A few days ago I made a post to gauge this community’s opinion on whether it should allow nice comics by bigoted artists. I think we have a consensus.
The majority of comments were very in support of banning comics by artists like Stonetoss and Jago. I heard from queer people who said they’d feel safer if the rules were changed. A lot of people were concerned about this community becoming a “Nazi bar”, the comment expressing that feeling got a LOT of upvotes.
The people against the change had two main arguments: anti-censorship, and personal responsibility. A few people equated active moderation practices with book burning. Nearly all of these “against” comments were downvoted or ratiod, and tended to have a lot of arguments underneath them, while the “pro” comments went uncontested.
On the internet, 10% of people will disagree with just about anything. With that in mind, I think we’ve reached a consensus. The community wants a rule change so that users can’t post inoffensive comics by bigoted artists.
That means no more Jago comics. I see a lot of people in the comments under the Jago posts, getting angry and saying they want this rule change. People aren’t happy with the user who’s posting all the Jago comics.
Mods, this is what we want. Please change the rules and get Jago’s comics outta here.
You must log in or # to comment.
Locking this for right now, this thread has gotten out of hand.
A blanket ‘bigoted artists’ rule is ripe for banning based on someone’s entire history, like firing James Gunn for bad jokes in old tweets.
Instead I would prefer to ban individual artists based on their art. So I fully support banning Jago comics because all the ones I remember are based on anti LGBTQ+ or sexist stereotypes. Not because they are bigoted, but because their content is. No idea who stonetoss is, but if their content is similar then I would also favor banning them.
No purity tests though.
I’m fully for this. I’d rather have a clear ban list where every addition is thoroughly discussed.
Forcing mods to make constant judgement calls is though on them and might lead to arguments where they find themselves stuck in the middle.
Yeah I think this is the most important thing, as long as community discussion drives the content of the ban list, it’s all good.
I initially chose not to weigh in because I find that people with differing opinions aren’t always well-tolerated on Lemmy. I think you have a good, nuanced take.
I also thought it was very helpful that a few people called out example comics of what they meant by “bigoted” . I was going to express some concern that even mildly self-deprecating humor would be banned if it applied to lgbtq people. Based on those examples, though, I have to agree with the consensus. Jago and Stonetoss are just stupid in addition to being poor taste.
Lots of other possible directions. Is parody okay?
You’d almost certainly know a stonetoss comic, they were pretty common over the last decade or so.
Oh yeah, I never liked those.
The argument of censorship is bullshit. If a comic is made to discriminate, it is basic decency to get rid of it. If an author makes themselves known by being discriminatory, no platform that cares about user safety and having a non-toxic community needs to get rid of them. It’s as simple as that.
When you refuse that kind of “censorship”, you are only making it clear that you like making this place unsafe for the people being attacked. Which makes you a piece of shit in my book.
So yeah, let’s just ban these things that have no reason to exist, let alone on lemmy.
deleted by creator
It is really sad that now, when someone mentions “freedom of speech” I automatically see it as a red flag, despite freedom of speech being a good thing. Nazis really mess up everything.
deleted by creator
Freedom of Speech only means that the government cannot censor you.
It has nothing to do with what businesses, individuals, groups, or anyone else does.
When the United States runs a social media, then they can argue that all they want there.
The only caution with that is, private companies have a LOT of power and control right now. Easy to argue they shouldn’t, of course.
An example might be Visa enforcing “content guidelines” on any paid content on Steam providing NSFW games. Like, say, any game that acknowledges gay people exist. Payment processors and similar companies have claimed that’s a freedom of speech stance.
But yes, we can definitely keep it simple in forum communities constantly under human enforcement.
That is just the US legal definition and it is very flawed.
Freedom of speech, more broadly, is the ability to express an opinion without fear of retaliation. This implies constraints on social organizations of all sizes.
Freedom of speech should also be compatible with the paradox of intolerance (unless intolerance is chosen to be socially accepted), which implies censorship at many levels.
By definition that same freedom of speech can be used as retaliation. Nobody should be able to attack someone else and expect them not to defend themselves.
It is because such an idea of speech free from retaliation exists that the parodox of tolerance also exists.
Speech is never likely to be free from consequences. That is exactly why we have diplomacy.
I agree, and It’s all because of the distorted form of freedom of speech they have in USA, we generally don’t have that problem in European democracies.
For instance FOX News is simply illegal by European standards, because they lie and distort reality.In online spaces there also seems to be this wierd thinking of “if it isn’t illigal you have to accept it”.
Yes, which is really stupid, some people seem to think that freedom of expression means that sites have to allow their stupidity. Which is far from the case.
France unfortunately has billionaire-backed C-News which is the same flavor as Fox-news.
Maybe similar flavor, but they can’t possibly be as bad, because much of what FOX does would be illegal.
Maybe similar flavor, and maybe they are as bad and maybe you just are posting about something you don’t know/care about.
What they are doing is definitely illegal, but they only get the occasional slap on the wrist for it, which the billionaire owner pays. France does not really enforce rules concerning media surveillance, unless it suits rhé government’s agenda.
Points they were already checked for include: promoting racism, having racist claims, false claims about [abortion, immigrants, “leftists”, convictions of right-wing former president], edited images, using fake numbers, having shared staff with RT, and gaming the channel’s stats to fake compliance with the law regarding the diversity of what is shown.
CNews went to create a fascist candidate (Eric Zemmour) for the last presidential elections (the guy was pretty much unknown before). Oh, the guy even had a neonazi group (les Zouaves) for security during rallies.
Fu’nily, the neonazi leader (Marc de Caqueray Valmenier) was investigated so the channel owner (Bolloré) gave him a role as a security guard on his private island.
In Europe it is still there, far right extremists love to complain about cancel culture, about being censored, etc.
But yeah, they generally prefer to sue for defamation when someone criticises them
they know they are wrong, so they become defensive and tries to gaslight, its pretty much alt right tactic 101.
They have plenty of spaces of their own to post and like the content we don’t want here. They feel a need to spread it though, to harm others because at the basis of it all, that’s what they want to do whether they realize it or not.
I don’t really care either way as I just browse this place casually (not that I support bigotry), but I can’t believe how many community outrage posts like this that this community has received in the past week or two. You’d think we were in a community dedicated to much more serious topics not one dedicated to ‘Sunday comics.’
Not caring is supporting bigotry.
“I don’t support nazis, I just don’t care if they conquer the world” is not really a good sentence to say.
Not caring is supporting bigotry.
No, it’s just not involving myself in internet drama.
“I don’t support nazis, I just don’t care if they conquer the world” is not really a good sentence to say.
You might have a point if we were actually talking about Nazis or someone like Trump and his ilk, but no were talking about some person with little influence who creates comics and posts them to this little community. I’m assuming this is about the guy who has all the thirsty looking comics with women in their underwear that someone claimed didn’t support LGBT but didn’t elaborate further? Forgive me for not joining in the tribalism and drawing my line in the sand over this egregious act.
The fact that you have to immediately rely on exaggerated appeals to emotion in order to even make your point should be a sign that you’re going a little overboard.
So for you, discrimination and fascism should only be fought against when on a gigantic scale? As long as it’s not the president of a country, you don’t care?
“My neighbour is insulting black people in the street but you know, it’s just a little racial slur a few times per day, it’s not like it’s actual Hitler living next to me, so I don’t care”
How does that kind of logic even make sense?
I don’t know why there are so many enlightened centrists on lemmy lately but it’s really gross.
Can you actually point to the discrimination and fascism being posted here? You keep having to rely on hypotheticals and unrelated situations as your argument and have yet to make a single reference to the actual situation occurring here, all while acting like we’re somehow pro-Nazi or pro-slavery if we don’t automatically conform to your viewpoint.
https://lemmy.world/post/45557825
Here’s an example.
https://lemmy.world/post/45513297
Here’s another.
This user in particular is one of the main issues of this community, most of their posts are like that.
But I know that you’re just asking for an example to try to attack it, and there’s not really any point, because if you don’t see the problem from that link, a conversation cannot do enough.
I know that you’re just asking for an example to try to attack it, and there’s not really any point
Oh, you know that do you? There’s no point in devoting a single word in any of your dozen+ comments here to explain a position that you apparently feel so strongly about, while calling others “Nazis” for not automatically siding with you and your moral righteousness
if you don’t see the problem from that link, a conversation cannot do enough.
Apparently you don’t see the problem either since you can’t seem to articulate it even once. You seem entirely reliant on logical fallacies, Nazis, and fascism to manipulate others into falling in line with whatever feeling you happen to be feeling about something. This is the same toxic bullshit that gave us things like the Satanic panic and the drug war and it’s incredibly gross.
You are seriously unhinged if you think either or these strips is an example of discrimination.
Not caring is supporting bigotry.
I agree with you
“I don’t support nazis, I just don’t care if they conquer the world” is not really a good sentence to say.
You know, part of the problem with situations like this conversation, I feel, is that it’s always Nazis. It ends up being a cliche that, when something else happens, like the US starting to literally follow similar trends that led to the actual nazi party, it’s already something people are tired of hearing and it hurts the message.
They end up not taking this seriously (because web comics, even shitty bigoted ones, are not as serious as what happened in nazi Germany) and then the other claim doesn’t get taken seriously because “everything’s Nazis with you people”.
Just a thought i had when reading this.
This comes from the fact that there’s less and less space between actual nazis and “just far-right extremists”.
And I think people don’t really see a point anymore in trying to find a difference, me included.
No. Support is support, and not caring is not caring. Redefining words won’t change the outcome on the ground.
If you are standing by when an oppressor is oppressing, then you are participating in it.
Accepting the idea that being passive is neutral, is a horrible moral stance that is always advantaging the oppressors.
If it is your stance, you are participating in letting the oppressors do whatever they want, which is supporting them.
There’s a reason why you can be condemned for seeing someone getting attacked and doing nothing. This “neutral” stance has been known to be a piece of shit stance for centuries.
If you are standing by when an oppressor is oppressing, then you are participating in it.
That is not what participation means. Redefining yet more words won’t change the outcome on the ground either.
There’s a reason why you can be condemned for seeing someone getting attacked and doing nothing. This “neutral” stance has been known to be a piece of shit stance for centuries.
This would seem to be the “duty to rescue”. But there is no universal duty to rescue recognised in law - because there is no such duty recognised universally by people either. And where it is recognised, the punishment for failing to carry it out is less than the punishment for putting someone in harm’s way, or harming them yourself.
This is, in fact, a very good way of seeing that “neutrality is aggression” is a minority, and wrong, belief.
So according to your logic, if you walk past someone being raped or murdered and you don’t give a shit and move on, it’s completely fine, because you’re just being neutral? You would consider that not helping the victim, doesn’t help the aggressor?
How do you even manage to convince yourself of such a logic?
No, it is not “completely fine” but it is not morally equivalent to committing the rape, and there are justified reasons for doing nothing: e.g. you cannot physically intervene, and are scared of the cops and so unwilling to call them.
You seem to be conflating legality with morality.
It being legal is a good suggestion that society hasn’t decided it’s on the same moral level as things that society has decided to make illegal. At any rate, the unviersal statement ‘This “neutral” stance has been known to be a piece of shit stance for centuries’ is wrong on this basis. If it were so obvious, so known, then, yes, I do think it would be illegal.
Apathy is an oppressor’s greatest weapon.
You may not think you’re supporting them, but silence is complicity. And if you’re complicit with it, you tacitly support it, otherwise you’d have an opinion on it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
I agree with the quote, but I take umbrage with it being used in this context.
There’s nothing to be gained by forcing people to act in ways that they do not wish to act, or to think in ways that they do not wish to think.
The way you’re using that quote is basically saying, “Agree with me, and think the way I tell you to think, or you’re a bad person”.
That is evil, and people of good conscience should not agree with you. It is better to allow you to think that they are a bad person rather than to allow you to have control over their morality.
Is bigotry not evil by your standards?
A, you’ve missed the point completely. B, you’re moving the goalposts. And C, you’re forgetting the possible charitable view of things in that a person who is not aware of the original artist’s bigotry finding something that they posted funny and sharing it with other people.
There’s nothing to be gained by forcing people to act in ways that they do not wish to act, or to think in ways that they do not wish to think.
In context of the conversation, you’re saying there’s nothing to be gained by banning comics from racist artists.
The way you’re using that quote is basically saying, “Agree with me, and think the way I tell you to think, or you’re a bad person”.
You sure? Because in response to your statement saying you don’t have an opinion (ie, you’re doing nothing), it means that you’re allowing bad to happen due to apathy (that’s assuming you see yourself as a good person, if you’re not, disregard).
That is evil, and people of good conscience should not agree with you.
One of these days I’m going to create /c/selfawarewolves…
Twist yourself up like a pretzel all you want, but at least listen to what you’re saying and think about it for more than 5 seconds. Because you’re supporting people who spread bigotry by arguing against banning them, and trying to take the moral high ground.
OK?
The quote highlights that passive inaction is as dangerous as active malice. It encourages taking a stand against wrongdoing rather than remaining neutral.
But it isn’t as dangerous as active malice. Punching someone in the face is more dangerous than watching someone punch another in the face.
I was going to point out that comics like that should already be covered by the rules against discrimination… But reading the sidebar it doesn’t look like we have rules like that. We have a full paragraph detailing how an exposed nipple should be tagged, but nothing saying “hey, don’t be a homophobic sexist bigot”. Probably worth adding something to the rules like:
Discrimination such as homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism are not welcome here. This applies both in comments and posted comics. Likewise, artists who have a large history of posting discriminatory content such as Stonetoss and Jago are similarly not allowed here.
Nazi bars form by exploiting moderators who are too afraid to say no and actively kick out a culture of hate.
Hate should never be tolerated.
Except for the Dutch. /s
And it isn’t - apart from the witch hunt by the OP.
I didn’t follow the post to see the ratio, but I guess point 2 of rule 2 supports it… although I really don’t get the “feel safe” part, are posters stalking other users and waiting for them outside of their houses or something like that for blocking people you don’t like not being enough?
I hope people don’t feel unsafe by Joan Cornellà comics too.You wouldn’t feel unsafe seeing posts by people that are basically saying that you shouldn’t exist, or that you’re worth less than other humans?
Good for you that you’re so privileged you never had to face discrimination.
Stonetoss is a piece of shit, it’s probably hard to even find a comic of his that isn’t against the instance rules. Jago I have only seen what was posted on the community and it was just some stuff to roll your eyes at the sexist inferences (and some other stuff wasn’t even bad), but some other stuff of his that were posted here on this thread are blatantly transphobic, so fuck that guy too - however, not feeling unsafe because someone posted a dumb comic on the internet, especially when it’s not hateful content like what has been shared on the community, is not a privilege, it’s your choice to feel unsafe - because how the fuck anyone in this community can even be a threat? If you let people get into your head that easily, you gonna have an awful time.
I don’t feel unsafe because someone posted a comic by someone who at some point said some stuff that might imply they hate me or some aspect of me, no. No-one’s asking you to get in a room with them, or even read the offensive stuff they said.
As I said, good for you to be privileged enough to have never felt unsafe because of that.
Now get out of your own ass and understand that not everyone is like that, and that if people here are agreeing on the opposite, maybe it means that you’re not the general rule.
If everyone who disagrees with you can be assumed to be privileged, and every disagreeing privileged opinion can be dismissed due to being privileged, you will indeed be able to manufacture whatever consensus you want. And the more you wag fingers at people who don’t agree, the more you’ll cement it.
There’s a simple principle: if something just makes you feel bad, but doesn’t actually harm you, then you can be an adult about it and regulate your own exposure. It’s not like stuff that does harm you, which society ought to try and prevent.
This way, society can concern itself with stuff everyone can see and test and verify, rather than stuff that makes some group of people feel unsafe, which only they can attest to. That’s a good thing, because on the latter route, you end up either letting the most frightened person censor everything for everyone, or privileging certain groups of people censor everything for everyone, neither of which is a good outcome.
People spreading horrible ideologies hurt everyone, even if not directly. Lower exposure doesn’t change that.
Hiding your head in the sand doesn’t fix problems.
Also, going form what the conversation was, to “the most frightened person censors everything for everyone” is one of the most gigantic slippery slopes I’ve seen. Blocking sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, or discriminatory in whatever other way, content is not “censoring everything for everyone”, it’s not even censoring, it’s telling the hostile pieces of shit that try to destroy society to shut up. And people who want to see that kind of crap can do it on 4chan or whatever shithole so here, there’s no censorship at all.
The more you talk the worse you look, by the way, so you should wonder what kind of message you’re trying to convey. For now it’s looking a lot like enlightened centrism.
I’m trying to convey the classic ideals of liberalism.
People spreading horrible ideologies hurt everyone
You’re not talking about people “spreading horrible ideologies” you’re talking about people who have made comments you find to be wrong, hateful and offensive in one place, and for that reason preventing an entire forum from hearing or seeing anything that came from them.
it’s telling the hostile pieces of shit that try to destroy society to shut up
No. That would be more like following the liberal ideal of defeating corrosive ideologies by countering it with a robust defence of your own principles. You don’t want to tell people to shut up, you want to make them shut up.
Good people always feel unsafe around perceived injustice.
- said every tyrant ever :P
I would also vote in that direction.
I get the concept, it’s basically the same issues in like Harry Potter or Five nights at freddies. IE a lot of LGBT people like these works, but it’s also unquestionable that the profits that the works make, are used to bolster hate against these groups, even if the works themselves are not harmful to them.
So yes I also go with this camp, platforming non-hateful work, supports hateful creators and allows them to amplify the hateful message.
That said this is lemmy. We have the means here. If lemmy world comic strips want an open door “as long as the comics posted themselves aren’t hateful it’s allowed”. Perhaps someone should make a Comic Strips on a different instance, and lemmy users can vote with their feet.
Hold on, what’s up with five nights at Freddy’s?
People making mountains out of mole hills, hampering on those who don’t meet their purity tests. The usual.
JKR is actively and vocally using HP profits for evil and is a good example in that comment.
Scott Cawthon, from what I recall, has some conservative/right wing/whatever views, but hasn’t actively worked on harming the LGBTQ community. People hate him cause he’s not perfect.
The evidence is literally above your post and was there three hours before you made it.
I just took a look through all the comments on this post and I’m failing to see any evidence. Perhaps something didn’t federate properly and you can point me to what you’re talking about.
Unless you’re talking about the comment 2 up from mine, the only comment on this post mentioning FNAF (and the comment on that, which is what I replied to). A person offhandedly saying that Scott’s a bad person is not evidence, it’s an opinion from an internet stranger.
In short Scott Cawthorn the creator donates a lot of money to political campaigns. Per his explanation a strong military is his single issue vote. Which has him throwing money towards people like Mitch McConnel, Tommy Tubberville, Trump and Tulsi Gabbard.
The worst part (or at least a negative) is, I’m pretty sure Trump is bad for the military (just good for military contractors).
Based on cawthornes votes etc… I’d say the concept he has is more money going into the millitary budget, and more pre-emptive actions abroad keeps us safer back here.
Fully completely disagree with it a thousand fold. Had we not stuck our noses into the middle east so much 9/11 would never have happened (and I’m just working with what had happened at the time of cawthrons controversy rather than the obvious much more recent iran nonsense.
What fucking idiot. Thanks for sharing.
its creator was caught donating to bigoted political campaigns
https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/scott-cawthon-defends-anti-lgbt-donations-11578325/
Why haven’t you already started your own Comic Strips community with this rule instead of spamming the comm?
Sounds perfect. Do that.
There is currently no need, because this community doesn’t ban inoffensive content.
No you misunderstand. I’m telling these tankies to go make their own comm with anyone who ever said anything they deem wrong permabanned. I’m sure it will be full of fun and engaging content.
Grail is a tankie?
I mean, left and authoritarian?
Based on what?
This? Right here? What do you mean?
“This author had a bad take one time, burn all his books immediately!”
GTFO with your disingenuous line of questioning.
Because they like stirring drama for the sake of drama
Ah so Goferking0 is fine with misogynistic artists? And here I thought you were at least a leftist.
Doesn’t matter about the user being annoying, the cause here is just. You should be able to critically support this post instead you only shit on them.
Doesn’t matter about the user being annoying, the cause here is just. You should be able to critically support this post instead you only shit on them.
That’s like saying we should support Biden because he said something nice about unions.
Then again another account who loves to punch left 🤷
Not saying support Grail, I’m saying support the policy. You know critical support, the thing you MLs always harp on about but never actually do.
Punching up is not punching left. MLs are not to the left of anarchists, you’re just more authoritarian.
on the same note while im against it I read comics in other comic communities. Ideally little to no censorship would be in communities but the comics will still be around in other ones. Granted it would be nice for this poster to just get off his but and use the block botton but he can feel the warm fuzzies knowing people are reading the comic on the fediverse elsewhere instead of here.
Blocking it won’t stop everyone else from being exposed and the hate being normalised.
won’t stop it by stopping it here in the federation. there are other comic communities and the person can make their own if they want.
None will ever be as big as this one, it might not stop all of it but it will stop 95% of people ever seeing it.
yeah whatever. I don’t want to make peoples choiced for them or have choices made for me but I do have access and watch the other communites just like 95% of everyone on the federation. This is like one of the maine things I like about the federation and why as much as I like trust cafe its not federated so could devolve into such influences being one thing. Whats funny is I blocked the guy until your wierdisms (from my point of view, from another like yourself I am the wierd one). The comics are not that bad and no one needs to be protected from them.
promoting hate is suppose to be against TOS, unless you make a nazi platform, they can make thier own instances for it. but then right wing propaganda cant flourish in thier own echo chambers , since they need engagement, cant have that if everyone agrees with you.
Please don’t. You seriously need to grow a thicker skin if thing you see online hurts you.
Why even bother with federation when we can just 4chan
That’s not quite what I’m rooting for here.
Agreed.
I saw these Comics and I don’t like them. Medium joke on juicy pictures. But I was like: “A free internet has to be able to handle things like this”
Does banning them not count as “how we handle things like this”?
Banning is censorship. For the good and for the bad.
Perhaps learning how to block authors you don’t care for would help the people that feel unsafe due to a comic being posted.
No it doesn’t.
How do you suggest we do that with the current way that tagging and content filtering works on Lemmy?
We can block things in text by keyword. However, we don’t really have a proper tagging system on Lemmy. If the comic doesn’t have attribution in text form (in the title or elsewhere in the post body) then it doesn’t help to block the author’s name or pseudonym.
I scrolled through months of the community’s feed and only one post author is posting the content many are being made to feel unsafe by. The Lemmy block system is great at blocking a single user. In this particular case, no more sophisticated filtering system is needed.
I do understand that many scenarios are more complex but this is not one of those instances.
There’s at least two, which I know for certain because someone else saw this post and decided to post two Jago comics back to back.
Blocking those two accounts doesn’t do anything to fix the main problem which is that certain content is not tolerable here and the current way this community and Lemmy at large works doesn’t account for and cannot combat this.
You assume no further filtering is needed but when someone else starts posting the comics or the person who is blocked decides to change accounts and continue posting etc this becomes ineffective.
I suggested in another comment that making a rule about using the other filtering systems we do have (by using the comic name and author name in the title) we might be able to get around just banning said comics all together, but at the end of the day I really do feel like comics that are used to spread hatred are probably something that shouldn’t be allowed specifically because they cause damage in multiple ways to a community.
If you don’t know the Nazi bar analogy then you clearly are missing part of the story but if you do and you think we can avoid becoming the Nazi bar in this scenario by wearing headphones or blindfolds then I don’t think you’re being realistic.
Rather than take responsibility they demand everyone else does it for them. It’s not hard to block content you don’t like if you don’t want to see it.
Um yes it is? There’s a bazillion accounts on here, I can’t just type in “no Nazis”. A moderator is one person having to do it.
I’m not sure we need to keep adding rules just for one artist. if the consensus is to ban Jago comics for their content, then that seems like a good decision.
however “bigoted” seems to mean a wide variety of different things now. and it seems that some people are ok with some darker forms of humor than others.
jago is well known for making comics specifically to try and piss people off. but I feel that dark humor should not be banned.
Jago is not “dark humour” it’s incel garbage that constantly attacks women and trans people.
“if the consensus is to ban Jago comics for their content, then that seems like a good decision”
i know. which is why I wrote this. just pasted it there so you can see it more clearly.
jago’s shit is literally just blatantly bigoted. how can anyone see these comics and walk away thinking otherwise?
https://jagodibuja.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/531en-scaled.jpg
https://jagodibuja.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/521en-694x1024.jpg
if your reaction to seeing these is anything other than disgust at the turbo-transphobia i’ve got bad news for you about your moral character as a human being
I’d rather they not be banned, but down voted to oblivion and the comment section highlight the fallacies and falsehoods that it presents and perpetuates.
I can’t even downvote on my instance…
If you want to see bigots’ comics, there’s plenty of other places for you to see them.
We’ve been censoring social media left and right, putting our heads into sand, and look how well that turned out?
Pushing nazis, incels and bigots into their own little niche spaces and letting them fester is what got us where we are. I’d rather educate, shame and call out in public.
There’s plenty of places to find nazis, incels, and bigots. It’s called “most platforms.” No one is under any obligation to platform hate or to welcome the hateful. Go find another bar if you want one with nazis.
You people get pissed every time someone raises legit issues
however “bigoted” seems to mean a wide variety of different things now
No, no it’s not, there is a very clear definition of that. However, bigots like to muddy that in order to make their bigotry more social acceptable, but it’s important to not fall for that. It has the same “the left just calling everyone nazi this days therefore nobody is a nazi” ring to it, that nazis used to normalise nazism.
i had someone call me a terf cause I said I didn’t like a TV show they did. that’s what I mean. there’s someone clearly being bigoted (like the artist Jago which should be banned from the instance) but not all dark artists rely on being a misogynistic fuck. some just genuinely think darker topics are entertaining. and some are.
that is why I am asking for is leniency on dark humor. (NOT JAGO. HIS COMICS SHOULD BE BANNED. I HAVE TO CLEARLY SPELL THIS OUT SINCE PEOPLE ARE READING OVER THIS POINT, APPARENTLY.)
What was the TV show?
jojo bizarre adventure. why?
Never watched it. I was just curious what show would automatically “terf” someone ifv they didn’t like it.
I feel like we are missing a part of this story.
Didn’t see the other post, but it is never proper to censor someone just because someone doesn’t like something they said. Remove individual cartoons that are offensive, don’t censor people.
nah, we don’t need to tolerate the intolerant.
if somebody is a nazi, ban them. no need to think any deeper on it.
what if they were comics by hitler
I think we’d all rather Hitler had remained an artist, no?
what if they were comics by hitler while in the throes of wwii
People that like Jago just wanna see boobs. It’s borderline against community rules.
