Comments

@Zaknel  
“Reward” is a strong term which implies that there is any kind of benefit or upside to being a derpi admin
 
I am part of the original team that designed, deployed and administrated derpi. My power is inexplicable by virtue of the fact I burnt out years ago and haven’t been active on the site in any sense for ages, and admin/mod policy has diverged a lot from the vision I had when we started. I am summoned because I never leave IRC channels and the livefeed highlights me when people comment my name.

@Zaknel  
my tag says “inexplicably in power” for a reason

@RainbowDash69  
you seem to have an overstated impression of my importance

@Zaknel  
what

@RektPony  
Please consider using filters to avoid having to put up with content you don’t like.

@Millennial Dan  
The rules are made by individuals with the largest backing, but the rules they make are by no means guaranteed to be the rules their backers would make and, to be honest, usually aren’t. In many systems the people in charge don’t even actually have a majority backing. When it comes to particularly divisive issues, there’s often an even split and whoever wins comes down to the person with the most advertising. Or the weather. What the majority wants is highly variable and subject to change at the slightest provocation, and the person they elect on Tuesday may not be the person they would have elected on Thursday…

@Carcer  
“generally it ensures that is it not the case that whatever a majority of the population wants is not what gets done”  
should read  
“generally it ensures that it is not the case that whatever a majority of the population wants is what gets done”  
obviously

@Millennial Dan  
No, your country is not ruled by the majority. I can’t think of anywhere that actually is ruled the majority. Your country is ruled by an elite political upper class and you choose who, from amongst them, you think will most accurately represent your personal views and interests - what we call representative democracy, which is what most people mean when they call somewhere a democracy. There are a lot of problems with this system, but generally it ensures that is it not the case that whatever a majority of the population wants is not what gets done.
 
In some cases, this is a good thing, because you avoid tyranny by majority and it can often be the case that whatever the uneducated majority thinks is a good idea would actually be a disaster if implemented as policy. On the other hand, you will frequently end up with systems where the elite you’re choosing from are all largely wedded to awful ideologies and you have no effective means of choosing outside them - for instance, in the UK there’s majority public support for renationalising many parts of our infrastructure that have been privatised over the last few decades, but our governments have been engaged in a long campaign of selling them off. In fact, they’re accelerating the process.
 
The point is, when you’ve got a representative democracy you don’t get to choose on any individual issue. You only get a package choice, and you try to choose the package that most closely matches your own - but there are inevitably differences between what you would like to happen and what your elected representative intends to do. The will of the majority doesn’t enter into any single concern.
 
I would here insert a informative image of Spider Jerusalem explaining voting for the edification of all, but it wouldn’t be in line with the image rating.

FGSFDS

@DragonMorpheus  
What’s more important is that I beat TSP and Clover to it.

@Background Pony #E717  
The entire concept of marriage is “made-up” in the first place in that it is an invention of human beings and it has been exceptionally inconsistent throughout human history, so to argue against any particular definition as being “modern” or “made-up” is ridiculous. Blind resistance to new things and changes does not help society. Don’t perpetuate it.
 
At any rate, from a secular civil perspective there should be no differentiation between same-sex unions and heterosexual unions. To enforce a distinction - marriage is for straight couples, civil unions are for gays - is to suggest that the commitment to each other made by the individuals involved is somehow fundamentally different and requires a different categorisation, which is not a stance that should be taken by secular authority. If a given religion wants that its definition of marriage should strictly apply to the union of a man and a woman, that’s their prerogative. The government, on the other hand, should treat any union between two people in exactly the same way, and as long as they’re officially calling heterosexual unions “marriage” they should be calling homosexual unions marriage as well. As long as marriage exists as a civil institution, it should be available to any two people regardless of their gender and orientation. The religious institution of marriage is a matter of preference for specific religions. If civil unions are going to exist as a separate thing for whatever reason, they should likewise be available to individuals of any orientation.
 
Personally I figure things would be much easier if the government and secular authority would just stick to recognising civil unions of any form and let the term “marriage” be a matter of personal definition rather than a state-sanctioned concept. What any given church or religious organisation thinks marriage ought to be should not inform state recognition of civil partnership.

I do not have the tolerance to read this entire thread, but there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage, appeals to any sort of natural behaviour when it comes to the constructs of human society are laughable, the definition and purpose of marriage itself has been highly variable throughout human history and across regions (and so appeals that “but marriage is for X!” are similarly ridiculous) and people of any gender and sexual orientation deserve the same right to have their commitment to each other officially recognised and respected as traditional heterosexual couples. That’s the end of that.
 
I wish we had deleted this a year ago but oh well

@Slippy the Weasel  
It’s a vestigial remnant of the beginnings of a proposed system for tagging by group consensus, where people could vote down inappropriate tags added to an image and vote up the right ones, and the system would work out what to display, to prevent tag wars. It never really got past the vague idea stage and wouldn’t have been workable, but remains in the site code for now because it does no harm and nobody really cares about it.

@Slippy the Weasel  
Tags are not the special domain of the person who uploaded the image. Nobody has to clear anything with you if they believe they’re making an appropriate change. Tag editing is open to all users for a reason.
 
“wedding dress” in the singular is the most appropriate tag and should remain. “wedding dresses” is pretty redundant but I don’t really care about leaving them both as long as nobody gets into fights about it.

@RIG  
No.

@someguy111  
If you think this is bad you’re obviously very sheltered. This thread is trivial compared to other shit I’ve seen in the fandom and orders of magnitude tamer than the drama that lurks in the dark corners of the wider furry fandom.

@Psyga315  
If the drama is Tarrasque, surely it can be killed permanently if I Wish hard enough?

@Background Pony  
Reporting people for not like Princess Twilight is considered abuse of the report system and will result in bans. They’re allowed to not like what you like and argue their cases as long as they’re civil about it. Threatening to “make people your bitch so they better watch what they type” is considered a violation of rule #0 but I’m in a good mood so I’m just going to warn you and anyone else with a flaring temper to calm down and find something other to do rather than have this argument all over again.
 
@Deadpon3  
He is being childish, but you’d be better served by not resorting to direct insults of your own and just ignoring him if he’s being a nuisance. There’s no sense getting worked up over it.

@Nightweaver20xx  
“Don’t talk about this thing.”  
“BUT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE THING BY TELLING US NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT”  
Really. This is a ten-year-old mentality you are demonstrating. Please grow up.
 
Images that are safe-rated are not the place for discussion of such things and such commentary is inappropriate. You wouldn’t go up to this person or a random nearby stranger and make such observations, because it would be wildly inappropriate. The same standard applies here. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

I’m going to allow this
 
because hoers made me laugh

for crying out loud you guys
 
It is not appropriate to make comments about cameltoes and shit on safe images but likewise it’s not a good idea to immediately flip your shit and rant about skeevy creepos, you have only made the problem worse in your hamfisted attempts to solve it. Everyone forget about it and try to stay classy

@The Frowning Pony  
@Muffinshire  
And another mystery was solved by the mystery teens

The image that was deleted is just an image macro of sixties spiderman lying on train tracks with the caption “hay”. It is not pony-related. I have no idea why TSP used that as a deletion reason but I assume it’s a joke I don’t get. Please don’t get your undergarments in a bunch about it.

@Niggoslav_Krawczyk  
Trans and tranny are not interchangeable terms. I’m sure there are many transsexual or transgendered individuals who use the term to describe themselves but usually the term has a strong negative connotation and association with porn. Just because terms are interchangeable to you and maybe a few people you know doesn’t mean that the same is true for the rest of the world.
 
Use of “it” is more of a contentious issue but in English at least most speakers would find it somewhat dehumanising - it’s how we refer to objects, not people. Unless someone has actually told you they’re okay with being referred to as “it” (and I do know someone who is) you should probably stick to using the gender they identify as or a gender-neutral singular “they” if nothing else is applicable.

@Niggoslav_Krawczyk  
Drinky, identifying that someone is trans is one thing (which is still potentially somewhat shitty if you’re calling someone out about it and they didn’t wish to divulge), calling them a “tranny” and an “it” is another thing entirely. I don’t know and don’t care if your info is accurate or not, but there’s no need to be a dick about it and use derogatory or dehumanising terms.