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.
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.
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.
You don’t need to defend the right for a Nazi to speak.
Shall we just decree anyone we want silenced a Nazi then?
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.
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.
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.