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.
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.
No, it’s just not involving myself in internet drama.
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.
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
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.
So I have to spell out for you that showing people fighting sexism as people who do not know what they want and just complain about everything, or that showing a woman as a weird primitive monkey as soon as she doesn’t talk nicely and politely, is a problem?
You’re just proving my point exactly, continue sealioning as much as you want
Oh you’re fighting sexism? So why have all your analogies been about Nazis, racism, bigotry, and fascism up until this point? This is literally the first time you’ve mentioned it after commenting here all day.
Frankly, it seems like you don’t know what you’re angry about, just that you’re angry and everyone else better fall in line or face your wrath. You saw something you don’t like, overreacted on some moral crusade, and now want to retroactively apply some justification to legitimize it.
Remember this all began with me saying I didnt really care either way what happens to users like him, and you telling me that I was “supporting bigotry” and implied I’m a nazi supporter? Now that I finally dragged an actual statement out of you, it turns out it’s really just about some horny dude depicting too much of the female body in his drawings. That’s what you’ve been comparing to the genocide of millions of people and hundreds of years of enslavement of another people all day. 🙄
Okay, I can’t believe I have to even explain that.
Misogyny is about discriminating against women. Racism is about discriminating based on “race”. Xenophobia is about discriminating based on nationality/origin.
All of those are forms of discrimination. They’re all bigotry. And they’re all related in modern times to fascism, yes. And if you don’t agree, then you’re obviously bullshitting because there is no way you would have missed how discrimination has evolved over the past decades, with people that would have used the same rhetoric as you back then, now doing nazi salutes, committing genocide and exterminating minorities.
If you don’t see the link - well, then you do, but you’re full of shit. Once again, sealioning.
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.
That is not what participation means. Redefining yet more words won’t change the outcome on the ground either.
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.
The same way marriage with children is legal in 34 states. Very moral.
In the same way, I would expect someone who argues that “marriage with children is immoral” to offer a better argument than “we’ve known it’s wrong for centuries” when, apparently, we have not.
Are you saying that child marriage is moral because its legal?
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.
I was never saying that it’s completely the same, I was saying that it is supporting an aggressor to let them attack others without reacting. And yes, there are justified reasons, none of which is “I don’t care”
So, if it’s not “completely the same”, it would be fair enough to say that “support is support” and “not caring is not caring”, right?
Which specific reasons are justified is a separate topic, and depends on the specific action being considered.
No it wouldn’t because everything is not black and white. Support has different shapes, it’s not all about carrying a sign that says “I support <X>”. Inaction is a form of support, that is not the same as actually doing the thing. Not caring is a form of support when it’s about an asymmetrical interaction, where a side is advantaged above the other, because “not caring” means that you are fine with the expected outcome of the dominant side winning. When this side is bigotry, you are fine with bigotry, which makes you a bigot (because to not be a bigot, you need to see bigotry as a problem). If you don’t care about a rapist trying to rape someone, then you are fine with the conclusion of the victim being raped, which means that you support rape.
The only time where not caring means being neutral, is when the outcomes are completely and equally random. You can not care about flipping a coin if it’s just 50/50. But that’s not the case when it comes to things like discrimination, where it’s clearly established that people discriminating are advantaged over people being discriminated against. If you don’t care, then you’re fine with discrimination, and you are supporting it. Even if you’re not screaming that minorities should die.
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.