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.
Locking this for right now, this thread has gotten out of hand. Edit: unlocked. Please behave.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’d almost certainly know a stonetoss comic, they were pretty common over the last decade or so.
Oh yeah, I never liked those.
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.
Lots of other possible directions. Is parody okay?
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.
The only caution with that is, private companies have a LOT of power and control right now. Easy to argue they shouldn’t, of course.
An example might be Visa enforcing “content guidelines” on any paid content on Steam providing NSFW games. Like, say, any game that acknowledges gay people exist. Payment processors and similar companies have claimed that’s a freedom of speech stance.
But yes, we can definitely keep it simple in forum communities constantly under human enforcement.
That is just the US legal definition and it is very flawed.
Freedom of speech, more broadly, is the ability to express an opinion without fear of retaliation. This implies constraints on social organizations of all sizes.
Freedom of speech should also be compatible with the paradox of intolerance (unless intolerance is chosen to be socially accepted), which implies censorship at many levels.
By definition that same freedom of speech can be used as retaliation. Nobody should be able to attack someone else and expect them not to defend themselves.
It is because such an idea of speech free from retaliation exists that the parodox of tolerance also exists.
Speech is never likely to be free from consequences. That is exactly why we have diplomacy.
I agree, and It’s all because of the distorted form of freedom of speech they have in USA, we generally don’t have that problem in European democracies.
For instance FOX News is simply illegal by European standards, because they lie and distort reality.In online spaces there also seems to be this wierd thinking of “if it isn’t illegal you have to accept it”.
Yes, which is really stupid, some people seem to think that freedom of expression means that sites have to allow their stupidity. Which is far from the case.
In Europe it is still there, far right extremists love to complain about cancel culture, about being censored, etc.
But yeah, they generally prefer to sue for defamation when someone criticises them
they know they are wrong, so they become defensive and tries to gaslight, its pretty much alt right tactic 101.
France unfortunately has billionaire-backed C-News which is the same flavor as Fox-news.
Maybe similar flavor, but they can’t possibly be as bad, because much of what FOX does would be illegal.
Maybe similar flavor, and maybe they are as bad and maybe you just are posting about something you don’t know/care about.
What they are doing is definitely illegal, but they only get the occasional slap on the wrist for it, which the billionaire owner pays. France does not really enforce rules concerning media surveillance, unless it suits rhé government’s agenda.
Points they were already checked for include: promoting racism, having racist claims, false claims about [abortion, immigrants, “leftists”, convictions of right-wing former president], edited images, using fake numbers, having shared staff with RT, and gaming the channel’s stats to fake compliance with the law regarding the diversity of what is shown.
CNews went to create a fascist candidate (Eric Zemmour) for the last presidential elections (the guy was pretty much unknown before). Oh, the guy even had a neonazi group (les Zouaves) for security during rallies.
Fu’nily, the neonazi leader (Marc de Caqueray Valmenier) was investigated so the channel owner (Bolloré) gave him a role as a security guard on his private island.
i look at it as “yea, you can put up your nazi flag. but if you put it on my property, it’s going in the firepit and getting torched”
They have plenty of spaces of their own to post and like the content we don’t want here. They feel a need to spread it though, to harm others because at the basis of it all, that’s what they want to do whether they realize it or not.
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.
I agree with you
“I don’t support nazis, I just don’t care if they conquer the world” is not really a good sentence to say.
You know, part of the problem with situations like this conversation, I feel, is that it’s always Nazis. It ends up being a cliche that, when something else happens, like the US starting to literally follow similar trends that led to the actual nazi party, it’s already something people are tired of hearing and it hurts the message.
They end up not taking this seriously (because web comics, even shitty bigoted ones, are not as serious as what happened in nazi Germany) and then the other claim doesn’t get taken seriously because “everything’s Nazis with you people”.
Just a thought i had when reading this.
This comes from the fact that there’s less and less space between actual nazis and “just far-right extremists”.
And I think people don’t really see a point anymore in trying to find a difference, me included.
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.
I’ve copied this from my response to someone else above, but Stonetoss is an easy one to block, IMO.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Apathy is an oppressor’s greatest weapon.
You may not think you’re supporting them, but silence is complicity. And if you’re complicit with it, you tacitly support it, otherwise you’d have an opinion on it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
OK?
The quote highlights that passive inaction is as dangerous as active malice. It encourages taking a stand against wrongdoing rather than remaining neutral.
But it isn’t as dangerous as active malice. Punching someone in the face is more dangerous than watching someone punch another in the face.
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.
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.
In context of the conversation, you’re saying there’s nothing to be gained by banning comics from racist artists.
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”.
You sure? Because in response to your statement saying you don’t have an opinion (ie, you’re doing nothing), it means that you’re allowing bad to happen due to apathy (that’s assuming you see yourself as a good person, if you’re not, disregard).
That is evil, and people of good conscience should not agree with you.
One of these days I’m going to create /c/selfawarewolves…
Twist yourself up like a pretzel all you want, but at least listen to what you’re saying and think about it for more than 5 seconds. Because you’re supporting people who spread bigotry by arguing against banning them, and trying to take the moral high ground.
In specific context, I am not arguing against or for banning comics.
I personally am for banning people that are bigoted, and especially when their bigotry is hidden away from their art so that I might find myself enjoying art from an artist that I would personally find detestable.
What I am arguing against is the specific use of the phrase “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” as a hammer to bludgeon somebody else into accepting a specific viewpoint as the superior one.
I’ve said it before in other ways and I will say it again that if you give me the choice between being your bitch and being an asshole, I will pick asshole every single time because I value my right to choose above what you claim is an absolute truth.
It’s quite comical to me that people cannot see that these are two separate conversations, and the separation of the conversation happened long before I waded into it.
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.
I’d vote for that rule example you gave be added to the sidebar exactly as you wrote it
Hate should never be tolerated.
And it isn’t - apart from the witch hunt by the OP.
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.
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.
The people who really want racist/sexist/etc comics are free to make their own instance or community. This is the fediverse. There’s no government with guns or CEO to lock it down.
If that stuff makes for a better community, it will do just fine. I expect it won’t.
One of the things right-wingers push for is the idea that they’re normal and healthy, and everyone else is deficient. Like everything else from the right, it’s projection.
Its inclusion does lead to a Nazi Bar situation as more of that material gets posted, that crowd grows, then the place becomes hostile to the original founders.
they do, but right wing communities, in most sites usually dont flourish at all, because they wont have anyone to argue against.
I have no comment currently for what will happen regarding bigot artists, I’m not the top mod.
However, please stop making META posts when you made one about the same topic just a few days ago. If the comments on this get out of hand I will lock the thread for civilities sake. Please wait for us to make an announcement about such things, it may take some time.
However, please stop making META posts when you made one about the same topic just a few days ago. If the comments on this get out of hand I will lock the thread for civilities sake. Please wait for us to make an announcement about such things, it may take some time.
FYI that’s the MO with this user with their current and previous instance grail accounts. Here to only be a troll/drive attacks at who they dislike.
Before was part of a witch hunt against a blajah mod because they were simply a mod of a comm they disliked.
it’s nice that someone is responding on it.
Now that there is a mod team, can restrictions on meta posts and mini modding potentially be added onto the internal discussions?
The intent is there and I get they’re trying to help, but the amount of negativity and toxicity to something that wasn’t even a rule at that time, I think should be addressed and not allowed.
Not that I think they were wrong, so to speak. But… I don’t think that orchestrates a healthy environment when there is a mod team for it that can /remove/ the content instead of just spamming the community with protest comments or flaming
edit: FUTO speech to text is buggy and likes adding text I tried to add later on in parts I’m editing, removed the delayed addon lol
Removed by mod
We are all on different time zones and schedules.
And like I said, not the top mod. I don’t get to just do things, that would be a massive overstep of my mod powers. I just remove comments that take it too far, occasionally talk in comments like this, and remove anything super bad.
I wish I had a definitive, satisfying response and make this whole problem go away, but I lack that power. Sorry.
There’s a specific type of person that makes quick, unilateral decisions that effect entire communities, with out allowing time for community members or other admins to participate in a discussion.
They’re called hoa presidents, and I think I can speak for everyone here; we do not want this community ran like a shitty hoa.
Give the mods time to decide how they want to deal with the artist’s we don’t want shared here. I don’t want the moderators to curate it, nor do I think they should have the added workload of digging through an artist’s history to verify they are an issue - which they have to do thoroughly because of how easy it is to edit a comic to be something its not.
I still think the easiest is to just have everyone put the artist name in the title. If the singular post isn’t a problem, it can stay. If people want to block the entire artist, they can make a filter. Perhaps a bot could also be made to pick up on the artist’s name and put an informative “BTW, this guy stinks” in the comments. If a user is repeatedly posting hateful content, then they should get banned.
Removed by mod
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.
Same. Dilbert is pretty safe. It should be banning per strip basis. Not by author
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
“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
purity test" implies attention to detail which is the opposite of what i’m arguing. i’m advocating for a “stink test.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
posting it today platforms who he is today
He’s dead today…
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?
Does that mean the rhetoric he spread and the potential for it to do harm are gone?
Nope, just stating he is dead today, since the OP seemed unaware. About Rowling; no I don’t think so. But it could well be that decades after her dying people will have forgot about her world views, and the books will be in fashion again. This is assuming the books are worth reading, which I hear they’re not.
posting it today platforms who he is today.
A corpse?
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.
If we had a rule against bigotry, and a poster breaks that rule twice, ban them.
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.
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.
This is unfortunately true.
Nazis should get a platform. A platform with a short drop and very sudden stop.
or a “barber” using only crude large cutting instruments.
The French actually automated their barbers back in the day, mind you it was pretty limited in style. But hey, all nazis love matching their Nazi buddies so “a little off the top” is a style we should ensure they wear!
Amen
Yeah but there are no nazis here. OP is having his knickers in the twist about Jago.
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.
any rule should be voted on to ban specific artists, and additions to the list should require their own vote. “no hate content” is a simple enough rule to enforce with minimal context but “no history of hate content” is way too broad.
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
Yup.
I would also vote in that direction.
I get the concept, it’s basically the same issues in like Harry Potter or Five nights at freddies. IE a lot of LGBT people like these works, but it’s also unquestionable that the profits that the works make, are used to bolster hate against these groups, even if the works themselves are not harmful to them.
So yes I also go with this camp, platforming non-hateful work made by hateful people still supports hateful creators and allows them to amplify the hateful message.
That said this is lemmy. We have the means here. If lemmy world comic strips want an open door “as long as the comics posted themselves aren’t hateful it’s allowed”. Perhaps someone should make a Comic Strips on a different instance, and lemmy users can vote with their feet.
Hold on, what’s up with five nights at Freddy’s?
In short Scott Cawthorn the creator donates a lot of money to political campaigns. Per his explanation a strong military is his single issue vote. Which has him throwing money towards people like Mitch McConnel, Tommy Tubberville, Trump and Tulsi Gabbard.
What fucking idiot. Thanks for sharing.
The worst part (or at least a negative) is, I’m pretty sure Trump is bad for the military (just good for military contractors).
Based on cawthornes votes etc… I’d say the concept he has is more money going into the millitary budget, and more pre-emptive actions abroad keeps us safer back here.
Fully completely disagree with it a thousand fold. Had we not stuck our noses into the middle east so much 9/11 would never have happened (and I’m just working with what had happened at the time of cawthrons controversy rather than the obvious much more recent iran nonsense.
its creator was caught donating to bigoted political campaigns
https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/scott-cawthon-defends-anti-lgbt-donations-11578325/
People making mountains out of mole hills, hampering on those who don’t meet their purity tests. The usual.
JKR is actively and vocally using HP profits for evil and is a good example in that comment.
Scott Cawthon, from what I recall, has some conservative/right wing/whatever views, but hasn’t actively worked on harming the LGBTQ community. People hate him cause he’s not perfect.
The evidence is literally above your post and was there three hours before you made it.
I just took a look through all the comments on this post and I’m failing to see any evidence. Perhaps something didn’t federate properly and you can point me to what you’re talking about.
Unless you’re talking about the comment 2 up from mine, the only comment on this post mentioning FNAF (and the comment on that, which is what I replied to). A person offhandedly saying that Scott’s a bad person is not evidence, it’s an opinion from an internet stranger.
Thank you for providing an article.
TL;DR Scott made poor donation choices, prioritizing what he thought was important in the country while failing to see the actual humans being targeted by those people. He did not do so maliciously or with intent to harm, neither has he taken any direct action to do any harm himself. He made poor choices, was rightly punched in the face by the community at large, and he seems to have bettered himself since then. We should celebrate when someone gets back on the path of good, instead of continuing to hit them for mistakes made that have already been resolved.
I recall reading that when it was first published, along with Scott’s response and subsequent resignation on Reddit. I’ve taken some time to look for something more recent since it’s been a few years now, such as allegations of harm or direct actions he’s taken, or even someone watching his donation habits nowadays, and I still can’t really find anything. It seems like the majority of LGBTQ people he worked with, both at Steel Wool and elsewhere like some of the books, have put this business behind them and are working together.
From his Reddit response (Archived by KnowYourMeme with commentary. Source on Reddit is still available as well):
I’m a republican. I’m a Christian. I’m pro-life. I believe in God. I also believe in equality, and in science, and in common sense. Despite what some may say, all of those things can go together. That’s not an apology or promise to change, it’s the way it’s always been.
I find this response to be pretty level-headed.
Obviously saying you’re a Republican today isn’t a great thing to say (And many here in the federated world would say it was never a great thing to say). In 2021 though, people were still learning about the wool pulled over their eyes and questioning their beliefs, politics, ideologies. I don’t know if he’d still call himself a Republican today, but just the one single label doesn’t say much anymore (Is someone calling themselves a Republican actually MAGA, part of some other right wing group, or just fiscally conservative and is too harsh on immigration policy?). If you’ve got anything showing his stances of political topics, I’ll gladly take a look.
We’ve also got this quote from the same Reddit post:
I’ve never cared about anyone’s race, religion, gender, or orientation. I just treat people as people, everyone the same, and because of that, I’ve ended up with a very diverse group of people that I’ve worked with over the years.
This is pretty common to hear as well from people who just lack the ability to see the harm from indirect actions (It’s shared by a lot of anti-DEI idiots as well, but I do see this as different from them). By not caring about the specifics of a person, you also don’t care to learn about the policies being introduced that may be directly affecting them.
My takeaway is that he was just ignorant, and I do not believe he was willingly ignorant but just plain ignorant. Nobody fully made him realize what was happening under the surface of our gold-covered shithole of a country, and it took shoving it in his face to make him see what’s happening, and make better informed choices in the future.
Calling him out for the shitty donations was proper. People often just want to leave it at that and will always be angry at him for his actions, but I believe that people can be better than they were before and I do believe he has done so. Since I fail to see any actual harm that’s come from this (Specifically directly from him and actions he’s taken since the reporting, since both Scott and ourselves know the damage done from the previous donations), I see no reason to keep bringing this up.
Back to TheFogan’s comment, and the specific part I had an issue with:
it’s also unquestionable that the profits that the works make, are used to bolster hate against these groups
It is absolutely questionable! In JKR’s case, we have ample evidence that she simply does not care about the harm she does and is very vocal about certain groups who she’d like to not exist. I agree that there is no question in regards to the harm the profits of Harry Potter are doing to the LGBTQ community.
Scott on the other hand, from everything I’ve seen, is decent. I likely do not agree with some of his political issues (And just saying Republican doesn’t say anything about a single issue), but I fail to see him, Steel Wool, or anyone working in the FNAF universe taking the profits and turning them against their own community.
Comparing FNAF to HP, or Scott to JKR, is laughable.
