seems like the website hasn’t been tackling hatred. In the first place, it might be difficult for a website (a database computer with a set of software instructions that serves data to visitors) to perform a tackle (a physical action). Also, if the website was instead one-and-the-same with the people who use it, it might still be difficult for such a Derpibooru to tackle hatred - hatred, being an emotional condition, not a physical thing, isn’t available to be challenged in a physical way. Artistic grammar, so far.
Okay I get it, you don’t mean “tackle” literally and instead mean to say “eliminate” or “get rid of”. What you’re asking then, is that the website eliminates or gets rid of hatred. Again, there is a difficulty in doing this. Hatred is a nonpermanent emotional condition, and, to ensure it never happens would a require one-by-one brain surgery for each person capable of hatred.
So again, I’ll suppose you don’t mean “hatred” literally, and instead mean to say “depictions of hateful motivations”. And as I recall, also meaning to say “depictions of hateful motivations that were inspired by depictions of hateful motivations” - because you want to tackle hate + things that inspire hate, am I wrong?
There’s a problem of recursion, if you follow a policy of tackling hate. When you find evidence of hate, there will be evidence of what inspired the hate + the evidence of what inspired the evidence of what inspired the hate… For goodness sake… If one bans so broadly… If one bans the human brain from derpibooru, then it’s a website only convenient to access by programmers via command terminal; because when one looks all the way deep down, one could find “hate inspiration” elements in the raw code of the website’s user-interface design.
The point of the website having a clear policy is that we, the users, are able to remind the admins to act on something - because they wrote down, in policy, that they would act on something. The policy ought to be pretty simple, or pretty precise, because otherwise we might all misunderstand each other when quoting it to each other. It also ought not be abusable in a backfiring way.
I don’t like your idea as posted. To make the policy be a recursive idea, “no hate”, is just cruel; it’s asking for a million miles of labor. If you’ll argue “it’s only for the specific cases”, it’s still wishing for some sort of attentive servitude to your, or, all anti-racists, specific tastes beyond what the website already does. I can only interpret that brand of rationality as “they who expect others to shut up and offer what I want”, or, entitlementist. (a political stance otherwise known as intersectional activist; the far left)
