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.

  • SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Dilbert comics is a fair point. I feel like the content itself isn’t bad, just the author’s public views.

      I’m not that familiar with all his comics, but I tend to like Dilbert since I grew up on it a bit. I could swing either way, but I’d tend to lean towards being critical of the content and not the author’s tweets.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I grew up reading Dilbert and got a bunch of the books. It hits so different now - every comic is about how corporations abuse us for profit, but then you realize the author actually supports it.

    • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The way I see this being handled is that if lots of Dilbert is being posted and it’s annoying enough people, they would make a meta post asking about banning it. We don’t need to preemptively have that debate. That should protect us from needing to spend an eternity curating a huge ban list.

    • _NetNomad@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      i mean, yeah… let’s ban dilbert. even if adams was a saint when it was in serialization, posting it today platforms who he is today. we could pick apart edge cases all day but that’s a lot of work to maybe be able to post comics everyone has already seen, or we can err on the side of caution and spend all that time reading good comics by decent people instead

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        posting it today platforms who he is today.

        A corpse? /j

        But on topic, I don’t recall the dilbert comics being offensive, even if adams was a fucking loon. Willing to be proved wrong since I stopped caring when PHB became the main focus of the strip.

        • _NetNomad@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          that’s my whole point: regardless of if the comics were fine, later in life he was a jackass so who cares? we can look at every comic he ever made under a fine-tooth comb to see if those later values show up in dilbert at the risk of alienating the groups of people he hurt regardless of the comic, or we can just say “fuck that guy” and move on with our lives

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            regardless of if the comics were fine, later in life he was a jackass so who cares?

            I see a big difference between an artist that posts derogatory art and artists who are shitheads in real life. There’s an argument to be made about separating the art from the artist when the overall corpus of the art is not offensive that doesn’t exist for offensive art.

            I’m all for banning offensive art, but you’re advocating for purity tests for the artists, which is too far imo

            • _NetNomad@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              “purity test” implies attention to detail which is the opposite of what i’m arguing. i’m advocating for a “stink test.” a lot of people here are arguing whether or not it should be ok to post art by a guy who stinks, but no one is arguing that he doesn’t stink. i don’t care if a comic inherently stinks or has the residual stink of it’s creator, i just want to open a window

        • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Does that mean the rhetoric he spread and the potential for it to do harm are gone?

          Let me ask you this. There’s a whole lot of people who really really hate JKR. She’s a bigot and She’s done a lot of real life harm, so regardless of whether or not her art is not connected to that harm, the point is that lots of people are in favor of completely deplatforming her by pretty much any means necessary including harassing other people who they even think might be interested in her art enough to give her money.

          Do you think that they will change their minds about buying into her franchise after she’s dead?

  • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ya, I really don’t see a downside in terms of content. Jago is simply not funny at the best of times.

  • BougieBirdie@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • BougieBirdie@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Solumbran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Solumbran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • Solumbran@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • FishFace@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

      • PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

  • [deleted]@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Erik@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

  • itsjustachairmary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    For me it’s blanket artist ban I don’t like. Banned bigoted posts is 100% deserved, but not artist wide. The recent jago comic is totally fine, and that content shouldn’t be restricted.

    Also artists shouldn’t be restricted willy-nilly. I feel artists like cyanide and happiness could 100% get on some people’s nerves, considering that some other comics like it gets absolutely ratioed. Although they aren’t bigoted, that’s just dark humour

    For reference, I’m trans and bi, so I ain’t policing minorities. I have all interest in banning stonetoss here