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 register to comment.
Locking this for right now, this thread has gotten out of hand. Edit: unlocked. Please behave.
Either way the community goes on this, I’d really like it if there were a rule that each post needs to include the artist’s name in the title. That way, we could have a basis for filtering out artists we don’t personally care for. Not saying this should happen instead of any kind of ban on specific artists or content, but rather in addition to.
Yeah. There’s a particular person in these comments claiming we can just block things we don’t like but who doesn’t seem to realize that this doesn’t work without some sort of tag system or artist name in the title.
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.
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 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.
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.
Nazis don’t get a platform.
Sadly, nazis already have too many platforms.
Nazis should get a platform. A platform with a short drop and very sudden stop.
Yeah but there are no nazis here. OP is having his knickers in the twist about Jago.
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.
what if they were comics by hitler
I think we’d all rather Hitler had remained an artist, no?
mods here support zionists, of course they will not listen
I preferred the simpler times where it was a simple downvote and move on. Those artists will probably get ratioed anyways and the posts will be sunk.
Witch-Hunt mentality is kinda a lame way to go about things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just for reference: this was the previous poll https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/58355506
and i want to say that it seems in no way “clear” to me that people overwhelmingly wanted comics by bigoted artists banned. i think you’re mixing quite a lot of your own ideology into this post and projecting your views on the majority.
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.
I may not agree with what they say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
Better to know where the ass-holes are. Let them show themselves.
Let it be downvoted.
Imagine dying so Nazis can say Nazi shit publicly. Kind of stupid.
Imagine becoming a Nazi by slippery slope fallacy and tu quoque fallacy. Kind of ironic.
Yeah I did neither of those but I guess you get to sound smart so that’s cool.
You don’t need to defend the right for a Nazi to speak.
Shall we just decree anyone we want silenced a Nazi then?
If they epose neo-nazi talking points (holocaust denial being a big one), they’re probably questionable. Add onto that his regular jewish dog whistles (1, 2), he loves his over-simplified racist undertone statistics, anti-immgration, quasi-‘white replacement theory’ nonsense, or some race-related pseudoscience.
Man, its one thing to be arguing for slippery slope (which is literally a logical fallacy, meaning it shouldn’t be used in an argument), but stonetoss either promotes, or genuinely believes a number of neo-nazi views. To me, thats enough that I dont think his comics should be cross posted here.
Man, its one thing to be arguing for slippery slope (which is literally a logical fallacy, meaning it shouldn’t be used in an argument),
A slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy, but there are still slippery slopes that are not fallacious.
stonetoss either promotes, or genuinely believes a number of neo-nazi views. To me, thats enough that I dont think his comics should be cross posted here.
How might they be exposed to ideas to challenge their ideas and broaden their perspective? While exposure here may not offer a direct line, and may seem like more advantage to the spread of their ideas than them being exposed to ideas that challenge their ideas, it may at least expose more people to see their ideas, and, presumably, be of sound mind enough to not only not succumb to them, but perhaps go forth to offer counter-arguments and refutations and exposing fallacies and harms of their ideas.
Yep sure. That’s what I said. :)
I get what you’re saying, but Nazis do not need a devil’s advocate. Racists don’t need any defending. Turns out, giving them leeway to spit out hate speech only encourages them to be more hateful.
You say you get it, but nothing you said after the “but” corroborated the claim.
Was not playing devil’s advocate [nor non-playing advocating]. Was not defending. Was satirically pointing out the folly of becoming them; the folly of opposaming; the folly of arrogantly presuming what to impose in ignorant lack of introspection unto hypocrisy; the folly of fear driven reactions that drive a social tragedy of the commons blind race to the bottom into kakistarchy. Can’t defeat Nazism from here. Can create it.
The principle espoused seems sound though. Same as how to deal with any/all totalitarians. That being to keep speaking out and stopping their madness, or it gets worse and worse, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I’m not sure how sending them to echo chambers to go on festering ever worse, unchallenged, serves this necessary avenue of remedy.
Better the monster you can see. Better the Daryl Davis approach, proven to convert people out of monstrosity, than to try to out-monster the monsters. Not having a bigger hammer was not the problem with the hammer being the only tool in the toolbox.
The problem is that downvotes do not work. They do not function as an incentive for these users to stop posting, because they do not matter at all.
It can work on larger platforms, where thousands, or even tens of thousands of people vote. There the users form roles based on how they sort the posts. People who sort by New are well aware that they are going to have to sift through a lot of trash, but their reward is that they get to have a more active role in setting the taste for the entire community. Because then you have people who sort by Hot or Active, which tends to be the majority of users in most communities (and is often the default). So in communities with dozens of posts, hundreds of comments, and thousands of votes every day, the things the community doesn’t like gets buried.
The Fediverse is too small for that system to work. There simply is not enough posts, comments, and votes to make any of that meaningful. The same users can just spam the same authors over and over again, and it doesn’t matter whether the post gets 100 upvotes or 100 dpwnvotes- the whole community is going to see it in their feed regardless. And it’s not as if having negative "karma"really matters.
One of tbr systems Reddit had to combat this was that karma occasionally mattered. Some subreddits would require karma to join, or ban if your karma dropped. I’m not sure if the tools exist for something like that here or not. There are a lot of different t ways you can slice up the numbers, but basically looking at post history, ratios of up/down votes, total down votes, etc. Effectively letting community feedback drive the moderation process.
That’s still not perfect because users can block/mute other users. Doing so would effectively be abstaining from voting, and that’s not the healthiest system. But we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
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.
edit: No Jago is not dark humor. Yes Jago comics should be banned from the instance. please stop likening me to a bigot just because my brain is spicy and I have difficulty explaining shit sometimes. thank you.
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
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.
So would we ban posting Dilbert comics because Adams went wacko when he got older? Do we ban artists from the 50s because some of them were racist, even if we’re not posting those ones?
I think it makes sense to not allow hateful and bigoted comics, for sure. And that rule would get rid of jago.
Not all of Jago contains bigotry, þough. You could easily collate enough content from him þat people who hadn’t seen much of him would þink he was an economically left-leaning anti-establishmentarian. At what percentage do you draw þe line?
As anoþer user said, block content, not artists. Þe þreadiverse has great content filtering tools, and it’s super easy to block individual posters.
Yeah, I don’t get it. If the two examples linked above are his most offensive content, then this is a pretty low bar to ban someone. If the target of the criticism was priests or bankers, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Giving a demographic special treatment can turn indifference into resentment; it is not a path towards acceptance or equality.
He does also target priests and bankers. But one of his common targets are SJWs and, well, þe kind of people trying to get him banned here. I þink he’s taken potshots at Me Too. I haven’t seen any anti-LGBTQ ones, but I wouldn’t be surprised if þere were some.
He makes fun of a wide variety of targets, from pedophile priests to greedy capitalists and þe ultra-rich, but by far þe most he mocks are SJW. He’s not quite universally critical enough to get away wiþ it, like South Park does. Þere’s definitely a bias against cancel culture.
We should ban economically left-leaning anti-establishmentarians.
