“Learned”, lol, yeah that’s what the problem is. They’re just so stupid. So unbelievably stupid. These people with billions of dollars of think tank research and social data, these people who climbed into power, they just aren’t realizing this obvious fact that somehow every non-politician around me has understood since they were 15 years old. They haven’t “learned”.

Bro but its crazy to just pick the animal you specifically have a connection to and say “there’s more to the story… But not any more to it than that!”. What if I had grown up watching that heron? What if I have twice as many kids as you and they all love the heron? Does that tip the scale so that now we should be angry at the fish for trying to kill my heron by starvation? Little fish bastards, why can’t they just my heron be?

Of course the real truth is that nature is at odds with itself and there’s no way around that. If you can say “yeah I just like the fish cos that’s what I like, I don’t care that it doesn’t make sense”, then that’s respectable enough. You’re just out for your own well-being, just like the fish and the heron both. But getting so heated at the heron for trying to be alive, which is also what your fish try to do, and then extending your hatred to all heronkind is just hilarious

I would only ever sign up for an instance that is not subject to it, or does not comply, or at least maliciously complies. And by malicious compliance I mean something where it’s implemented in such a “buggy” way that it’s easy to bypass.

But really I’d just go for instances hosted outside the EU.

Idk this helps prevent people from overdoing the amount of soy sauce. I can just dip the sushi on there and know it won’t be too much

I love you

Well I won’t accuse you, it’s a complex and nuanced issue and I think its great to treat it as such, as you’ve done.

But I think this shows exactly the issue with Jago’s work, in order for us to see it as giving these issues the treatment they deserve, we have to give the artist a LOT of benefit of the doubt for a nuance of which the work itself really has no inkling. I doubt Jago has such a balanced, precise view of things as you expressed. Its a wolf wearing a trans hat - Jago gave us no indication that this is someone pretending to be trans, most likely because Jago thinks every trans person is only pretending.

Pretty much every comic I posted is depicting women engaging in typically woke leftist activities, and characterizing them as hypocrites. So it’s cool that you and I can see these comics and see how they fit in a very limited sense into a fair claim, but I just, idunno. Its clear as day to me that the artist is not on that same reasonable page with us.

The “pregnant out of options” one, which simultaneously criticizes women for being slutty while also drawing them in a way that makes the artist horny, oof. The one about catcalling is really gross, because it’s obviously saying “women get mad when someone says sexual things to them, but when its in a rap song they shake their ass to it, isn’t that so ridiculous?” While completely ignoring the fact that a rap song can’t rape you, its not addressed at you in particular, and that a woman can choose to listen to sexual music when she’s in a sexual mood, which is different from catcalling. Yet Jago wants to make this imagined hypocrisy the subject of a “joke” in that comic.

All the signs are there that this artist is an asshole. Some of their comics don’t reveal it as plainly, but that’s why on things like the dreadlocks one which are more in a grey area in isolation, end up still being fair to interpret harshly.

Well, the wolf one is clearly characterizing trans people as sexual predators. Surely we don’t like that?

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.

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.

Ultimately I agree, I think, but I see a lot of it both ways. On the one hand, I hate that crap and it would be nice to never see it. But I don’t even block people I dislike unless they’re just trolls - I don’t want to bubble myself. On the other hand, this is a federated platform. If people want to, they can run their own community without banned artists, and the people who really value that exposure can just go there periodically. But then, if the community really hates the Jago shit, then it seems like a culture can emerge of just shaming and not upvoting such posts. But on the other hand, the community probably won’t attain that level of responsibility long term.

I think there’s a lot of bad things and good things that come out of banning specific artists. And I think there was enough debate in your first post that it’s not quite accurate for you to say “this is what we want”. Although ironically I end up in agreement between you so maybe I’m just wanting unrealistic consensus :)

I feel like we already have the mechanism of downvotes for dealing with bad content. You’ll always have artists with generally bad takes, artists with generally good takes but some bad ones, etc… So you’re NEVER gonna reach a state where shitty stupid stuff isn’t posted. And its not like we’re gonna start to discuss banning some unknown random artist based on one comic that contains transphobia or something - it’s just not worth the effort and clutter unless its a widespread, frequently posted, prolific artist like Jago. In those cases, we should downvote and move on.

I think what makes it complex for me is:

What I REALLY want is a community that is principled and conscientious enough about what they upvote that we don’t need moderators and banlists to caretake the content for us. I want a community that can let a few Jagoposts through in case a good discussion pops up, or people are having fun ragging on it, and that still absolutely crushes these posts under downvotes and eventually organically scares off the kinds of dumbasses who really like it. I prefer this because it limits moderator power scope, it limits community meta debates like this one, and ultimately because a principled and conscientious population is awesome to have. The best communities I’ve ever been in online are essentially self-moderating. There are always mods or at least admins, but they have very little to do and it’s usually bland custodial things (deleting duplicate posts, etc.)

But I understand that in reality, we probably won’t have a such a principled and conscientious community, and therefore we probably do need to offload some of that curation responsibility that really should lie on the users, to the moderators - in the form of ban lists.

Ultimately I think I agree with banning artists in a way that is:

1. Not preemptive
2. As determined on an individual basis by community discussion in meta posts like this
3. Limited in scope only to artists whose comics that are actually annoying the community

I’m just disappointed that it means admitting the community cannot effectively self-moderate on a post-by-post basis. But I think as long as it’s still up to community discussion what goes on the ban list, that’s pretty reasonable since it allows us to only need to think about the provenance and context of an artist every once in awhile rather than on every post. It’s really a more efficient way to go about it and makes a more psychologically relaxed experience in general. Kind of like going to an organic grocery store is nice because you no longer need to check every product label for artificial coloring.

Hmm yes I think a lot of this exists but isn’t being called by this term. It’s a good term. It kinda means what cyberpunk originally meant before it got hollowed out and turned into primarily an aesthetic term.

Yeah I support UBI:

Universal

Beaver

Income

Oh yes I agree with you on this too, in fact. And I agree Lemmy is annoying about that. But there is some nuance I’d like to add. Like in the case of the comic in the OP, there’s an ambiguity whether the depiction of the woman has sexist implications or not. Looking at the other ones I posted, its undeniable to me that this artist is very sexist and has a bone to pick with wokeness. Did you look at the ones I posted? They’re pretty egregious…

But of course the artist has good reasonable takes on other things too, like corporate issues, as you said. That’s why in my original comment I wasn’t calling to blacklist the artist or anything like that. But I do think the way the women are portrayed is pretty gross and the other comics definitely are strong evidence for my suspicion that the author did not intend the OP comic in the non-sexist way I presented.

I agree I don’t think cultural appropriation is really a huge problem but I do think it can be pretty cringey, especially if the appropriator is using the cultural element in question in an inaccurate way. Certain weebs come to mind. Its not an urgent issue though for sure.

But as for the comic it just, to me, especially with the artists other works, seems to clearly be saying “woke stuff is stupid and hypocritical” and I do definitely take issue with that.

Here’s the other comics that make it clear to me that the artist’s intent in the above one is the worse one I sensed it as. Didn’t post these initially just out of wanting to not use up space on my instance infra for trash, lol.

Oh, I just think it’s a straw man argument. I’ve never actually seen a black person be mad about a white person doing their hair in dreadlocks. I’m sure its happened, but it seems like such a tiny minority of people that the comic is cherry picking in order to imply that cultural appropriation in general is always a stupid thing. But really the comic is just picking the dumbest possible example of it, which almost nobody actually subscribes to, and using that to reject the whole idea which does have some merits

Nah, that completed the thought

Yooooo thank you

No no the artist absolutely intends it that way lol. I just mean that the comic can be interpreted differently than its creator’s intent

I respect that you want to verify, but I don’t want to link their site. Here’s one that kind of gives you the idea:

I really think people are misunderstanding me. I’m not buying what Trump is selling with this event.