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.
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?
No, and nothing I said implied I did.
“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.”
Bro
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.