https://www.wikiart.org/en/giotto/st-francis-preaching-to-the-birds-1299
This is a proposal for an internal moderation alignment: recurring forms of anti-vegan discourse that exhibit anti-scientific reasoning patterns should be treated analogously to other forms of science denial (such as antivaccination rhetoric), and understood as incompatible with anarchist commitments to opposing domination and systemic harm.
The intent is not to prohibit disagreement with veganism as such. The distinction is between isolated critique and recurring patterns of reasoning and rhetoric that degrade discourse, misrepresent evidence, and function to stabilize harmful systems.
(Panthers of Bacchus Eating Grapes)
Epistemic Pattern: Directional Skepticism
Both anti-vegan and antivaccination discourses frequently follow a recognizable epistemic pattern. Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically. Well-established scientific consensus, such as nutritional research on plant-based diets or immunological evidence around vaccines, is subjected to disproportionate scrutiny. At the same time, anecdotal evidence, marginal dissenting views, or non-expert commentary are elevated beyond their evidentiary weight.
This results in a consistent structure: systematic distrust of research institutions, selective reliance on outlier studies, and the framing of scientific consensus as ideological rather than evidence-based. What presents itself as skepticism is, in practice, a form of contrarianism that is not applied consistently.
From a moderation standpoint, this pattern is already widely recognized in other domains as characteristic of science denial. The proposal is to apply that same recognition consistently when it appears in anti-vegan discourse.
(The Large Blue Horses, by Franz Marc)
Anarchist Framework: Domination and Structural Harm
From an anarchist perspective, the issue is not only epistemic but material. Industrial animal agriculture constitutes a clear system of domination: it exerts total control over sentient beings, depends on exploitative labor conditions, and contributes significantly to environmental degradation. It is also a highly centralized and industrialized system that concentrates power while externalizing harm.
Anarchism is fundamentally concerned with opposing unjustified hierarchies and systems that reproduce coercion and suffering. On that basis, critique of animal agriculture is not peripheral but aligned with core anarchist commitments.
Anti-vegan discourse, particularly when it dismisses or derails these critiques, often functions to normalize and defend this system. By shifting attention away from structural harms and toward dismissal or trivialization, it reduces the visibility of domination rather than challenging it. In this sense, it is not merely a neutral disagreement but a position that frequently operates in tension with anarchist principles.
(Marc Chagall – I and the Village)
Convergence with Other Anti-Scientific Discourses
The comparison to antivaccination rhetoric is instructive at the level of function. Antivaccination discourse undermines collective health infrastructures that rely on cooperation and shared trust, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations. Anti-vegan discourse, when it follows the same epistemic patterns, undermines critique of large-scale systems of harm and redirects attention away from structural analysis.
In both cases, the effect is not to challenge power but to fragment collective capacity to respond to systemic issues. These forms of discourse tend to weaken coordinated responses to harm while leaving dominant structures intact.
(Henri Rousseau – The Dream)
Rhetorical Dynamics: Whataboutism and Derailment
A recurring feature of anti-vegan discourse is the use of whataboutism. Rather than engaging directly with ethical, environmental, or scientific claims, discussion is redirected toward unrelated or superficially comparable issues. These comparisons are rarely subjected to the same level of scrutiny or concern.
This produces a moving target that prevents sustained engagement and diffuses accountability. While it can resemble critique on the surface, in practice it functions as derailment. When used persistently, it disrupts evidence-based discussion and can reasonably be treated as a form of bad-faith engagement.
(Sue Coe – Dead Meat series)
Moderation Implications: Epistemic Integrity and Opposition to Harm
Moderation should not target viewpoints in the abstract, but it must address recurring patterns that degrade discourse and reinforce harmful systems.
Content that persistently misrepresents scientific consensus, elevates anecdote over reproducible evidence, dismisses expertise without substantiation, or relies on bad-faith rhetorical tactics should be treated in line with other forms of science denial when these patterns are clear and repeated.
From an anarchist standpoint, there is an additional justification for intervention. Allowing discourse that consistently functions to normalize or defend systems of domination—such as industrial animal agriculture—undermines the broader aim of opposing coercive and harmful structures. Similarly, tolerating anti-scientific reasoning that erodes collective understanding weakens the capacity for coordinated action against those systems.
Rebecca Horn – Unicorn (1970 performance/sculpture)
Implementation Approach
This framework does not need to be codified as an explicit or user-facing rule. It can function as an internal alignment principle guiding moderation decisions.
In practice, content that clearly reflects these patterns may be removed, and repeated engagement in such patterns may lead to escalating moderation actions, including bans. Isolated disagreement or good-faith critique remains permissible; persistent anti-scientific reasoning and bad-faith derailment do not.
The goal is consistency across domains: similar epistemic and rhetorical behaviors should be treated similarly, particularly when they contribute to the normalization of harm or the degradation of discourse.
Anubis as Defender of Osiris / Dionysus (?)
Some vegan comms that will offer you better info than I can:
- https://anarchist.nexus/c/vegan(!vegan@anarchist.nexus)
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@slrpnk.net (!vegan@slrpnk.net)
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@hexbear.net (!vegan@hexbear.net)
Some theory etc:
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-veganism-is-a-consumer-activity
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gerfried-ambrosch-defending-veganism-defending-animal-rights
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carl-tobias-frayne-the-anarchist-diet-vegetarianism-and-individualist-anarchism-in-early-20th-c
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-a-dominick-animal-liberation-and-social-revolution
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/animal-liberation-is-climate-justice
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/flower-bomb-what-savages-we-must-be-vegans-without-morality
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-veganarchist-underground-veganarchy-anti-speciest-warfare-direct-action
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/len-tilburger-and-chris-p-kale-nailing-descartes-to-the-wall-animal-rights-veganism-and-punk-cu
Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/snokenkeekaguard
This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:
- For:
- Against:
- Local Community: -1.2
- Outsider sentiment: Positive
- Total: -0.19999999999999996
- Percentage: 49.00%
This vote will complete in 2 daysReminder: Simply use the up/down votes on this topic to cast your vote.
I’m OK with this. I have also noticed that anti-vegan discourse patterns are often non (or pseudo) scientific. In the broader context of climate action it is an important issue.
is policing discourse really going to help the issue though? many people lose whatever indifference they may have had when you start applying the same language filter that’s used for racial hate-speech
- For:
This is absurd, and it’s so vague on what is and is not “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” lmao how do you expect a non vegan mod (or any mod) to enforce that. If an account is repeatly harassing vegans about all the dead animals they eat maybe that’s bannable?
An example of something that might be considered “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” I’ve already talked about on my Lemmy account is I don’t exactly trust the corpos behind some vaccines. Am I vaccinated? Yes. Do I believe in vaccine science? Also yes.
If someone brings up of how much better they feel after going off vegan diet and switching to fish/seafood once a week, does that count as “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” in your book? Is it just up to whatever mod decides what is truth at the time?
And I’d like to be clear, I personally I think the meat and dairy industrial complex is one of the great atrocities of our time. Policing what meat eaters say won’t turn them vegan
Thanks, these are very useful point to discuss.
First, on vagueness: you’re right that “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” sounds abstract if it’s not grounded. The intent isn’t to have mods decide “what is truth,” it’s to look for recognizable patterns of engagement over time, not isolated statements. While clearly anti science interactions can be removed immediately, decisions on bans or removing comments/posts which aren’t clear can use an accounts history to make a decision.
“I don’t trust corporations behind some vaccines”
That by itself wouldn’t fall under this. Skepticism about institutions—even strong skepticism—isn’t the issue. It becomes a problem only if it turns into a pattern like “therefore the science is invalid” without engaging the evidence itself. What you described (being vaccinated, accepting the science, but distrusting corporations) is actually a pretty normal position.
“I feel better after adding fish/seafood”
That also wouldn’t count. Personal experience is fine to share. It only becomes an issue if it’s used to dismiss broader evidence entirely (e.g., “therefore all plant-based nutrition research is wrong”) or if it’s repeatedly pushed as universal proof.
So no, mods wouldn’t be policing anecdotes or individual dietary choices.
Third, on enforcement:
This isn’t meant to be a hard, user-facing rule like “X is banned.” It’s closer to how mods already deal with bad-faith behavior in general—looking at patterns over time.
And you don’t need a “vegan mod” to do that. The standard isn’t “does this align with veganism,” it’s “is this person engaging in a way that’s recognizably good-faith and evidence-based?”
That’s something mods already judge in other contexts (misinformation, trolling, etc.).
“Policing what meat eaters say won’t turn them vegan”
I actually agree with that. The goal isn’t conversion. **Im not vegan. ** The goal is much narrower: maintaining a discussion space where conversations don’t get derailed into the same bad-faith patterns and people can actually have substantive discussions without it collapsing.
As someone who runs various metabolic, ketogenic, and even a carnivore community - I don’t think I have a anti-vegan viewpoint, however - reading this proposal it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes?
Isn’t the legislation of outcomes and allowed topics of discussion anti-scentific by its vary nature? It sounds like it is codifying dogma. Very reminiscent to the Catholic church forbidding any discussion of settled matters and banning heliocentrism
The scientific method itself requires open questioning!
If it’s forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on “settled topics” - that is anti-science.
I would not ban you or your carnivore community. I may be wrong (and honestly don’t feel like scrutinizing your history rn), but you don’t troll. We will never agree on veganism and your advocation of eating mostly meat, I am a moral/ethical vegan first and the rest of it is a bonus. While there were some seriously questionable things that got c/carnivore banned from .world, the problematic mod is gone afaik and I already have your communities blocked (as a user). We would be able to ban people who intentionally antagonize and troll vegans, and that would be a bonus for anyone tired of the hostility. Do you go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here. If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.
go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here.
That is a problem. my issue is the proposal as written doesn’t address that but is very broad in quashing discussion in any place on topics that don’t align with a philosophical outcome.
If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.
This is how I see the proposal as written in the post as actually functioning.
it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes
A distinction needs to be made between good faith discussions of peer-reviewed, published research, and bad faith discussions of anecdotal evidence.
If you’re carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don’t think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.
Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies. This same thinking is why FAF mods have taken proactive and reactive stances against Zionists in the recent weeks and months. Zionism is a racist ideology that mythologizes Jewish supremacy over Native Arabian peoples, and results in real-world harm in the form of open air prisons, land stealing, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, among other harms.
Zionism, however, is an INTRA species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans. Carnivorism is an INTER species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans and all other wildlife on Earth. The hierarchical principle is the same.
Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.
If you’re carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don’t think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.
I think carnist is used as a insult in the vegan space? Other then that, I agree with this statement. However, that isn’t the policy as written in the post.
Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies.
I agree with this, I’m putting my human health above that of animals. I admit it.
Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.
Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?
However, that isn’t the policy as written in the post.
OP please correct the post if I’m right, or let me know if I’m misunderstanding if I’m wrong.
Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?
If the goal of a specific community is to improve the health of its constituents, then that’s fine. If that can be accomplished in ketogenic and zero-carb ways without unnecessary harm of others via animal consumption, then that’s fine.
As a vegan myself, I would appreciate a safe space that I think OP is trying to advocate for where the topic of health with regards to ketogenic and zero-carb diets is discussed, and the possibility of doing those things in vegan ways is broached, considered, and allowed to stand on its own.
But if health is the ultimate concern for any of these communities, I would want leaders in these communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways, and for there to be respectful discussion (where vegans don’t automatically shove our views down other’s throats) between vegans and members of those communities should they be curious to exchange ketogenic or zero-carb methods in favor of vegan methods.
Let’s not forget the core tenants of veganism: reduction of animal suffering as much as possible. Vegans recognize that there are other people that exist who cannot get all their nutritional needs in vegan ways. What vegans argue is that there is a distinction between what is nutritionally necessary and unnecessary. If people have the means and knowledge to achieve their goals in vegan ways, whether health related or other, then they should be encouraged to do so…
communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways
How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?
You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed. While the idea is that certain patterns of reasoning and engagement are disallowed.
This is also why it isnt proposed as a user facing rule but as an internal alignment principle.
Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically.
straight from the post, this was actively smth i was thinking about.
There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.
Also, open inquiry is necessary for challenging systems of domination. But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo. That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.
Proposal: Treating Anti-Vegan Discourse as Anti-Scientific
You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed.
From the post title it strongly implies that any discussion or conclusion that doesn’t align with pro-vegan tenants would be banned as anti-scientific. i.e. If I have a paper that demonstrates a egg a day in developing children in areas with strong economic vegetarianism shows a massive impact in cognitive development. (this paper https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.4.1119) wouldn’t this be against this policy proposal? Remember the policy is framed as anti-vegan discourse, anything that demonstrates meat as a benefit could be seen as “anti-vegan”.
But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo. That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.
Can you honestly say my communities don’t run afoul of your proposal?
There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.
Then the framing of this rule should be about standards of evidence for any discussion, not only around a single topic where you bake in the allowed outcome in the rule.
I think this critique is fair in one specific sense: if the rule were interpreted as “content that shows animal products can have benefits is anti-vegan and therefore disallowed,” then yes—that would be dogmatic and anti-scientific.
But that’s not the boundary I’m proposing, and your study example is actually a good way to clarify it.
A paper showing that meat can improve cognitive outcomes in malnourished children is not “anti-vegan discourse” in the sense I’m describing. It’s a context-specific empirical claim. It doesn’t dismiss nutritional science as a whole, it doesn’t rely on anecdote, and it doesn’t misrepresent consensus—it adds to a body of evidence about nutrition under specific conditions.
If someone uses that same study to argue something like nutritional science supporting plant-based diets is unreliable, without engaging the broader body of evidence, that’s where it starts to fall into the pattern I’m describing. Particularly in vegan spaces.
The reason it’s written in relation to anti-vegan discourse is because that’s where the pattern is being observed repeatedly. But the underlying principle is general. We’re applying the same rule to vaccines, climate, etc. already.
the rule is general (epistemic standards), the application highlights anti-vegan discourse as a frequent case.
when discourse systematically functions to dismiss or obscure large-scale systems of harm (industrial agriculture, labor exploitation, environmental damage), then it’s in tension with anarchist commitments to confronting domination. That’s about patterns and effects, not isolated claims or individual studies.
Im sorry i havent gone through your communities yet. Will look at em later.
What kind of child calls themselves a carnivore?
The type that doesn’t insult others for mild differences in diet. Call it zero-carb if you find the other label disagreeable.
I’ll call it childish thanks.
As childish as opening my profile and downvoting the last 14 posts and comments I made?
I’d do worse if I could carnist.
The worst thing you can do to me is prove your lifestyle is better, and if you do that, I will happily change my behavior. I’m open to any constructive non-slapfight discussion, I actually read papers - so we can do a book club if you like. I don’t take low hazard ratio, low absolute value, epidemiology as anything other then hypothesis generating, so lets restrict ourselves to papers that can speak to cause and effect.
I’m not going to debatebro a carnist.
Nope, against.
I don’t see why this rethoric would need any special rules versus any other arguments that may be made in bad faith. Trolling in general should be moderated, but the rules shouldn’t differ from topic to topic. If a discussion is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad. The topic and the view points are irrelevant to that.
Trolling in general should be moderated, but the rules shouldn’t differ from topic to topic. If a discussion is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad.
How would you define a troll and whether someone is speaking in good faith? It’s very vibes based. I think someone bringing up plant’s feelings or their suffering is probably trolling (does actually happen even in this thread), saying they’ll eat double the hamburgers out of spite, even going as far to say vegans shouldn’t harm bacteria (taken from a comic that was posted recently) is trolling. Right now, bringing these things up to antagonize (even after haven been told these things are antagonistic) is not something that can be actioned against.
I think “bringing things up to antagonize even after being told these things are antagonistic” is a good standard.
I don’t think this post challenges that.
This post is seeking to equalize moderator efforts in determining which discussions are good and which are bad by appealing to the same standards of moderation that the current FAF Team applies to other realms of discourse, notably vaccination, climate change, anti-fascism, etc.
This post is not about mods forcing vegan beliefs on FAF users. This post is about allowing vegan/anti-vegan discourse to flourish in a safe space with charitable exchanges of evidence and viewpoints. Users that announce their opinions on FAF platforms, and when pushed to explain or defend themselves use anecdotes, strawmans, troll tactics, or recoil by name-calling and attacking other’s credibility - avoiding discussion altogether around the facts at hand - would be against instance rules and subject to moderator action.
If anything, this post extends the same rules FAF mods use on other topics of discussion to veganism. It does not introduce special rules to discussions specifically around veganism.
If that’s the case, the proposal should be focused on discourse in general, not on veganism.
This seems like personal vendetta-running in the form of governance. That serves no purpose in improving the quality of discourse on db0. HARD no.
The problem imho with this vote is that it requires people without scientific background on this issue, to declare confidently what the scientific consensus is. And this is going into really tricky if not downright philosophical subjects on consciousness and so on. This is going to be extraordinarily difficult to enforce without constant complains about overreach. What does one do when the argument being had, is specifically about what the science actually says?
The whole issue here arose because the debate around some issues of veganism between comrades, was too upsetting to some and sometimes driving people away. I think it might be more apt to try to make a ruleset which can prevent the kind of dialogue that can reinforce the societal toxicity and start driving our vegan comrades away.
For this specific proposal to make sense to me, it would more have to be that “We as the FAF, consider the scientific consensus on this subject settled as such-and-such and we will sanction people who go against that position”. And allow leeway to open posts to explicitly to challenge whether the science is actually settled that way, as science is evolving and as an escape hatch, but in a controlled manner.
EDIT: That being said, blatantly anti-scientific takes (i.e. ones that go against established scientific consensus) should generally not be allowed as per instance rules.
EDIT2: Overall I think this proposal might need a big of a community workshop before putting to a formal vote to establish what exactly will be against the rules, and how it will be handled.
Nay, I voted against.
This is the start to a slippery slope. Being anti-vegan is not to be treated as anti-science, because I feel this can lead to other things be treated as anti-science arbitrarily down the line. Science is science, your dietary and life choices are your own, nothing wrong with them, but it is a choice at the end of the day.
Those discussions have the same energy as religious debates. If people are asses to one another, punish them, but don’t use “accepted social construct” to bonk people that voice their opinion on “contested social construct”. Moderate abusers/harassers on both sides. Leave science out of it and treat the topic as freedom of speech.
Apples and oranges.
your dietary and life choices are your own, nothing wrong with them
This can be said broadly, but when people’s life choices result in the harm of others, including animals, there is a problem with that.
Think about the settlers in the West Bank in Gaza. They make life choices to steal Palestinian land. This is harmful though because it ethnically cleanses Gazans and leads to homelessness, instability, physical and psychological harm of Gazans.
It is a persistent challenge in life that morality and one’s morals grapple with the harm and suffering that occurs in the world. One might say that any project of harm reduction under a system of capitalism is futile because no capitalist consumption is ethical. The magnitude of moral issues in the world should not, however, discourage us from upgrading our morality over time as we try to understand our impact on others in the world and attone for those.
Regardless of philosophy or morality, this post is about equalizing moderator and admin response to anti-vegan dogma in similar ways to anti-climate change dogma and anti-vaccination dogma and anti-fascist dogma. It is not about forcing particular views on users, but cultivating a safe space where people of opposing views can come together and discuss their differences in meaningful ways. Trolls and other bad faith actors are squarely at the center of this conversation, not the particular beliefs themselves.
comparing Palestinians to animals is bad
So it’s not ok when Jewish people were forced to die in gas chambers 80 years ago,
But its ok when animals are put through gas chambers on a daily basis in modern times?
Palestinian genocide and apartheid is a useful comparison to industrial animal agriculture today because it elevates how machinations of greed and power in both contexts results in pain and suffering for the powerless.
And what if I was comparing Palestinians to animals? Humans ARE animals! We share a majority of similarities with other animals on this planet. If you reject that, then you have been propagandized to believe in speciesism where humans are better than all other life and therefore we are different from all other life in a way that enables us to distance ourselves from animal suffering while exploiting, raping, and stealing their livelihoods.
But as I explained to another commenter, this forum is NOT meant for debating veganism. If you want to have that debate, go to the nearest vegan community and make a post. This post in db0 is about the meta treatment of vegan discussions with regards to bad actors derailing things away from education and free exchange of ideas.
the Holocaust was wrong (partially) precisely because it treated humans like animals.
So if we conduct Holocausts on animals, as we do each and every year as trillions of animals across the planet are born and die, that makes it ok?
Is slitting the throat of a cow or pig and different than doing the same to humans?
You are delusional and severely selfish if you can’t understand that pain, suffering, murder, mutilation, gasification, breaking animals’ necks, grinding male chicks to death in machines, stealing baby calves from their parents immediately after birth, kicking pigs away from you if they’re in your way are all wrong and abhorrent treatment, regardless of if these things happen to humans or non-human animals.
Is slitting the throat of a cow or pig and different than doing the same to humans
yes.
You are delusional and severely selfish if you can’t understand that pain, suffering, murder, mutilation, gasification, breaking animals’ necks, grinding male chicks to death in machines, stealing baby calves from their parents immediately after birth, kicking pigs away from you if they’re in your way are all wrong and abhorrent treatment, regardless of if these things happen to humans or non-human animals.
this is rhetoric, not fact.
the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminated jew and other “undesirables”. no one is trying to exterminate livestock
And what if I was comparing Palestinians to animals?
bad look
If you claim to believe in Palestinian emancipation, yet don’t recognize the oppression of animals all across the planet, then that is a bad look for YOU because you fail to understand WHY we struggle advance Palestinian emancipation in the first place.
one has nothing to do with the other
How is this just about even when the post itself is currently at -68 (84 upvotes, 152 downvotes), and most comments I see are against it? I don’t understand the math.
some people’s votes are worth more, like people who can afford to donate.
Seriously? That seems kinda antithetical to our purpose.
That’s a hilarious post for an anarchist comm. Thanks for sharing it.
Its ironic that this proposal talks about how hierarchy is antithetical to anarchism, yet is being propped up by one.
Yeah, the first time I read that felt like they were reinventing some of the federalist papers. It’s extremely similar to arguments that representation should be tied to land ownership. Hard to not see the irony in both their logic and their conclusions in an anarchist space. The challenges of needing governance that resists hostile takeover are real though 🤷♂️
Other than the fact that you’re not mentioning that plenty of people who haven’t donated can vote, I’m sure you have many great ideas on how this can be done better and I’m looking forward to your proposal.
i just answered the question. there is no criticism in my comment
You wrote it specifically to make the voting process look bad. You’re being disingenuous right now.
i dont remember my state of mind two days ago. re-reading it here, i think its a very evenhanded answer.
Absolutely not. It’s clearly meant to make the voting seem more exclusionary than it is and without nuance, to people who haven’t noticed it before. I don’t know why you think you can spin this.
i linked the post explaining how the weighting works, and there is a lengthy explanation in that post about why its implemented the way it is. i haven’t commented on this at all, nor voted on the comments about it. your kind of snarky request for proposals to improve it belies that you know it’s not great, and the fact that a great solution might not even exist.
as it is, it’s good enough. it’s a massive improvement (ideologically) over the BDFL model. in practice, i think it’s also turned out pretty well.
stripping away all the nuance and justifications to answer their question isn’t criticism. it’s just being brief.
Fundamentally opposed to both the philosophy that non-human chattel deserve to be considered victims within human hierarchies, and to the whole vegan framework on agriculture and animal husbandry. It’s not anti-science to point out that ecosystems REQUIRE trophic energy transfer to persist, which REQUIRES humanity to offset our destruction of natual habitat for our own purposes, both conservationist and extractionist. It’s also not anti-science to point out vegan sophistry with respect to industrialized agriculture and the ecological damage that it does to all systems. Luckily, animal husbandry is concerned with the maintenance of livestock which are fed grains and hay which are regenerative and don’t require mountains and mountains of pesticides which cause cancer and deplete insect biomass.
I don’t care to point all of this out every time I interact with a vegan because frankly it’s not my job to discuss agriculture and veganism on a philosophical and scientific level. I personally do what pleases me: I avoid vegan spaces and scroll past vegan posts and comments. Stop trying to impose ideological conformity with your minority view and let us meat-eaters exist in peace.
Stop trying to impose ideological conformity with your minority view and let us meat-eaters exist in peace.
how about you let them animals exist in peace? Also loving this use of “minority view” in derogatory way on an anarchist forum.
I don’t let animals live in peace because they kill each other and eat each other all the time. We’re animals, just like them. Given the opportunity, they would eat us too. Polar bears specifically prey on humans. Oh and, left unchecked by hunting or predation, herbivores will destroy ecosystems by eating all the plants, overpopulating, and then starving to death. I don’t want there to be plagues of deer or locust all over destroying all of our food supplies.
I don’t let animals live in peace because they kill each other and eat each other all the time.
so it’s cool if I kill you too right?
Oh and, left unchecked by hunting or predation, herbivores will destroy ecosystems by eating all the plants, overpopulating, and then starving to death.
uh-huh please check in with reality where your meats and cheeses actually comes from.
I don’t want there to be plagues of deer or locust all over destroying all of our food supplies.
the farmer thanks you for your service (this should be cause for alarm)
Oh and, left unchecked by hunting or predation, herbivores will destroy ecosystems by eating all the plants, overpopulating, and then starving to death.
https://chamomilewitch.substack.com/p/deer-hunting-effortpost
would love to hear from people better informed on the matter than I am @Sunshine@anarchist.nexus @YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com @thisfro@slrpnk.net
Totally agree. There are some reasonable critiques regarding veganism, but mostly they are just issues with production in a capitalist system.
So I’m a little sleepy right now, I read your post and I’m just making sure I get the idea right. (full disclosure I’m a meat eater, and I doubt I’ll ever stop.)
Basically the idea is to counter the anti-science viewpoints related to vegan and vegetarian diets, yes? That, if someone shows persistent anti-scientific viewpoints then moderation actions may be taken. I don’t disagree with this idea in principal?
I think it does run the risk of becoming a little murky when trying to decide which science is settled debate and what’s still being researched.
I think it does run the risk of becoming a little murky when trying to decide which science is settled debate and what’s still being researched.
Murky it is already unfortunately. Which is why i bring this up. Instead of one admin seeing the same idea or pattern of behaviour as acceptable while another doesn’t, this proposition would align us.
Is the person engaging with evidence in a way that’s recognizable as good-faith scientific reasoning? Are they applying standards of evidence consistently, even when it challenges their position? Are they acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, rather than overstating conclusions?
You can have disagreement—even strong disagreement—within those boundaries.
Where moderation would come in is when there’s a pattern of dismissing large bodies of evidence without engaging them or relying on anecdote or cherry-picked studies as if they outweigh consensus or repeatedly derailing discussion rather than engaging with it.
Honestly the basic point is to align the admins actions when we have repeat offenders. The reason I used anti-vegan discourse as an example is because that’s where I see this pattern a lot—not because I think that topic is uniquely off-limits or ‘settled’ in every respect.
(good morning, btw)
Yeah this is all pretty fair sounding IMO.
I read through all the comments today and I saw a few good ones on how it might be hard to moderate, no need for me to rehash those they did better than I could, but I can see why this might be desired anyway.
One of the other posts is talking about how they’re dealing with someone making over 100 anti vegan troll accounts, which IMO leaves the realm of trolling and becomes harassment of some kind. I definitely support the idea of banning that person and their 100 accounts lol, so I can definitely agree something like this whole proposal is needed (if not this proposal itself.)
there is a lot of miscommunication and mischaracterization going on, and if you don’t mind, I’d like to address the takeaways you have, because it’s probably widespread.
first of all, hi. I’m the problem.
I have been on the fediverse for about a decade, and, yes, I have some 100 different accounts.
I am not antivegan.
they are not troll accounts. I do my best to comply with all instance rules, as well as community rules.
the effort required just for me to compile the list of instances that have given me an account would be probably a full day or more. that’s for me to do it. for the admins here to do it, without my help, is probably impossible.
I’ll admit I’m not really interested in laying blame or judgement here, I don’t think its my place to do so. What I will say is that I doubt you’re the only person with hundreds of accounts, and since I’ll take you at your word that you’re not an anti-vegan troll, so then there’s probably another person(s) doing the trolling.
I know I am the person yarrmatey was talking about, but I strongly feel they have misconstrued me.
What is the issue here? Why are all the references at the end relevant at all?
i mean, i find the gelderloos piece to be highly relevant
I thought the issue was the patterns of behaviour of certain groups that seek to disrupt.
i was being snarky. it’s clear that the selection was quite slip-shod, and the gelderloos piece is actually pushing back on veganism as political praxis. the op is pointing to veganism as political praxis, so i doubt they actually read that, or most of the other links.
I strongly disagree with this post. Is it anti vegan to say that cats can’t be sustained on a vegan diet? That’s come up in online communities before.
There is ethical consumption of meat animals, it’s not anti vegan to do that.
It’s also not anti vegan if you can’t afford to purchase ethically sourced meats.
I’d also be suspicious of having children under 10 on vegan diets. It’s definitely possible to do, but I think that it has to be supplemented with vitamins and under doctor supervision.
Merely questioning someone’s veganism for children shouldn’t be anti science.
Is it anti vegan to say that cats can’t be sustained on a vegan diet?
Yes, but more importantly, it’s anti-science. Ethical vegan cat food can be made. It can be a functional substitute. Some synthetic nutrients are required. Current science does not indicate that properly formulated vegan cat food has any non-trivial effects on cat health, but does not confirm either way. And the typical concern about carbohydrates from plants is not valid because properly formulated food would not contain a harmful dose and because non-vegan cat food often has carbohydrate-rich ingredients.
Sources: https://cats.com/vegan-cat-food and https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-health/is-a-vegan-diet-safe-for-cats
There is ethical consumption of meat animals, it’s not anti vegan to do that.
How can killing be ethical???
I’d also be suspicious of having children under 10 on vegan diets. It’s definitely possible to do, but I think that it has to be supplemented with vitamins and under doctor supervision.
Why? I’d be interested in knowing what makes you think that a vegan diet would harm children. Do send a source link please, I’m interested in finding out. Also, all vegan diets need supplementing (with B12) anyway. The requirement for supplementation does not invalidate the practice.
Do send a source link
they don’t need a source to be suspicious of the claim.
