Where the design community meets.
It's so awesome how us Designers are cool with mocking & ridiculing others for their religious beliefs.
Ridiculous beliefs, religious or not, are open for ridicule.
And I take it, you're the judge for what is ridiculous or not... Then ridicule the belief, if that makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it's productive— but don't mock or ridicule people.
All mocking or ridiculing of people is banned? What?
Can't the modification of our behavior go both ways? Can't we be reasonable both in the degree to which we attack others and the degree to which we feel attacked or offended without banning everything? Is snark against the rules too?
If shit is ridiculous, it may be mocked. Some people are ridiculous. They gon' get mocked.
I won't argue that, but I also think any time religious beliefs are brought up or injected into a conversation, this is the road we end up on. I'm not saying that people should hide their religious identities, but if they really throw them out there they're going to need to be prepared to deal with all of those people who fundamentally disagree with their entire belief system. Name calling is always going to be ineffective and inappropriate, and so is applying your belief system to anyone else (and that goes for both sides).
For the record, I find this shot entirely tasteful and strongly believe it should not be removed regardless of policy. Illustration and art has been an integral part of Dribbble since the beginning. Nudity as a subject in art and illustration has been long accepted by larger global culture. Dribbble shouldn't accommodate the few who's values deem this inappropriate when as a larger society this stuff has been on our walls, in our homes, and in our institutions for thousands of years. If Dribbble is going to start making these sorts of calls to accommodate individuals with conservative values, I wouldn't find it a safe place to post my work.
I totally agree with your first paragraph. SO, look at the Dribbble comment thread, or anywhere in this DN thread, and you'll see that those that thought the shot went against Dribbble's policy stated nothing about their personal religious beliefs.
They didn't hide their religious beliefs on their Twitter, etc. (like you said you were okay with), but of course, this whole DN & Dribbble community saw that the couple of guys who reported something that actually went against Dribbble policy (as even the shot's designer admitted) were religious and therefore they had to start mocking & flaming them. I mean, DN just had a huge sensitivity test/issue with this whole Feminist T-Shirt deal, yet all the users are so blind to when they are trampling on others due to their beliefs.
If anything, blame Dribbble. Have them change their policy, or put in place some NSFW or "possibly-could-be-deemed-inappropriate" filter, whatever. But don't mock anyone who is actually supporting an established policy, then immediately fault their religion for it, and alienate a whole (98% peaceful) demographic.
As for your second paragraph... Totally cool that you personally don't find it distasteful, but implementing an optional "show NSFW" toggle or something alike allows everyone to enjoy and browse Dribbble, without being surprised with something that could conflict with their religious beliefs or censoring artwork. I understand you probably don't think it's a big deal if someone is surprised with something morally wrong to them, but they do, and alienating them personally isn't the way to solve it.
Notice I said "any time religious beliefs are brought up or injected into a conversation" -- in this instance it wasn't brought up by those who were being ridiculed. In some instances it is. I was making a broader statement about how unproductive that is instead of pointing fingers.
Regarding your suggestion, the trouble with tagging things as indecent or "NSFW" is that it is a form censorship. It tucks things that could be important outside of view from the community. And as with any form of censorship, it's incredibly dangerous, largely arbitrary, and doesn't seem to fully satisfy even those on the conservative end of the spectrum. Civil discussions and explorations regarding nudity in art and design are valuable and should be part of the community not tucked away as they would be if Ryan's shot had been filtered out. In the same way as nipples exist appropriately in the world, they exist appropriately in the greater world of illustration, and shielding a community from that reality would be an unproductive misrepresentation of our shared reality. As many people here stated, the issues with the artwork aren't with the work itself, they're with the observer. If the observer isn't comfortable the work, that isn't the artist, canvas, place, or work's responsibility. Discomfort in the observer is the responsibility of the observer, and in this instance a lot of people seem to be reacting to it and wrestling with how they are uncomfortable with sexuality and seeing women's nipples.
Instead of blaming dribbble, maybe those offended can do something about it such as build a 3rd party browser extension that hides content they're uncomfortable with instead of imposing their markedly conservative views upon the entire community. I'd warn them though that doing so would contribute to the very insular viewpoints that have been expressed today and shut them off from important people, work, and conversations all for the sake of a false sense of security against the lady nipples which again, I promise really do exist peacefully in the natural world.
It's one thing to report something is against policy, it's another to wage a campaign in the comments against it. Especially when the hypocrisy is quite deep considering how much mild nudity is allowed on Dribbble (a lot of it, examples in the comments) not to mention much less mild violence.
The guy straight up claimed that the Dribbble piece was going to negatively impact raising his child and you are taking issue with the fact that some people on the internet blame that attitude on religion?
Being conservative isn't a religious belief. Shrouding that conservatism in a Religious veil as to shield yourself is not only disgusting, but well within the cross hairs for mocking and ridiculing. Religion isn't a pass for having opinions protected.
That's quite an assumption you're making about these guys you know absolutely nothing about. Shielding yourself from nudity, or anything potentially lustful, is definitely an action taken due to religious beliefs in just about everyone who chooses to do so. Religious beliefs which are the root of conservatism, not the other way around. And mocking & ridiculing others for ANY reason who aren't doing ANY physical harm to you or others is the equivalent of bullying. Just spewing hate. Everyone, on all sides of these & all arguments, should realize that.
And yet, plenty of religious people do not act as if a gun was pointed at their kids head when exposed to the mildest form o f nudity. An line drawing of two nude people who's nipples are exposed is only potentially lustful if you have lust in your heart. That's an issue for you and your priest, not a crusade to stop others reasonable adults from seeing the same image.
I just went through 5 pages of comments on that dribble shot and didn't see a single person attacking him for his religious beliefs. I saw plenty of people attacking him for attempting to impose his beliefs on the community. Not a single person in those pages went after David Kovalev until he decided later on in the thread to mention something about public decency. Even then, the responses were questioning his reasoning on public decency, not his beliefs.
The mocking and ridicule is about him trying to impose his ultraconservative views on the rest of the community, not his religious beliefs. I've seen one or two comments in this DN thread about religion and they weren't even really directed at this guy in particular... every last one of which you responded to.
He has every right to shield himself and his children from nudity, but he doesn't have a right to shield everyone else from that. I absolutely don't agree with ridiculing or mocking him for his religion, but that's not what was happening and I'm not going to sit by and let a tiny minority turn this totally innocuous image into the line that is unacceptable for public view based not on a rule, but on their own moral views.
He may not be doing physical harm to anyone here, but I hope you aren't ignoring the very real harm that censoring such innocuous art can do to an art community. He's trying to strip others from the right to view an image that isn't offensive to a vast majority of the users of the site or likely the vast majority of most of the world.
The hypocrisy of this person complaining about his son seeing what amounts to a highly stylized line drawing of a female nipple on the internet while glorifying a deadly weapon as a desirable object on the very same internet is nearly palpable. If he weren't so sincere with the rest of his posts, I'd honestly think he was joking. Even still, I didn't see anyone in those comments or here attacking him because of his religion. It was for trying to impose his beliefs on others.
Dribbble's guidelines for posting do prohibit nudity and while I certainly think they should be changed, I agree with the people seeking a consistent administration of those guidelines. Either block everything that is even remotely on the line or don't block anything at all and provide a filter. That still has nothing to do with the backlash against this guy specifically though.
His opinion had nothing to do with the terms of service, but with how he shouldn't have to deal with the ramifications of his son seeing this over his shoulder and that is 100% his problem. If you are going on a social network dedicated to art (especially one which you curate for yourself by actually following this artist), you should be prepared to see depictions of nudity. It has been a part of art for the entire duration of the human experience.
Dribbble is a tiny community for artists. Christian religious art has displayed nudity from nearly the beginning of its history and certainly has within the last 400 years. A hardline, ultraconservative opinion on art should not be the defining line for a site dedicated to art. That and his glaring hypocrisy are where the mocking and ridicule comes from, not his religious beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with the mocking and ridicule, but this is the internet and calling someone a "prude with no life" is about as tame as it could possibly get. Go check some of the stuff Anita Sarkeesian gets for asking that we treat females the same as we treat men in video games and you'll see what the internet can really do to someone for professing their beliefs.
"If you are going on a social network dedicated to art (especially one which you curate for yourself by actually following this artist), you should be prepared to see depictions of nudity."
No, you shouldn't, if the network has terms against nudity or depictions of nudity. That is why the terms are there in the first place. To protect those of who are viewing the content. His argument is based on the expectation that Dribbble sets... Also, the shot was being displayed on the Popular page, for anyone to stumble upon- not just those who follow the designer.
Mine (and his) whole argument would be void if Dribbble didn't have these terms in place, and instead, he was just trying to censor the content with no grounds to go on. THEN and only then would he be imposing his beliefs on others, which I would agree, isn't needed nor wanted.
But if a website sets the expectation and says they're not going to show inappropriate content, such as nudity or sexualized content, (so it's cool for you to browse in front of kids, or in a strict office environment) then they should adhere to that for the viewers that care, and the community should strive to maintain that standard. Fortunately, you nor I get to dictate what's deemed acceptable for anyone we choose to view.
That was not his argument though. His argument was entirely predicated on the moral aspect of hiding this content from his child.
I don't believe that a majority of the Dribbble community believes that line drawings which barely depict nudity constitute a violation of those rules because those rules are meant to prevent posts that are pornographic in nature. It's why both rules relating to this type of content specifically make it clear that it is about mature and pornographic material. That it says nudity seems to be something they don't particularly enforce and if that's the route they want to go, I'm certain that a lot of the community would be against that level of censorship.
"Fortunately, you nor I get to dictate what's deemed acceptable for anyone we choose to view."
Except that that is precisely what is being done with something like this. The rule is obviously meant to prevent posts that are pornographic in nature which is something I would certainly not want to see on Dribbble. I wouldn't call Michaelangelo's Statue of David or the Man and God section at the Sistine Chapel pornographic even though both feature more nudity and are far more graphic and realistic depictions of the human form than this. Would those important pieces of art not be acceptable to you?
I think if you use your religious beliefs to justify the censorship of someone else's artistic expression (regardless of dribbble's guidelines), both your actions and motivations should be open to criticism.
Just curious, how are people ridiculing for religious beliefs here?
For this person, anything even remotely questioning the validity of ultraconservative views on nudity in art or pointing out the fact that there seems to be a huge influx of subtle or overtly religious designs being submitted to Dribbble recently (even though there is also a rule against material that can be deemed as "preaching"... something this person conveniently chooses to ignore) are deemed as attacks on religious beliefs.
This person, like a large number of Christian conservatives in America over the past few decades, has a massive persecution complex. Take this comment that they recently replied to someone with:
"Uh yeah, hey Dribbble, so this shot looks like it goes against the policies stated here & here"
"Wtf man! What are you, some religious dude?"
"Well, I didn't say that but—"
"I think this is fine. Don't push your religion down my throat!"
"I just thought it went against these poli—"
"You're weirding me out. Wait 'til everyone hears about this."
Nothing even remotely like this ever happened. It didn't happen here and it didn't happen on Dribbble. It was totally imagined. This person has responded to every last comment he could find something to be offended by and derailed every conversation that didn't involve him with accusations of intolerance towards religion.
Look just a little further down in this thread to see him call someone hateful for saying this:
People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not free from criticism of those beliefs. When you make your beliefs public, be prepared to defend them. And when you try and censor and oppress others with those beliefs, then be prepared for mocking.
That does not even remotely meet the definition of "hateful" in any way and the person he was actually replying to responded gracefully. The fact is that no one is even mocking this guy for his religion. People are rightfully pointing out how ludicrous his position on the tamest of nudity is when he is glorifying guns on the same computer his son might see a line drawing of a nipple on while claiming a moral high ground ("If you look at this honestly, you must admit I do have a valid point."). How that equates to "mocking his religious beliefs" is beyond me.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.