SC Orion 
Hello my fellow users and friends. I have debated posting here, but put it off. I have finally formulated my thoughts enough to pose some important, coherent thoughts I have considered over the past few days.
First, I will preface these questions by saying that I am not attacking anyone. This comment is also directed at my fellow users as a means to inspire civilized discussion and reasonable debate. No matter how it may look or come across, none of these questions are posed directly to moderators or administrators. Next, I would like to open with stating my stance: I support freedom and liberty for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality. I do not support authoritarianism or censorship of any kind.
My first question to my fellow users is thus: Censorship has historically been used by Nazis, Communists (or Dictators who have hijacked communist revolutions, if you prefer), authoritarians, and general hateful ideologies as a tool to silence dissent which makes them look bad or with which they disagree. Based on this, does this mean that any group using censorship inherently supports hateful ideologies such as Nazism, Communism, or general authoritarianism? What, if anything, should be done to groups that support hateful ideologies? The current US socio-political environment suggests that such groups should be boycotted. I, however, being a Libertarian, supporting freedom and liberty, am not advocating for this, as I will not impose my will on you, my fellow users.
My second question is thus: Aryanne, regardless of portrayal, would offend likely Nazis, who would thusly (Or at the very least, very likely) want to kill all of us for ruining their pure, superior self-image. Thus, Aryanne inherently mocks Nazism, does it not? Based on this, can it reasonably be inferred that banning Aryanne is an action that a Nazi regime would take and approve of? If this is indeed an action that a Nazi regime would take, can it reasonably be inferred that the act of censoring Aryanne is an act which supports hateful ideologies, as Aryanne actively mocks one such ideology?
My third question is thus: In order to stand on principle, one must support speech which they themselves find grotesque and or objectionable. Based on this, does it stand to reason that one who supports free speech must support the free speech of others, even when this speech is hateful or promoting hateful ideologies? If you do not support their right to speak freely, does this then give others the right to use this reason to say that you, yourself, cannot speak freely on matters important to you? What if this is then weaponized into a tool to oppress a minotiry?
My fourth question follows: Art is subjective. Consider historical photos which are downright shocking. Consider the important historical picture in Vietnam where the photo captures the bullet striking the person’s skull, the pistol still recoiling. This picture is shocking. Based on the shock and harm it conveys, should it be banned? Likewise, does it stand to reason based on this that anything which can be reasonably interpreted as shocking by any individual, for any reason, should be banned?
My fifth question is as follows: Consider the following comic I have imagined: A bunch of Americanized ponies capturing Aryanne against her will and tying her to a rocket (It’s the 4 of July Celebration). She is screaming “No!” and “Please! I’m sorry! They made me into an ideal that I’m not!” But the Americanized ponies don’t listen. They then light the rocket, which launches into the sky with her still screaming. The Americanized ponies salute, having successfully defeated nazism. Then the firework detonates, and low and behold, it’s the Nazi flag, filling the sky for all to see. Thus, the American ponies foolishly amplified her message when they tried to silence her. Following this, perhaps a panel where Nazi-dressed ponies are laughing happily-since their ideology has become more prominent from being censored. Would an image such as this, which is clearly parody, be considered supporting a hateful ideology such as Nazism? What about a hateful ideology such as colonialism, where one group forces its views on another, such as the case with the Americanized ponies reasonably implied killing of a Nazi pony? Of course, the same argument can be applied that Nazis forces their views on others historically, but in the context of Derpibooru, no one is forced to stop filtering Nazi imagery.
My sixth question follows: Another thought that occurs to me. The current rule change mentions “hateful ideologies.” I find myself wondering if this includes socialism. The system of socialism is clearly a hateful one, as it strips resources from those who have it in order to give it to those who do not have it. This is clearly supporting hate against a certain class of people: The wealthy upper class. Likewise, we have historical proof that socialism has committed atrocities against this class. If one is arguing for censoring of hateful ideologies, one cannot overlook socialism, even more so since Nazism is a dead ideology today, and Socialism is “in.” (For reference, see the Russian Revolution, in which the Czar and his family were killed by ‘communist’ revolutionaries, who went on to establish a dictatorship.)
I would also like to ask my fellow users who has final moral say as to what is right and wrong. What is a hateful ideology? How do you define it? It is based on hate, but hate of who or what? Anything? In this case, art could reasonably be viewed as hateful as there are groups of people who cannot view art period, as they are blind. This is a gross oversight that needs to be considered. By having art to enjoy, are we taking advantage of those who cannot enjoy art?
In the interests of ensuring that this comment is not taken as political speech of any kind, in support of any ideology (other than the interests of freedom and liberty for all people), I will take this time to make a suggest as a response to reasonably perceived censorship on Derpibooru. This is an idea which has been mentioned before, and I quite like it: A good way to speak out against censorship is just to speak and debate. A good way to address censorship on Derpibooru is, rather than outright leaving (which I will admit is a very tempting and perhaps decent idea, but if they stop and you come back there is nothing stopping them from reverting their revisions, other than possibly leaving again which would grow tiresome quickly), is to remain and speak out against it. An example of this which was posted earlier is Autumn Blaze (if you find Aryanne or Nazi imagery offensive) as she sings her song. Nonviolent protest works well for supporting a cause, while violence and hate tend to damage a cause and taint public image against it. Thus I would argue, based on this, one should not give the staff of Derpibooru any ammunition to use against us in our fight against censorship, and as such, we must be reasonable and level-headed.
One final point: If a group has, in the past, opposed censorship but has changed its opinion in favor or censorship, despite promises not to, can this group be reasonably trusted not to make further changes that oppose the group’s founding ideals? What if these changes lead to unintended consequences which hurt oppressed groups? What, if anything, should be done about this?
Thank you, my fellow users, for taking the time to read my thoughts. I look forward to seeing what debate and ideas can arise from these thoughts. I have a few more thoughts which I could put here, but I will abstain from it as these thoughts are facetious and could reasonably be viewed as attacking or insulting the staff, or supporting hateful ideologies-even thought I support ideals of liberty and freedom, and oppose censorship and authoritarianism.
First, I will preface these questions by saying that I am not attacking anyone. This comment is also directed at my fellow users as a means to inspire civilized discussion and reasonable debate. No matter how it may look or come across, none of these questions are posed directly to moderators or administrators. Next, I would like to open with stating my stance: I support freedom and liberty for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality. I do not support authoritarianism or censorship of any kind.
My first question to my fellow users is thus: Censorship has historically been used by Nazis, Communists (or Dictators who have hijacked communist revolutions, if you prefer), authoritarians, and general hateful ideologies as a tool to silence dissent which makes them look bad or with which they disagree. Based on this, does this mean that any group using censorship inherently supports hateful ideologies such as Nazism, Communism, or general authoritarianism? What, if anything, should be done to groups that support hateful ideologies? The current US socio-political environment suggests that such groups should be boycotted. I, however, being a Libertarian, supporting freedom and liberty, am not advocating for this, as I will not impose my will on you, my fellow users.
My second question is thus: Aryanne, regardless of portrayal, would offend likely Nazis, who would thusly (Or at the very least, very likely) want to kill all of us for ruining their pure, superior self-image. Thus, Aryanne inherently mocks Nazism, does it not? Based on this, can it reasonably be inferred that banning Aryanne is an action that a Nazi regime would take and approve of? If this is indeed an action that a Nazi regime would take, can it reasonably be inferred that the act of censoring Aryanne is an act which supports hateful ideologies, as Aryanne actively mocks one such ideology?
My third question is thus: In order to stand on principle, one must support speech which they themselves find grotesque and or objectionable. Based on this, does it stand to reason that one who supports free speech must support the free speech of others, even when this speech is hateful or promoting hateful ideologies? If you do not support their right to speak freely, does this then give others the right to use this reason to say that you, yourself, cannot speak freely on matters important to you? What if this is then weaponized into a tool to oppress a minotiry?
My fourth question follows: Art is subjective. Consider historical photos which are downright shocking. Consider the important historical picture in Vietnam where the photo captures the bullet striking the person’s skull, the pistol still recoiling. This picture is shocking. Based on the shock and harm it conveys, should it be banned? Likewise, does it stand to reason based on this that anything which can be reasonably interpreted as shocking by any individual, for any reason, should be banned?
My fifth question is as follows: Consider the following comic I have imagined: A bunch of Americanized ponies capturing Aryanne against her will and tying her to a rocket (It’s the 4 of July Celebration). She is screaming “No!” and “Please! I’m sorry! They made me into an ideal that I’m not!” But the Americanized ponies don’t listen. They then light the rocket, which launches into the sky with her still screaming. The Americanized ponies salute, having successfully defeated nazism. Then the firework detonates, and low and behold, it’s the Nazi flag, filling the sky for all to see. Thus, the American ponies foolishly amplified her message when they tried to silence her. Following this, perhaps a panel where Nazi-dressed ponies are laughing happily-since their ideology has become more prominent from being censored. Would an image such as this, which is clearly parody, be considered supporting a hateful ideology such as Nazism? What about a hateful ideology such as colonialism, where one group forces its views on another, such as the case with the Americanized ponies reasonably implied killing of a Nazi pony? Of course, the same argument can be applied that Nazis forces their views on others historically, but in the context of Derpibooru, no one is forced to stop filtering Nazi imagery.
My sixth question follows: Another thought that occurs to me. The current rule change mentions “hateful ideologies.” I find myself wondering if this includes socialism. The system of socialism is clearly a hateful one, as it strips resources from those who have it in order to give it to those who do not have it. This is clearly supporting hate against a certain class of people: The wealthy upper class. Likewise, we have historical proof that socialism has committed atrocities against this class. If one is arguing for censoring of hateful ideologies, one cannot overlook socialism, even more so since Nazism is a dead ideology today, and Socialism is “in.” (For reference, see the Russian Revolution, in which the Czar and his family were killed by ‘communist’ revolutionaries, who went on to establish a dictatorship.)
I would also like to ask my fellow users who has final moral say as to what is right and wrong. What is a hateful ideology? How do you define it? It is based on hate, but hate of who or what? Anything? In this case, art could reasonably be viewed as hateful as there are groups of people who cannot view art period, as they are blind. This is a gross oversight that needs to be considered. By having art to enjoy, are we taking advantage of those who cannot enjoy art?
In the interests of ensuring that this comment is not taken as political speech of any kind, in support of any ideology (other than the interests of freedom and liberty for all people), I will take this time to make a suggest as a response to reasonably perceived censorship on Derpibooru. This is an idea which has been mentioned before, and I quite like it: A good way to speak out against censorship is just to speak and debate. A good way to address censorship on Derpibooru is, rather than outright leaving (which I will admit is a very tempting and perhaps decent idea, but if they stop and you come back there is nothing stopping them from reverting their revisions, other than possibly leaving again which would grow tiresome quickly), is to remain and speak out against it. An example of this which was posted earlier is Autumn Blaze (if you find Aryanne or Nazi imagery offensive) as she sings her song. Nonviolent protest works well for supporting a cause, while violence and hate tend to damage a cause and taint public image against it. Thus I would argue, based on this, one should not give the staff of Derpibooru any ammunition to use against us in our fight against censorship, and as such, we must be reasonable and level-headed.
One final point: If a group has, in the past, opposed censorship but has changed its opinion in favor or censorship, despite promises not to, can this group be reasonably trusted not to make further changes that oppose the group’s founding ideals? What if these changes lead to unintended consequences which hurt oppressed groups? What, if anything, should be done about this?
Thank you, my fellow users, for taking the time to read my thoughts. I look forward to seeing what debate and ideas can arise from these thoughts. I have a few more thoughts which I could put here, but I will abstain from it as these thoughts are facetious and could reasonably be viewed as attacking or insulting the staff, or supporting hateful ideologies-even thought I support ideals of liberty and freedom, and oppose censorship and authoritarianism.
