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.
Shall we just decree anyone we want silenced a Nazi then?
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.
Man, its one thing to be arguing for slippery slope (which is literally a logical fallacy, meaning it shouldn’t be used in an argument), but 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.
A slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy, but there are still slippery slopes that are not fallacious.
How might they be exposed to ideas to challenge their ideas and broaden their perspective? While exposure here may not offer a direct line, and may seem like more advantage to the spread of their ideas than them being exposed to ideas that challenge their ideas, it may at least expose more people to see their ideas, and, presumably, be of sound mind enough to not only not succumb to them, but perhaps go forth to offer counter-arguments and refutations and exposing fallacies and harms of their ideas.
I get what you’re saying, but Nazis do not need a devil’s advocate. Racists don’t need any defending. Turns out, giving them leeway to spit out hate speech only encourages them to be more hateful.
You say you get it, but nothing you said after the “but” corroborated the claim.
Was not playing devil’s advocate [nor non-playing advocating]. Was not defending. Was satirically pointing out the folly of becoming them; the folly of opposaming; the folly of arrogantly presuming what to impose in ignorant lack of introspection unto hypocrisy; the folly of fear driven reactions that drive a social tragedy of the commons blind race to the bottom into kakistarchy. Can’t defeat Nazism from here. Can create it.
The principle espoused seems sound though. Same as how to deal with any/all totalitarians. That being to keep speaking out and stopping their madness, or it gets worse and worse, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I’m not sure how sending them to echo chambers to go on festering ever worse, unchallenged, serves this necessary avenue of remedy.
Better the monster you can see. Better the Daryl Davis approach, proven to convert people out of monstrosity, than to try to out-monster the monsters. Not having a bigger hammer was not the problem with the hammer being the only tool in the toolbox.
Yep sure. That’s what I said. :)