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.
You’d almost certainly know a stonetoss comic, they were pretty common over the last decade or so.
Oh yeah, I never liked those.
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?
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.
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.
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.
let them whine and cry about being “censored,” canceled, banned, etc. everyone is free to say whatever they want, everyone is also free to take what someone says and throw it out the window.
the consistent widespread tolerance of intolerance is a huge reason the world is on fire right now
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.
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.
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.
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.
i look at it as “yea, you can put up your nazi flag. but if you put it on my property, it’s going in the firepit and getting torched”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Support is support, and not caring is not caring. Redefining words won’t change the outcome on the ground.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Good people always feel unsafe around perceived injustice.
- said every tyrant ever :P
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.
The people who really want racist/sexist/etc comics are free to make their own instance or community. This is the fediverse. There’s no government with guns or CEO to lock it down.
If that stuff makes for a better community, it will do just fine. I expect it won’t.
One of the things right-wingers push for is the idea that they’re normal and healthy, and everyone else is deficient. Like everything else from the right, it’s projection.
they do, but right wing communities, in most sites usually dont flourish at all, because they wont have anyone to argue against.
Its inclusion does lead to a Nazi Bar situation as more of that material gets posted, that crowd grows, then the place becomes hostile to the original founders.
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?
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.
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.
its creator was caught donating to bigoted political campaigns
https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/scott-cawthon-defends-anti-lgbt-donations-11578325/
I woke up this morning and there’s three Stonetosses back to back in my feed.
If we could go ahead and throw them on the ban list, that would be pretty groovy
At this point just leave the community. A artist ban is in and of it self more problematic the the comics themselves.
A tag requirement so people can make their own blacklists is far better
There’s a reason every image board in p*** site ever has a robust tagging system.
The only good that ever comes from the administration banning things is it just turns into a glorified Nazi problem.
That’s why I’m not a big fan of the artist himself. Actually banning art is never the correct choice. Provide people with the ability to do it themselves or don’t do it at all.
I’ve been considering leaving this community anyway because the mods have been dragging their feet on this issue. But it’s a new mod team finding their feet, and a considered approach takes time, so I give the benefit of the doubt.
Encouraging someone to leave the community for expressing dissatisfaction that the community allows a nazi to use the platform might be a bigger nazi problem than banning nazis would be.
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.
any rule should be voted on to ban specific artists, and additions to the list should require their own vote. “no hate content” is a simple enough rule to enforce with minimal context but “no history of hate content” is way too broad.
I see it exactly like OP.
I also would like to add that I have encountered quite a few, at the very least, questionable moderation decision. Bigots who were arguing in bad faith were left alone and people who tried to counter their bullshit were deleted. Normally I don’t care about moderation, but I had the feeling that the new moderation was up to a good start with the new rules and moderators but in practise the moderation seems to be inconsistent.Bigots who were arguing in bad faith were left alone and people who tried to counter their bullshit were deleted.
ah, the true lemmy experience
There can’t even be that many amazing “nice” comics by these bigoted artists that we’d be making a huge sacrifice by banning them. Not accidentally driving traffic to them seems worth it.
I guess there’s a case around censorship to some degree, but there’s already plenty of censorship-driven rules in place. It comes down to trusting the mods to not abuse their power.
Ya, I really don’t see a downside in terms of content. Jago is simply not funny at the best of times.
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.
Nazis don’t get a platform. Not sure why this is even a debate unless it looks like a debate because a bunch of nazis are whining about it and get told to fuck off. In which case, good, gtfo.
Yeah but there are no nazis here. OP is having his knickers in the twist about Jago.
Nazis should get a platform. A platform with a short drop and very sudden stop.
or a “barber” using only crude large cutting instruments.
Amen
Nazis don’t get a platform.
Sadly, nazis already have too many platforms.
This is unfortunately true.
