349
[meta] Please ban comics by bigoted artists
(multiverse.soulism.net)
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
๐ Be Nice!
๐๏ธ Community Standards
๐งฌ Keep it Real
๐ฝ๏ธ Credit Where Credit is Due
๐ Post Formatting
๐ฌ Post Frequency/SPAM
๐ดโโ ๏ธ Internationalization (i18n)
Sรญ, por favor [Spanish/Espaรฑol]๐ฟ Moderation
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
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.
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.
Are we not discussing banning bigotry on here?
Are we not discussing banning bigotry on here?
By allowing a bigots non-bigoted work to be promoted, you promote a bigoted artist.
In context of the conversation, you're saying there's nothing to be gained by banning comics from racist artists.
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).
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.
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.
Ok?
Y'see, when I said "OK" it's because I didn't disagree with the quote, but didn't see the relevance. Does your "Ok" mean you don't disagree? I directly contradicted you though so that'd be strange.
You didn't contradict me you agreed.
You said it isn't as dangerous. Implying you understand it is, in fact, dangerous.
Like Spiderman says right before he realizes his actions allowed his uncles death, "I missed the part where thats my problem."
I'm guessing you agree with Spiderman's inaction?
You said:
Now you say:
Which is it? Is it as dangerous, or less dangerous?
Is it dangerous?