What’s your current opinion on this site?

[Dunquixote]

Racism/lgbtphobia/misogyny/etc. does not become "unoffensive" if it's phrased in a certain way. Whether someone says "I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony of love that can only be shared between a man and a woman" or "Gay people disgust me and I support conversion therapy" they are still both being homophobic and both being offensive, one is just more overt about it. The issue is that they are treated differently when they shouldn't be; bigotry is bigotry and if you want to create a welcoming space you have to put your foot down against all forms of it.

Commie also isn't a derogatory term.

Just want to say I agree with you here and pretty much everything you’ve said so far. I think commie can be considered derogatory. It just depends on the context and way it is used. From what I see, not many people find it offensive. Personally, I feel like kinda does have bit of a negative tone to the word, but it is just a word. And really any word can be used to be offensive. I think the way it is used politically a lot of times can be offensive (I’m not a communist but I don’t agree with the way American politics treat or treat countries that are or that they label as such).

Regarding politics, personally I’m trying to escape from it. I’d like to have something to hide triggering topics such as that. But, at the same time, I think we should be open to discuss it if we want, but clear set of rules and consistency with enforcing them. Like some topics I see, I can’t help but feel like it is like trying to pick a fight with everyone. So maybe avoid extremely polarizing topics or set a line for where the discussion has to stop.

 

[seliph]

Just want to say I agree with you here and pretty much everything you’ve said so far. I think commie can be considered derogatory. It just depends on the context and way it is used. From what I see, not many people find it offensive. Personally, I feel like kinda does have bit of a negative tone to the word, but it is just a word. And really any word can be used to be offensive. I think the way it is used politically a lot of times can be offensive (I’m not a communist but I don’t agree with the way American politics treat or treat countries that are or that they label as such).

Regarding politics, personally I’m trying to escape from it. I’d like to have something to hide triggering topics such as that. But, at the same time, I think we should be open to discuss it if we want, but clear set of rules and consistency with enforcing them. Like some topics I see, I can’t help but feel like it is like trying to pick a fight with everyone. So maybe avoid extremely polarizing topics or set a line for where the discussion has to stop.

My political beliefs fall within communism/socialism and I can tell you no communist takes "commie" offensively. It only comes off as offensive in the western world because we've all been spoonfed since birth that "commies are the enemy" and that communism is anti-democracy or pro-terrorism when it isn't.

The problem with barring politics as a whole is that peoples' mere existence are considered a political topic now (namely trans people and palestinians) so lines would have to be drawn extremely carefully, and honestly while it may be possible in the future, with how staff has handled these issues recently I don't believe they can pull it off in a respectful way right now.

 

[Dunquixote]

My political beliefs fall within communism/socialism and I can tell you no communist takes "commie" offensively. It only comes off as offensive in the western world because we've all been spoonfed since birth that "commies are the enemy" and that communism is anti-democracy or pro-terrorism when it isn't.

The problem with barring politics as a whole is that peoples' mere existence are considered a political topic now (namely trans people and palestinians) so lines would have to be drawn extremely carefully, and honestly while it may be possible in the future, with how staff has handled these issues recently I don't believe they can pull it off in a respectful way right now.

Yeah that’s honestly what I meant (I read a lot on US foreign policies and about countries that the US has intervened in during the “Red Scare” and after so I understand a bit). Thank you for the clarification ; I wasn’t sure how communists take the term.

Yep. I realize that.

 

[Millysaurusrexjr]

Personally, overall, I love it here. It's not perfect but I still enjoy being here.
Many paragraphs incoming..

The Bell Tree Forums is not perfect but it's a billion times better than any main social media site. All I get for going on a place like Facebook is nothing but infinite ads, straight up hatred, AI slop, and occasional exposure to family drama This place is a breath of fresh air compared to those kinds of sites. I didn't even know there were ads on here for the longest time because of the way they are placed

I do think a stronger, clearer stance against racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/alt-right views should be taken. To be fair, I personally haven't seen a bunch of this directly on TBT (not saying it doesn't exist, I believe those who say it does), but I did report something really horrible almost a year ago, and it was taken very seriously by the staff. I really, really don't want to see that kind of crowd accumulate in this community. I don't think the staff does either. Hatred has no place here (and no matter what the alt-right says, hatred does not equal freedom of speech/expression, especially on a privately run Animal Crossing fan site lmao). Those kinds of views should not be tolerated here in the slightest, as hatred is becoming more and more acceptable in the current political climate.. TBT should be a safe space.
Additionally, I think it's worth considering completely banning twitter links on here. Bluesky exists now and isn't run by someone who is a genuine nazi as far as I know, so...

I remember a staff member saying that a ban on politics was being considered but I don't know if that's the right course of action anymore, as pretty much everything gets politicized these days.

I absolutely hate AI generated imagery (I don't want to call it art because it is not and never will be). It's so ugly, utterly lazy, boring, and downright problematic. I think it's great that staff don't allow for it to be entered in art events/contests. I think they should consider banning AI generated imagery being used as references as well, if possible. With all that said, I wonder how realistic it would be for them to ban AI images being used as profile pictures/signatures. That could end up being a lot of work for the staff who don't even get paid to do any of this, and it will supposedly get more and more difficult to tell if something is AI generated as AI improves (barf). But idk, maybe I am overthinking it, maybe it wouldn't be that difficult to deal with.. I personally don't have high expectations for such a ban, as nice as that would be.

I love the collectibles, they are very cute and oddly addictive at times. I think the market is kinda insane, but I have come to accept that the majority of my collectibles will come from the events alone. And to be fair, if you are patient enough and have the time to participate in events, you can accumulate a decent collection. The thing that gets me is FOMO; I often feel the need to participate in almost every single event because if I don't participate but there are some collectibles that I want, then I'm pretty much outta luck because I usually have less than 500 TBT, and lately there are always a few collectibles from an event that only sold a couple dozen or so and become impossible to find (Old Gameboy and Edgourd from the last Halloween event, for example). It could be years until those collectibles come around again. Even if I do fully participate, I usually end up a few collectibles short from what I wanted.. I think the event collectible prices could stand to be lowered.

Temporarily unique event collectibles are just frustrating. I understand collectibles like the candy canes being unique, but why Ice Cream Kitty Cone and the zodiac figurines?

I wish the normal shop was utilized more. Like why not add a few out-of-season event collectibles there, to be bought with TBT (hopefully under 1k and unlimited stock... I really hate limited stock). Rotate the selection every once in a while, maybe they could be available to buy in between events. I think the exotic fruit and perfect fruit collectibles would make for a really good permanent addition to the normal shop.

I think the events are so much fun. They make holidays like Halloween and Christmas more exciting and memorable for me since I'm far away from a lot of my family, and, well, those holidays just aren't the same here in Australia. Making animal crossing art over the years has really had a positive effect on me mentally and artistically; I wouldn't have made so much AC art if it weren't for this site.

I do think the "effort" debacle was a bit odd.. I think the rules in regards to art events could use some further revision and reconsideration. I don't know I agree about the proposed beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories; I think that could result in more drama, because you may think of yourself as a beginner but actually be intermediate or advanced, or vice versa. Or someone who is advanced could deliberately place themselves in the beginner category in order to give themselves better odds at winning.. it wouldn't be hard for an advanced artist to make art look high-end beginner.
Or suppose there are skill categories AND different art categories (2D, 3D, Food) -- what if someone is advanced in 2D art but has never worked in 3D before? Would they qualify for beginner 3D? Where would one draw the line? What if someone new to baking enters the beginner Food category, completely knocks it out of the park with their entry, and people accuse them of lying about being a beginner baker? Flukes can happen..

Some events can get a little too competitive, like the last Camp Bell Tree.... let's just say I hope the next one really discourages poor sportsmanship

As far as the Animal Crossing side goes, I think it's perfect for those who want to buy in-game items and villagers! That was my whole reason for coming to this website in the first place. I love that you can buy those things with forum currency. It is so fast and efficient. The feedback system is very reassuring. And a lot of people are very generous and give items/villagers away for free. That's super cool

I wish the gyroid emotes would come back.

Overall, I think this is a really cool little corner of the internet. I am really glad I found it. Hopefully it can be improved!

 

[-Mars-]

I absolutely hate AI generated imagery (I don't want to call it art because it is not and never will be). It's so ugly, utterly lazy, boring, and downright problematic. I think it's great that staff don't allow for it to be entered in art events/contests. I think they should consider banning AI generated imagery being used as references as well, if possible. With all that said, I wonder how realistic it would be for them to ban AI images being used as profile pictures/signatures. That could end up being a lot of work for the staff who don't even get paid to do any of this, and it will supposedly get more and more difficult to tell if something is AI generated as AI improves (barf). But idk, maybe I am overthinking it, maybe it wouldn't be that difficult to deal with.. I personally don't have high expectations for such a ban, as nice as that would be.

Just wanted to add my 2-cents. I'm aware TBT forums is its own platform and the staff has their own way of doing things and why they decide to make their rules the way they are but I saw Bulbagarden another [Pokemon] forum, recently decided to ban the use of AI generated imagery on their forums altogether and they will take away the privileges of people who break this rule and may consider even further action being taken against users who break this rule.

At first they attempted to limit AI use as much as possible(like how TBT currently does not allow users to submit AI entries to events) as a compromise to prevent users from getting angry at the ban but after seeing how the huge vast majority of the Bulbagarden community hates AI the staff decided to ban AI altogether and it seems to be working out pretty great with nobody really objecting or breaking the rules.
Here is a direct quote from Bulbagarden about what the staff said:
"Our previous AI policy, where generative AI content was only allowed in our BulbaBlogs forum, was a compromise borne out of the fear that we would not be able to stymie the flow of AI content into our forums, and it would become a time-intensive chore for our moderation team to have to police it. Thankfully, this has not been the case. Generally speaking, our userbase is decidedly anti-AI to the point where we can count the handful of times AI-generated content has been posted on our fingers — this has made us feel more able to take action that fully honours our vital commitment to being a welcoming and supportive space for creators." [source]

Considering the fact a huge amount of people on TBT are Anti-AI and several threads speaking out against it have been made and nobody is really objecting to Anti-AI statements, I sincerely hope TBT forums considers seconding this decision to ban AI from being posted, it seems safe to implement and I don't really think anyone on TBT will argue that we shouldn't do it.

 

[nightglow]

Racism/lgbtphobia/misogyny/etc. does not become "unoffensive" if it's phrased in a certain way. Whether someone says "I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony of love that can only be shared between a man and a woman" or "Gay people disgust me and I support conversion therapy" they are still both being homophobic and both being offensive, one is just more overt about it. The issue is that they are treated differently when they shouldn't be; bigotry is bigotry and if you want to create a welcoming space you have to put your foot down against all forms of it.

Commie also isn't a derogatory term.

There is a difference between
"I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony of love that can only be shared between a man and a woman" or "Gay people disgust me and I support conversion therapy" and before getting upset please understand this (*my comment) is an explanation of how it is seen different by many people rather (*my comment) than trying to "correct" or say the statement is "just wrong" or start an argument.
The quote is for context and not necessarily an individual reply.

One is a simple personal belief that intersects with religion.
(sacred ceremony is completely different than legal contract. Legalese doesn't give a hoot about sacred ceremonies and sacred ceremonies move on with existence regardless of government acknowledgement. Small religions is proof of this. They only intersect if there is an agreement to acknowledge each other existing. This is why groups of people or tribes will petition to have their religion or organization acknowledged by the government, and it can allow the government to protect them in a few ways or have a legal ground like what is a marriage or life union -not all religions call it marriage but the government does. This also dabbles in the topic of "what is marriage" because a million people in the same nation are realistically going to see that differently and details about that because that is simply the way things are. Personal views whether interested with any religion or not, will have an effect on it. And I don't say this as a contrast between lbgtq or straight because in religion there is more to marriage or whatever you want to call it than that.)

The other is a systematic action (if aggressive enough which that statement does leave room for, could be genocidal in nature or could easily slip in to a literal sense) and/or oppression pushed upon others regardless of a religious setting or other boundaries even if two temples that operate differently fall under the same religious umbrella label. Especially in the context of a nation has a separation of "church" (meaning temple) and state.

To focus in on sacred ceremony and what that entails drags the topic of the state forcing how things should be ran inside a temple. A temple is something a person can leave, a temple is something a person can open somewhere else. You're not forced to participate in a variety of religions or be a part of a congregation of a belief system.

I find this notion of trying to control religion stuff problematic and will lead to many "holy wars". Not only about one or two religions getting the spotlight and whipped up but the simple topic will whip up all religions and they will feel the need to get defensive for protective purposes simply due to the history of humans and the fear of certain religions promoted above others or government enforced but I understand others may come from a national setting that does not have that separation ideology in their nation.

Again, I hope this comment brings to light how it could explain why other people see a difference in those statements or why a forum online flags one but not the other. And I have no idea how this forum views this and do not claim to, but simply trying to explain why it may not be flagged though some think it should. Not a comment meant as an attack.

As a side note, for as much as the term Nazi is being used in this thread, you'd think that difference would be acknowledged considering how Nazis actually operated, but idk how much detail is really taught about that in schools anymore.

Edited for clarification at the top (*)

 

[-Lumi-]

There is a difference between
"I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony of love that can only be shared between a man and a woman" or "Gay people disgust me and I support conversion therapy" and before getting upset please understand this (*my comment) is an explanation of how it is seen different by many people rather (*my comment) than trying to "correct" or say the statement is "just wrong" or start an argument.
The quote is for context and not necessarily an individual reply.

One is a simple personal belief that intersects with religion.
(sacred ceremony is completely different than legal contract. Legalese doesn't give a hoot about sacred ceremonies and sacred ceremonies move on with existence regardless of government acknowledgement. Small religions is proof of this. They only intersect if there is an agreement to acknowledge each other existing. This is why groups of people or tribes will petition to have their religion or organization acknowledged by the government, and it can allow the government to protect them in a few ways or have a legal ground like what is a marriage or life union -not all religions call it marriage but the government does. This also dabbles in the topic of "what is marriage" because a million people in the same nation are realistically going to see that differently and details about that because that is simply the way things are. Personal views whether interested with any religion or not, will have an effect on it. And I don't say this as a contrast between lbgtq or straight because in religion there is more to marriage or whatever you want to call it than that.)

The other is a systematic action (if aggressive enough which that statement does leave room for, could be genocidal in nature or could easily slip in to a literal sense) and/or oppression pushed upon others regardless of a religious setting or other boundaries even if two temples that operate differently fall under the same religious umbrella label. Especially in the context of a nation has a separation of "church" (meaning temple) and state.

To focus in on sacred ceremony and what that entails drags the topic of the state forcing how things should be ran inside a temple. A temple is something a person can leave, a temple is something a person can open somewhere else. You're not forced to participate in a variety of religions or be a part of a congregation of a belief system.

I find this notion of trying to control religion stuff problematic and will lead to many "holy wars". Not only about one or two religions getting the spotlight and whipped up but the simple topic will whip up all religions and they will feel the need to get defensive for protective purposes simply due to the history of humans and the fear of certain religions promoted above others or government enforced but I understand others may come from a national setting that does not have that separation ideology in their nation.

Again, I hope this comment brings to light how it could explain why other people see a difference in those statements or why a forum online flags one but not the other. And I have no idea how this forum views this and do not claim to, but simply trying to explain why it may not be flagged though some think it should. Not a comment meant as an attack.

As a side note, for as much as the term Nazi is being used in this thread, you'd think that difference would be acknowledged considering how Nazis actually operated, but idk how much detail is really taught about that in schools anymore.

Edited for clarification at the top (*)

Respectfully, the argument that marriage is a "sacred ceremony between a man and a woman" is bull****. Marriages have more often than not been solely for political gain than actual true love. People marrying into families for status, wealth, or to avoid the shame of being pregnant out of wedlock to name a few.

It's only more recently (although not everywhere) that marriages have been more about two people in love making the choice themselves. People are grasping for straws that it's a "holy union only between a man and a woman!!" So that they can hide their homophobia behind religion.

There is no difference, in my opinion, as a lesbian, between the people that say "idk gay people are fine I just wish they weren't gay around me, you know?" And the people that vocalize that they actively believe in conversion therapy. Both are hateful. Both are homophobic. One group is more outward about their "solution" but if you push hard enough what does the first group really want? They also want us to go away. To hide ourselves. And if people could package conversion therapy in a pretty enough bow they'd probably be on board with it, too.

I'm so tired. Tired of people pretending that religion should give them a free pass for hateful and hurtful views. That line of thinking is what's allowed the current transphobia to take such a massive hold. We are seeing trans peoples rights be actively taken away and stomped on and people are fools if they don't recognize that this is a stepping stone. They will go after gay people next (as they are! They are trying to repeal our marriage rights in some states!), women's rights/afab peoples bodies rights, etc.

It's nearly 4 am. This post upset me. Hopefully what I've said comes across clearly.

 

[nightglow]

Respectfully, the argument that marriage is a "sacred ceremony between a man and a woman" is bull****. Marriages have more often than not been solely for political gain than actual true love. People marrying into families for status, wealth, or to avoid the shame of being pregnant out of wedlock to name a few.

It's only more recently (although not everywhere) that marriages have been more about two people in love making the choice themselves. People are grasping for straws that it's a "holy union only between a man and a woman!!" So that they can hide their homophobia behind religion.

There is no difference, in my opinion, as a lesbian, between the people that say "idk gay people are fine I just wish they weren't gay around me, you know?" And the people that vocalize that they actively believe in conversion therapy. Both are hateful. Both are homophobic. One group is more outward about their "solution" but if you push hard enough what does the first group really want? They also want us to go away. To hide ourselves. And if people could package conversion therapy in a pretty enough bow they'd probably be on board with it, too.

I'm so tired. Tired of people pretending that religion should give them a free pass for hateful and hurtful views. That line of thinking is what's allowed the current transphobia to take such a massive hold. We are seeing trans peoples rights be actively taken away and stomped on and people are fools if they don't recognize that this is a stepping stone. They will go after gay people next (as they are! Our marriage rights are being revoked in states!), women's rights/afab peoples bodies rights, etc.

It's nearly 4 am. This post upset me. Hopefully what I've said comes across clearly.

None the less many people see it that way, just like many people see marriage being between a few dedicated people to each other or not applicable to divorced people.. or some even see marriage as something lasting beyond death, or just contract.
Sorry my comment upset ya, but I was just giving a possible reason why one may not be flagged online while another would. And though I don't know what country you are in, most Western countries have governments that acknowledge marriages of all kinds religious related or not and protect them.

 

[daringred_]

Respectfully, the argument that marriage is a "sacred ceremony between a man and a woman" is bull****. Marriages have more often than not been solely for political gain than actual true love. People marrying into families for status, wealth, or to avoid the shame of being pregnant out of wedlock to name a few.

It's only more recently (although not everywhere) that marriages have been more about two people in love making the choice themselves. People are grasping for straws that it's a "holy union only between a man and a woman!!" So that they can hide their homophobia behind religion.

There is no difference, in my opinion, as a lesbian, between the people that say "idk gay people are fine I just wish they weren't gay around me, you know?" And the people that vocalize that they actively believe in conversion therapy. Both are hateful. Both are homophobic. One group is more outward about their "solution" but if you push hard enough what does the first group really want? They also want us to go away. To hide ourselves. And if people could package conversion therapy in a pretty enough bow they'd probably be on board with it, too.

I'm so tired. Tired of people pretending that religion should give them a free pass for hateful and hurtful views. That line of thinking is what's allowed the current transphobia to take such a massive hold. We are seeing trans peoples rights be actively taken away and stomped on and people are fools if they don't recognize that this is a stepping stone. They will go after gay people next (as they are! They are trying to repeal our marriage rights in some states!), women's rights/afab peoples bodies rights, etc.

It's nearly 4 am. This post upset me. Hopefully what I've said comes across clearly.

want to echo this because reading that post almost first thing this morning was also quite hurtful to me as a lesbian. people have a right to their religious beliefs, and i respect that, but that doesn't mean you get to use them as a smokescreen for bigotry/oppression, especially when there are plenty of people within various religions who are supportive of the lgbt+ community.

 

[seliph]

There is a difference between
"I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony of love that can only be shared between a man and a woman" or "Gay people disgust me and I support conversion therapy" and before getting upset please understand this (*my comment) is an explanation of how it is seen different by many people rather (*my comment) than trying to "correct" or say the statement is "just wrong" or start an argument.
The quote is for context and not necessarily an individual reply.

One is a simple personal belief that intersects with religion.
(sacred ceremony is completely different than legal contract. Legalese doesn't give a hoot about sacred ceremonies and sacred ceremonies move on with existence regardless of government acknowledgement. Small religions is proof of this. They only intersect if there is an agreement to acknowledge each other existing. This is why groups of people or tribes will petition to have their religion or organization acknowledged by the government, and it can allow the government to protect them in a few ways or have a legal ground like what is a marriage or life union -not all religions call it marriage but the government does. This also dabbles in the topic of "what is marriage" because a million people in the same nation are realistically going to see that differently and details about that because that is simply the way things are. Personal views whether interested with any religion or not, will have an effect on it. And I don't say this as a contrast between lbgtq or straight because in religion there is more to marriage or whatever you want to call it than that.)

The other is a systematic action (if aggressive enough which that statement does leave room for, could be genocidal in nature or could easily slip in to a literal sense) and/or oppression pushed upon others regardless of a religious setting or other boundaries even if two temples that operate differently fall under the same religious umbrella label. Especially in the context of a nation has a separation of "church" (meaning temple) and state.

To focus in on sacred ceremony and what that entails drags the topic of the state forcing how things should be ran inside a temple. A temple is something a person can leave, a temple is something a person can open somewhere else. You're not forced to participate in a variety of religions or be a part of a congregation of a belief system.

I find this notion of trying to control religion stuff problematic and will lead to many "holy wars". Not only about one or two religions getting the spotlight and whipped up but the simple topic will whip up all religions and they will feel the need to get defensive for protective purposes simply due to the history of humans and the fear of certain religions promoted above others or government enforced but I understand others may come from a national setting that does not have that separation ideology in their nation.

Again, I hope this comment brings to light how it could explain why other people see a difference in those statements or why a forum online flags one but not the other. And I have no idea how this forum views this and do not claim to, but simply trying to explain why it may not be flagged though some think it should. Not a comment meant as an attack.

As a side note, for as much as the term Nazi is being used in this thread, you'd think that difference would be acknowledged considering how Nazis actually operated, but idk how much detail is really taught about that in schools anymore.

Edited for clarification at the top (*)

Religion is a copout, it's still homophobic and offensive.

Edit cus I have a little more time before work: I have a huge family that consists of both Christians and Muslims, none of which believe that the rights of LGBTQ+ people are against their religion. Some of the older folks don't quite "get" it, sure, but they ultimately don't see anything wrong with us and they believe in the bigger, main rule of any religion, which is to treat everyone with love and that judgement is reserved for God/Allah.

As far as Christianity goes, the same book (Leviticus) that supposedly names being gay as a sin (which is now widely believed to be mistranslation) is also against eating shellfish, yeast, honey, and fat, wearing mixed fabrics, trimming your beard, getting tattoos, ripping your clothes, and drinking alcohol in holy places (so much for wine at mass?). It also lists working on Sundays as a sin punishable by death by stoning. If people want to use Catholicism as a reason for homophobia but don't also believe in the above, they are just hiding behind their religion to excuse their bigotry.

 

[-Blue-]

Yeah I get that having separate categories for the events would be more difficult than what I suggested, but I just think the way they currently are needs a rework. It's why I'm not staff or someone in position of control. I'm too dumb for something like that lol.

I do think regulating everything in the forum from art to avatars and so forth to keep AI out of the forums would just be as difficult of a task. I've heard about artists who were turned into a witch hunt because someone thought their stuff was AI and it was not. I don't follow social media but it was some girl who ended up deleting her account because of the harass. It was resolved in their favor but the damage was already done.

I don't like anything AI. I wish it never existed. I remember when it first started rearing its head and I commented how it's only going to going to get worst. And people dismissed my comments how it was a fad and would never get that out of hand. There was that whole story writing event where everyone got screened and people with legit works were getting pinged as AI slop which rightfully would hurt anyone's feelings. Look, I know my art isn't great so I don't expect to ever win anything, but those comments by members who stopped participating in events voiced them for the reasons I mentioned in my first post.


With that said though, I do really like the forums. I found a lot of lovely members and friends on here. It's why I'm still here. I doubt any of us would be here if we truly disliked the place. I always loved forums more than social media. I feel like I can connect with people, really connect with them and I don't feel that in social media. With those places it's like I'm talking AT them not WITH.

I get it, a lot of people prefer to connect to thousands of people on a moments notice, but its so big that you get lost and I feel like no one ever connects on a personal level. Which I why I love this place so much.

 

[nightglow]

Religion is a copout, it's still homophobic and offensive.

I have to disagree because it is a real religious belief or detail or structure about marriage in some religions or religious organizations. Others may call it anti-polygamy if their thoughts are on that vs what is homophobic.
I remember the statement being common pre Obama's time in the US in certain religious circles because of the topic of how many in a marriage is a discussed detail in some religions.
But yeah offensive I can totally understand and offense is a common human response to anything religious tbh.

Edit


Just seen your expansion and just wanted to comment on it friendly-y

My back ground is wicca and nondenominational Christianity, so I probably have way more liberty than others under similar labels. (Hopefully that is understood and not taken out of context).
I can't speak for Roman Catholism, but I can speak about religious texts, but my understanding and theology isn't the same as a Roman Catholic because I'm not one. And they have the whole Pope above religious texts thing going for them.
The Bible is not simply a Christian text. Over half of it is a Jewish text. Judaism. Jewish religion practices. Completely different religious practice. This is what Leviticus may seem ignored to those outside Christianity looking in. It is studied for religious history and small lessons, but the book of Galatians which is a Christian text towards the back of the Bible explains why in detail the Old Law is not followed.
I could even go into detail about some aspects like mixed clothing was actually referring to swindling people as plant material and animal material shrink differently, but that is going away off topic in this thread at this point. But I am happy to talk more in pm if so desired. (Some people like taking about stuff like this and it doesn't upset them, they just find the topic interesting)
But again I just wanted to address Leviticus, a Judaism book, not being followed in Christianity doesn't mean neglect or hypocriticalness or a co out thing and is addressed in Galatians.

And for those that hold the statement of marriage one man and one woman thing, they can still support and advocate the government to allow lbgtq people to have their marriage thing. It isn't necessarily contradictory because it is considered a separate thing. It would be a problem if a religious priest leader person was forced to marry people against their conscious whether it is about sexuality or details of a divorce or whatever however. Because again, that is the state stepping into a temple.

 

[.: Meri :.]

No place is perfect, but I love TBT, and I consider it one of the safest, nicest places I’ve ever found on the internet. In general, I find the community very kind and welcoming, and it’s helped me immensely with my social anxiety (I was terrified to post anything when I first joined, now I can talk here very comfortably, and have even gotten more comfortable interacting in other social spaces as well—though I still avoid social media for the argumentative nature of it and the uh, rampant unaddressed hate speech). The events hosted on here helped me rekindle my love for art when I was severely burnt-out, and hadn’t drawn anything in a long time. This site has been very good to me, and I want it to stay that way for others too.

The collectible market is in a dreadful state, but I’m not sure what caused it at this point and I don’t really have ideas for a solution either LOL. I know when I first became active on here, you could even sell event participation prizes for a decent amount (Purple Pave Feathers were going for like, 800 tbt back in 2021), but there’s very little movement even in the <300 TBT range now… it took me nearly a year to find an Orange Hyacinth, and they weren't even considered super desirable during the last flower breeding event.

Like some others have expressed, I’m not a huge fan of the artificial scarcity re: collectibles. I’m not a competitive person and much prefer collaborative efforts, so the exclusivity-factor of certain collectibles I own doesn’t really appeal to me ;u; Of course, I’m not saying they should all be free all the time either, because earning them in events or being lucky enough to win one is a big part of the fun of them! But I don’t think community popularity should really be an influence in their availability. The sheer rarity of some of them seems to bring out some concerningly obsessive behavior sometimes too (like the Christmas 2023 voting situation).

+1 to more “general” collectibles being rotated through the Shop!! I think it’d be cool to see the fruits, villagers/NPCs, etc. appear in there more often. I wouldn’t even mind limited restocks for some of them, especially if it happened a bit more frequently! sometimes I forget we still have Shop restocks for the Toy Hammer/Chocolate Cake/etc. lol


I’d be for a total ban on AI-generated images, but I’m concerned about false flagging. I already know of multiple situations where real artists got their work mistaken for AI—or were maliciously falsely accused of using it—and were harassed off social media. I’ve even taken some AI litmus tests where I mistakenly thought some artworks were AI-generated when they actually weren’t. No AI in events, and heavily discouraging its use elsewhere on site, seems like the best way to address it without getting innocent users caught in any crosshairs. Plus I'm not sure that people always realize when the images they're sharing or using in their pfps/signatures are AI-generated

I’m veryyy iffy on the idea of skill-based categories for staff favorites in events, for many of the reasons already shared here, but I’d love to see more categories based on things like digital vs. traditional, funniest, most unique take on the prompt, etc. I think there’s already a mix of factors that go into choosing staff favorites beyond just artistic skill, but I still think categories are a fun idea! It’d be a neat thing to see as part of the messages on people’s staff favorite collectibles more often.


Re: the discussion of overt vs. more subtle expressions of bigotry, I agree with others here that both should be moderated the same way in a forum space. The United States is supposed to have separation of church and state, but the reality is that we do not. It's never been a matter of "I can't get married in this church building, by this priest, but I can go sign a marriage contract and enjoy the same marriage privileges as everyone else"; religious beliefs have been, and are currently being, used as an excuse to restrict the rights of LGBTQ+ people on a legal/state level, regardless of their religion/lack thereof or the religious beliefs of the people marrying them. It wasn't simply a matter of ceremonies, same-gender couples in many parts of the US when I was growing up did not have access to the legal contract of marriage or the privileges that come with it, my state included.

It may be phrased like a personal belief, but it's rarely ever just that—US politicians use that exact same rhetoric as justification for taking away my rights (or going back a decade+, the justification for why I and people like me shouldn't be given those rights), and the majority of the time, the people expressing those views are the same people voting those politicians into power, voting for the bills that aim to restrict and take away my rights. It's extremely rare that someone will have those religious beliefs, but also actively support and respect my rights on a political level. No one's forcing them into a same-gender relationship, but they are trying to force me to not have one—both the people openly supporting conversion therapy, and the people who just "believe" that marriage "should be between one man and one woman".

 

[skarmoury]

I can't speak for Roman Catholism, but I can speak about religious texts, but my understanding and theology isn't the same as a Roman Catholic because I'm not one.

Hello! I'm a born and raised Roman Catholic. I'm not extremely active in the community, but I do go to church almost every Saturday (anticipated mass, I'm busy on Sundays), on my birthday, during holy week, Christmas, and before important events; you get the idea. I cannot begin to tell you how disheartening it feels being a non-hetero person in the Philippines; we as a nation heavily cling to Catholicism to the point where divorce isn't even allowed. In fact, asides from the Vatican, the Philippines is the only other place in the world where divorce is non-existent. And this is because of our very strong sense of religion.

Does having a strong sense of religion justify said laws and regulations, especially when they border inhumanity? Absolutely not. If everywhere else in the world we can legalize divorce (which goes against the sanctity of marriage based on Catholicism, mind you), why are we not allowed to legalize marrying someone of the same sex? Dead marriages are everywhere in the Philippines, many coming from a place of abuse, hurt, infidelity, and just merely falling out of love, and it's really sad that people cannot escape this bond for life; is this the true 'sanctity of marriage' religious people want to protect? And on the flipside— people think simply being able to marry someone of the same sex is a problem?

I just cannot understand how religious beliefs should outright justify certain laws. It borders on inhumane, cruel, sad, and the inconsistency of relying on religion to publish said laws ends up with more conflict than I feel necessary. Yes, you're allowed to practice any religion, but don't let religion overly dictate your morals, especially if these morals end up alienating humans for simply being... humans.

 

[sleepey]

One is a simple personal belief that intersects with religion.
(sacred ceremony is completely different than legal contract. Legalese doesn't give a hoot about sacred ceremonies and sacred ceremonies move on with existence regardless of government acknowledgement.

Hi. This doesn’t make “I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony between man & woman…” any less of a real homophobic dog whistle. The legalese, in fact, was initiated by people who believe that. The “legalese” privileged those people up until very recently, and still, we’re having to fight to keep those people from taking away rights to gay marriage at a federal level in the United States. That most definitely precludes such rhetoric from being “free speech”; it is hate speech, no matter how they will bite and yell that it is an encroachment on religious liberty to consider it such. At this time in history, you either exhibit the bravery to gracefully give that noise the middle finger—including making it clear that stuff like that doesn’t belong on TBT just as much as “I hate gays” wouldn’t be—or you take their side. I hope that helps

 

[nightglow]

Hello! I'm a born and raised Roman Catholic. I'm not extremely active in the community, but I do go to church almost every Saturday (anticipated mass, I'm busy on Sundays), on my birthday, during holy week, Christmas, and before important events; you get the idea. I cannot begin to tell you how disheartening it feels being a non-hetero person in the Philippines; we as a nation heavily cling to Catholicism to the point where divorce isn't even allowed. In fact, asides from the Vatican, the Philippines is the only other place in the world where divorce is non-existent. And this is because of our very strong sense of religion.

Does having a strong sense of religion justify said laws and regulations, especially when they border inhumanity? Absolutely not. If everywhere else in the world we can legalize divorce (which goes against the sanctity of marriage based on Catholicism, mind you), why are we not allowed to legalize marrying someone of the same sex? Dead marriages are everywhere in the Philippines, many coming from a place of abuse, hurt, infidelity, and just merely falling out of love, and it's really sad that people cannot escape this bond for life; is this the true 'sanctity of marriage' religious people want to protect? And on the flipside— people think simply being able to marry someone of the same sex is a problem?

I just cannot understand how religious beliefs should outright justify certain laws. It borders on inhumane, cruel, sad, and the inconsistency of relying on religion to publish said laws ends up with more conflict than I feel necessary. Yes, you're allowed to practice any religion, but don't let religion overly dictate your morals, especially if these morals end up alienating humans for simply being... humans.

I don't see how someone or a group taking a stance on marriage being defined a certain way, such as the example of between a man and a woman as something enroaching upon other people. Gay marriage is legal and can absolutely be legal and someone when the exampled stance above can absolutely support that, as previously expressed. And as previously expressed, I live in a nation with a separation of church and state, so no I don't agree on people being blocked on their marriage being acknowledged by the government. And many religions here don't care that the government acknowledged marriages between people of two different religions either. Because church and state are separate, or at least are suppose to be.

Hi. This doesn’t make “I believe marriage is a sacred ceremony between man & woman…” any less of a real homophobic dog whistle. The legalese, in fact, was initiated by people who believe that. The “legalese” privileged those people up until very recently, and still, we’re having to fight to keep those people from taking away rights to gay marriage at a federal level in the United States. That most definitely precludes such rhetoric from being “free speech”; it is hate speech, no matter how they will bite and yell that it is an encroachment on religious liberty to consider it such. At this time in history, you either exhibit the bravery to gracefully give that noise the middle finger—including making it clear that stuff like that doesn’t belong on TBT just as much as “I hate gays” wouldn’t be—or you take their side. I hope that helps

It is a statement on marriage for their religious group. It isn't targeting a particular group of people. It isn't expressing hate. It is a structure for THEM. People can leave it. And I think it is unfair to say all who may hold that statement are working to take rights away from others.

Those same people would still have that marriage view if the government stopped acknowledging their marriages. Because in the US anyway, church and state are separate. And they should be that way.
Marriage would be done without the legalese because the legalese is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to religion. Many of those people still believe they are married if only the religious ceremony was performed and none of the government paper work.

What should be said is separation of church and state should be enforced. That statement of marriage between a man and a woman should not be hindering lbgt people in the courthouse, nor hindering people who believe polygamy is the way to go, nor people outside that religious group in general.
Hopefully this comment clarifies things more.

 

[sleepey]

similarly, if you express an opinion that is comparatively shortsighted and perhaps offensive to what other people experience, but don't see that you're "clearly" antagonizing them in any way, their reactions might seem confusing and leave one in a position of feeling excluded or victimized, when in fact, the individual might be the one doing harm. and in society at large, and what would naturally be favored in a micro-level like on an animal crossing forum run by people in the western world, is the individual.

This might apply here. Not that any feelings of victimization are being expressed in this conversation, but harm is being done, period

 

[Mistreil]

Hi! Popping in to say: we are looking at this thread and are open to the feedback and constructive criticisms, and have our own internal discussions! But some of this is quickly veering off-topic, and arguments over political/religious topics will result in moderation.

With that said: LGBT+ rights and human rights are not considered politics -- talking about these topics are fine. However, this thread is turning into an argument about the religion and politics surrounding them that we aren't equipped to handle.
disclaimer: im project staff and not a mod, and also just very briefly skimming because it's work hours and i'm dying im still sick help me.

 

[sleepey]

I hope Staff considers it relevant that the conversation about whether or not, moving forward, something akin to “marriage is between a man/woman,” or any similarly covert, harmful dog whistle should be moderated, is itself feedback relevant to the topic of this thread and recent discussion on the forum.

I see folks here pushing back against complacency towards indirect harm as voicing their opinion—one that I understand has been inappropriately moderated by staff in recent history—not debating.

 

[-Apples-]

Hi! Popping in to say: we are looking at this thread and are open to the feedback and constructive criticisms, and have our own internal discussions! But some of this is quickly veering off-topic, and arguments over political/religious topics will result in moderation.

With that said: LGBT+ rights and human rights are not considered politics -- talking about these topics are fine. However, this thread is turning into an argument about the religion and politics surrounding them that we aren't equipped to handle.
disclaimer: im project staff and not a mod, and also just very briefly skimming because it's work hours and i'm dying im still sick help me.

Thanks for addressing our issues or leading to our issues being addressed. Hopefully, we can have an official statement on the following:

• Why the OG Glow Wands were meant to be scarce
• AI art and if it’s allowed
• Consistency of rules in contests
• Openness to more entries getting accepted or staff favorites.