Doesn’t help when the flames are fanned by commenting “cry more”.

Fair assessment. I deleted the “cry more” comment and another similar one, my apologies, those are indeed uncivil. However, I would like to remind you that until very recently this community was entirely unmoderated, and that slinging insults at reactionaries / sexist / racist folks was the only way to make them go away. I can adjust that behavior now that the place is (hopefully) properly moderated, but it’s a different request from the “you are unwelcome here” that your colleague opened with, nor was the “did I stutter” they followed it up with when I was trying to clarify the situation a civil response tbh.

It feels like you might thrive off of rage-baiting like this

My comics are satirical. The point of satire is that it stings when it hits the correct notes. If you think social/political satire doesn’t belong in this community, then you should add it to the rules. But that would mean banning a lot of the most famous / classic comics of all time, such as The Far Side, Peanuts, Mad Magazine, Dilbert… hell even Astérix is straight up satire.

Satire is very different from ragebait: it’s meant to make people think about preconceptions they have, about topics they don’t usually question, by presenting them under a different light that exposes the fundamental hypocrisy behind that situation. Ragebait is just stuff made to piss people off for fun. I don’t do such content.

aware of the headache your content is causing to mods as you remarked that this very comic was locked on /r/comics

I am in good terms with the mods of r/comics. We have regular conversations, and never once have they accused my content of being ragebait, complained that I was uncivil (although to be fair the place is actually moderated so I can just report comments over there), or complained that my comics aren’t comics. Quite the opposite actually, they enjoy that I (and other popular cartoonists) act as a magnet for unmasking bigots, it helps them get rid of those people.

They locked the thread because it was attracting an overwhelming number of men’s right activists, so many more than usual that it had to be a raid from a third party community. It wasn’t because they had any issue with the content of the comic or with the discourse that was happening under it (actually there was some pretty good discourse regarding transphobia if the comic is seen under a specific prism that I didn’t take into account, which is healthy and important discourse).

My comment that spawned this entire conversation was a commentary on a deep sexism issue that Lemmy has to deal with, especially in unmoderated or poorly moderated communities. Whether I continue posting content here or not, those people will still be there, and you’ll have to deal with them sooner or later. Keep that in mind.

All in all, I understand that it’s hard to take over a husk of a community and turn it into something better. If you think I don’t fit, then fine, your place your rules. Just make sure that decision fits with what the community actually wants (doesn’t seem to fit with the votes / scores my content gets + nobody in this community has ever told me my content doesn’t belong here), and that everyone here understands what your definition of a comic is, otherwise you’re exposing yourself to fragmenting or dulling the community, which is something I don’t want to happen even if I do get excluded, as this is the kind of stuff that alienates Fediverse users and hurts Lemmy’s overall popularity.

Good luck figuring this all out. Thanks for actually making a proper detailed comment about it. If you genuinely think my content doesn’t belong here, then just ban me and be done with it, would be better than your colleague’s confusing attempt at trying to act tough. Otherwise I’ll continue posting on the usual schedule, as I’ve been doing for a year now. I enjoy the conversations in here, sometimes it mostly generates rage and negative reactions sure (especially when it’s about sexism tbh), but most of the time they’re constructive and interesting. See you tomorrow… or never I guess, depending on how you feel. Your move. Good night.

I share comics in Lemmy’s main comics community.

They’re shared in good faith, with the goal of being relatable and thought provoking content. As all comics are, that’s precisely the reason why people make comics, especially satirical ones. I have better things to do with my life than creating chaos for the sake of chaos.

This comic has a good score, a good upvote % ratio, has generated some interesting conversations (and some chaos too, sure).

You told me I am unwelcome in response to a comment that has 89 upvotes vs 20 downvotes at the time of writing this. Are you sure that you understand the community you are representing / moderating? Seems like there’s an obvious rift here.

In the end it’s up to you, and if you want me gone, then I’ll be gone, I’m not here to argue with you. I’d just like to spare everyone (you included) the headache of whatever happens next if you start power tripping. It would lead to the usual lemmy community split, fragmenting the userbase even more, etc. which is not desirable for any of us.

You should really think this through, starting with learning what a comic is, and looking at what the community wants or doesn’t want to see here.

This does not work when the clothing is all spandex infused. If I were to buy a bigger size jean then they would be super tight still in the leg, just just fall down from the waist and crotch. Women’s clothing sucks

Just buy bigger pants?

This doesn’t actually solve the issue. Buying bigger pants means the waist doesn’t fit, so you have to wear a belt. Which is fine. But when I wear pants with a waist that is too big, it bunches in places and is uncomfortable when I sit down and lean back. It can also cause weird gapping in the waistband that leaves underwear exposed for everyone to see.

This is why I don’t just “buy men’s pants and wear a belt”, like I’ve been told to do over and over again. Men’s clothes don’t fit my body and the excess fabric bunches causing uncomfortable pressure points on my back and waist. I already have enough back issues, I don’t want pants that cause even more.

The best solution is to give women more options. I know it’s “the trend” for women to wear tight fitting clothes, however, there are significant number of women that don’t like all of our clothes to be tight. Clothing companies would still make money, but they prefer to make cheap fast fashion garbage that falls apart quickly and forces women to buy clothes more often. Instead women get told that we only want to wear tight clothes because we want to be sexy and we since have no pockets we have to buy purses or we get told we look frumpy and gross in baggy clothes.

deleted by creator

What are you talking about? That’s the entire thing we’ve been talking about this entire time. Then tell me, what do you call it when something is done to you non consensually or unwillingly? Yes, it absolutely is being forced on people because it is being pushed to them without them ever agreeing to it. Every community is like this, but the difference with other comms is that they don’t explicitly call out any single group in every post.

At this point, I’m almost tempted to just say you’re a troll, because I seriously can’t imagine how anyone can be so inconsiderate of how the actions of one can make others feel. I feel like every time, I respond to you with a full and complete argument, yet you always nitpick just one tiny thing about it instead of addressing my argument in good faith.

but they were lumping it in with a bunch of other stereotypes too, so it’s fine!

ok

It’s not that

It is that. You literally just used “you can’t get laid” as a personal insult toward a stranger.

It’s that it’s deeply unpleasant to be called out on my flawed logic, and so I must personally insult you to both feel better about myself, and give myself an excuse to not address what you say

Fixed that for you.

You’re going to die alone and lonely, and you deserve to

More pathetic fantasy used as a substitute for learning.

Let the record show that only one of the two of us has been engaged in this childish insult-slinging.

EDIT: You spend a lot of time with these kinds of fantasies, huh? lol

So what you’re saying is that you’re not a troll?

You’re doing a brilliant job of selling the community.

I am sure you can do nothing wrong, but there is such a thing as being respectful of others experiences.

Oh I did.

This [harmful in-group vs out-group effects] is only true if you fail to understand the internal needs of the segregated group.

No, its a documented and highly scientifically backed effect.

If the only result you care about is how it effects out-groups, then you misunderstand how healing and political movements are created at the earliest stages.

Its not the only effect that I care about but I do care about it.

How do you think political movements are formed if not in small groups meeting privately?

Political movements are value neutral, or at least subjectively perceived as good or bad depending on who you ask about which movement.

If you want to say that the harmful in-group & out-group effects are a worthwhile sacrifice to achieve other ends, that’s one claim I could see as understandable but I would want to know the specifics of what the actual end goal(s) is/are before I’d support it. Further, the main way a political movement actually grows and achieves positive things is to broaden their support typically. If they lean into leveraging power they might have over a majority they’re using might makes right logic. I can certainly see the utility of that if you view the majority as stupid or evil and I’ll even admit these days its hard not to feel that way given the state of my country. At that point though I don’t even see the point other than cynical power games.

Who are the dis-empowered non-woman that are being disenfranchised?

NB’s & men who fall into disenfranchised categories like bipoc, lgbt, homeless/impoverished/working class, and probably most relevant to gender issues is the neurodiverse male population. Not to mention that creating an exclusively women space can attract TERFs, where they can spread their bullshit more efficiently by leaning into the in-group & out-group effects.

Women’s issues is gender issues. Gender is like any social construct, its defined by relationships and collective beliefs.

What feminist literature have you read? Who are your guiding lights in the movement?

My feminism? I was critiquing the feminism you are defending that would justify an exclusionary in-group. I’m suspicious of why you’d want to ask.

If you must know, I tend to agree with Xenofeminism. Its the form of feminism that embraces rationalism, any consistent Xenofeminist would agree with me here.

I just want to say it is so refreshing to finally see a comment from someone who genuinely understands power and oppression finally shine through in a thread that has been so muddled and confused it’s been maddening to read.

their own spaces

You’re making the same conflation as several other people here. A private space can exclude through non-invitation without specific/class exclusion. A conference is not a private space. It is public. By rendering the space public, it creates an equality of people as possible attendants as members of the public. By excluding a generalized group, it discriminates through stereotype, which brings things to the meat of your point.
If you take the whole matter into amorality, there is nothing wrong with ANYTHING the powerful do, and render any argument about dignity of the oppressed meaningless. You have no place left to stand and you lose. If you argue the powerful are somehow different from other people, you establish a belief in inherent inequality. You have no place from which to claim injustice, and you lose. If you fight against the powerful without some semblance of reason, you cannot form a cohesive collective, so you will have no power with which to fight them, and you will lose.

Can you name a single historical instance where a dominant group stopped a practice of exclusion because they realized they no longer had the ‘transitive legitimacy’ to continue it?

Feminism. If each generation of feminists had never made claims to human dignity, there would be no liberation or justice. If they had only focused on stripping the dignity of powerful men, they never would have gotten the support of the rest of their society. Action disrupts the old system but the moral argument is what transforms society into something new. The ‘dominant group’ isn’t the 1% crowd. It’s the 90% who they trick into supporting them. The ‘powerful’ shit themselves at the idea of seeing the majority turned against them. If early feminists hadn’t convinced the people around them of the capability and equality of women, it wouldn’t have mattered how hard they tried, they would just have been ignored by the majority and snuffed out by the powerful minority. If they hadn’t fought to establish a moral norm of equality, all their screams would have been noise fading into the void. Acting like you actually believe in your principles isn’t ‘disarming’ yourself. It’s letting the enemy take your rifle so you can take the fort. It’s planting the tree so your children can sit in its shade. It’s how you get justice rather than get yours.