Proposal: Treating Anti-Vegan Discourse as Anti-Scientific and Incompatible with Anarchist Principles in Moderation Practice
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([email protected])
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/[email protected] (![email protected])
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/[email protected] (![email protected])
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:
This vote will complete in 2 daysReminder: Simply use the up/down votes on this topic to cast your vote.
Why is this a simple majority 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
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.
Thanks for taking the time to go over each of my points! And know your intentions are good.
I just feel any there's any online community that's good at spotting astro terffing talking points or just trolling this community has to be as high up on that list as it gets.
In my personal opinion its still a rule with too much left up to mods figuring things out that is not clear cut, that's a slippery slope.
I've ran into a not insignificant amount of people both on and offline that I put in the vegan evangelist category, if you have ever ran into someone like that they tend to have a black and white view of the world. The type of person that would call someone a murder with a smile on their face because they eat meat, when that person works 50 hours a week and lives in a food desert and cannot afford + does not have enough time to be vegan. What would a mod with that belief system do with a rule like that?
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.
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.
I agree. Although it may have been explicitly codified previously in the FAF instance rules that dictate other realms of discussion. I'm not sure if those rules explicitly carried over to anti-vegan dogma. I'd have to learn more about how we govern these instances. I'm just a user, don't spend too much time thinking about these meta-things.
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
:::spoiler 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.
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.
This is how I see the proposal as written in the post as actually functioning.
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.
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.
I agree with this, I'm putting my human health above that of animals. I admit it.
Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?
OP please correct the post if I'm right, or let me know if I'm misunderstanding if I'm wrong.
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..
How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?
I'm not an expert on the latest research surrounding zero-carb diets and if any research has been done with vegan diets in particular.
But if you wanted to make a new post on the community you mod/admin, I would be interested in learning the facts and willing to do my own research to contribute to the conversation.
Sure thing! Here you go: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68390626
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.
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.
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".
Can you honestly say my communities don't run afoul of your proposal?
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.
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.
Yeah this will lead to a lot of complaints about overreach, and maybe also some over-enforcement as well.
"allow leeway to open posts to challenge science"
random spitballed suggestion: introduce a public science focused community. we have a pinned thread/FAQ for current contentious topics, including links to the current research on these things. You know, anti-vax, flat earth ect.
If you disagree with the scientific conclusion as presented by this, you make a post and drop reasonable research supporting your claim.
Moderators can then keep reasonably up-to date on research as it's posted, as long as the pinned FAQ stays reasonably up to date then moderators and admins will have a quick reference for these actions.
scientific debate can fall into this community, something like a hybrid between YPTB and an actual scientific debate community perhaps?
Granted, I am under no illusion this is an a lot of work, and it probably has more than a few flaws, but maybe its a decent starting point.
I really like this idea! We could even have posts only unlocked on a set date and time, so that all the debate is closely moderated as it is actually occurring, maybe?
You’re right that there’s a real governance problem if moderators are expected to act as scientific arbiters in complex or evolving domains. I don’t think it’s realistic—or desirable—to expect mods to independently determine “the science” on every contested nutritional issue.
And I agree that trying to operationalize this purely as mods determine what the settled science is and punish disagreement would create serious overreach problems.
That’s part of why I tried to frame this less around conclusions and more around patterns of engagement.
Not to mention our rules already prohibit anti-science posting, where mods must make the same calls. As they do with antivaxx, flat earthers etc.
I also think your reframing gets closer to the actual governance issue that triggered this discussion in the first place. The problem wasn’t simply that disagreement existed. It was that certain forms of engagement were repeedly hostile or dismissive toward vegan comrades, derailing discussions into repetitive antagonism and normalizing rhetoric that made parts of the community feel unwelcome or exhausted. This happened within the vegan community and on posts regarding veganism in other comms.
That’s fundamentally a community health and conduct issue, not just a scientific one.
wanted to reply to this sooner, but couldn't find the time.
Yes, that's exactly right. And that's why I supported the proposal. But I think db0 is right, we probably need to rethink the proposal and resubmit it after taking all the community feedback on board.
Even though the vote is passing due to the way the voting works, I think that's mostly because the admin team are being supportive of our vegan comrades who are having a hard time on lemmy. The community sentiment is actually very low, so I think in this sort of scenario, it's pretty clear we have more thinking to do on the topic and need to come up with something the community can get behind.
I agree. In good conscience, I cannot claim the 60% vote reflects the will of the broader community.
Bit I'll add, what many seem to have overlooked is that this path represented the most measured way to avoid sweeping changes to the rules. Had it passed, the matter likely would have faded into the background, with little impact on most people moving forward.
Any alternative proposals are far more likely to carry broader and more consequential implications.
But alas, the community has the right to determine how it governs itself.
I mostly lurk, but for once I will come out of the woodwork to say, this feels absurd and heavy handed.
If a person argues with pseudoscientific reasons and has nothing substantial to back their claims, then fine, we as humans should try to correct them, present counter points, facts, research papers, citations, etc.
You have to give a best effort attempt to change hearts and minds, if the person cannot see reason then they should be ignored, downvoted, disproven. If they threaten to harm anyone, or work actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc., then moderation should be considered.
Banning, forbidding, or otherwise shutting down discourse you don't like, regardless if you're right or wrong is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it. Period.
Then is moderation in a debate useless, beyond, as you put it, when someone "[threatens] to harm anyone, or [works] actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc"?
I find that absurd.
People, in general, do not engage critically with discussion! Especially discussion with any scientific basis, particularly when the people don't have the scientific basis to wholly understand the issue.
I fear your whole argument rests on the assumption that people will do this; that bad arguments will be debased by good arguments, and that the public will recognise this. However, we know that this simply does not happen. Some do it, but most just don't.
People prefer pithy comebacks to accuracy, emotion to reason, and their assumptions affirmed.
It's not that I think you're wrong, in a sense. I agree that we should try to correct people, that we have to give a best effort to change hearts and minds, and that unreasonable people should be ignored, downvoted, and disproven. I also don't like shutting down discourse; but some discourse is harmful, even if it doesn't directly threaten harm, and to allow it to flourish feels like a disservice to all. And it does flourish.
I think that to work on the assumption that good debate happens naturally is foolish, at least when the arguments take place in a public anonymous square.
Funny that arguments for censorship almost always boil down to "Well, you and I are smart and perceptive enough to recognize bad things, but think of the poor gullible idiots and/or children who aren't. We need to protect them from things from which they're not bright enough / mature enough to protect themselves."
So it's not just hierarchical in execution, but in intent. Not only is it the case that enforcing censorship requires the establishment of a hierarchy, but calls for it already presume a hierarchy.
And in both cases with the person calling for censorship glibly assigning themselves to the ruling class...
I can't speak for the other poster, but I don't believe that this is the case at all. It's not that they assume that "people" (by which you self-evidently mean "people stupider than me or you") will do this, but that it's ultimately up to them and not you to decide if that's what they're going to do or not.
Yes - it's unfortunate when "people" make poor choices. But denying them the right to choose is not the solution.
That's not what I mean at all. This has nothing to do with stupidity or gullibility... I'm fallible as well, and I'm very happy when I see community fact-checks (such as Twitter community notes) and justifiably censored posts, as a signal that unproductive additions aren't tolerated. I like those reminders, and I like when there's a group of people whose responsibility it is to check anti-scientific bullshit (or straight-up lies), for when I fail to do it, because everyone fails to do it, sometimes.
I'm not putting myself above anyone; I'm recognising my own limits, and pointing out that those limits are also present in others. Bullshit derails discourse, and if we want discourse to stay on track, we should get rid of bullshit.
If we're going to establish some basis for truth and good discourse (and we have already established that basis in db0), then it should be extended to other contentious points of discussion. I am presuming a hierarchy because it has already been established; it's not of people, but of truth, with some assigned members responsible for moderation.
I find your framing distasteful. Glib.
Mind you, I think something like Twitter's community notes would be much (much) better than straight up removal^[X]^. It's basically the only good thing on Twitter... But we don't have that mechanism on Lemmy, so we do what we can to keep discourse on track. People can still see deleted comments in the modlog.
Just like it's my decision to leave if this place turns into a pig-sty of pseudo-science and conspiracy gibberish! Except I would prefer it not to turn into that, and I think that, without this sort of moderation, it just might. Hence my arguments.
^[X]^ I really think we ought to establish something like that on Lemmy. It's democratic.
You were meant to.
Shame though that you didn't have the integrity or courage to face the fact that that's your framing - that that's, even if you don't enunciate ot or arenieven conscious of it,cwhat you do in fact believe, and what you did in fact clearly imply.
Ah, well, I guess that's a point I didn't consider. Touché.
We don't do that currently, but it's an interesting idea.
I have removed anti-vaxxer crap before but that issue doesn't come up that often in reports, nowadays.
according to the proposal, that is what is happening right now, but not in veganism discussions:
as i understood it, the proposal isnt about adding a distinction when taking moderation actions, but about taking moderation actions at all. as is being done on other topics already.
to me it looks like u agree with the proposal, but got confused.
I was in a thread earlier where a bunch of vegans were acting offended by things that the person they responded to wasn't saying, so this whole ppst seems to more self-victimizing
Your post gives off "All Lives Matter" in the context of "Black Lives Matter" arguments.
The goal is what you describe: aligning all moderator actions such that any anti-science discussions done in bad faith are shut down. The issue is that veganism in particular on FAF forums, as claimed by OP, sees disproportionate levels of trolling and non-evidentiary critiques. This post seeks to align moderator engagement in these contexts as the bad faith forces to be countered are, as claimed by OP, overhanded.
While I strongly support veganism and people get very angry about being told to eat less meat due to the harmful practices of industrialized production of it, I do not know if this should be the way it's approached.
Anti-science is anti-science. I would be fine with a general "don't lie about reality" rule, as hard as it is to enforce correctly or fairly. Veganism has a lot of fantastic arguments, but it's not a science. It has data to back up it's philosophy, but it's not a science.
I would be fine with a soft "don't antagonize people for being vegan rule" but that could also be solved with some of our existing rules enforced for that reason. I feel we do in general, but I could be wrong.
I haven't ventured into vegan communities/users often as I am not a vegan (tried to be a vegetarian for a bit before my family caused me to stop), so have no experience on how the communities are treated beyond random bad faith users going "mmm meat" and nothing of substance beyond that as an argument.
I upvoted this solely for the idea of protecting vegan users communities, but I'm not quite sure if this is the method of doing that.
Thank you for making this distinction. Veganism is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot defend philosophical ideals on their face with facts. Now, the facts may lead us to make philosophical judgements, as is the case with animals showing signs of pain when exposed to harm and then considering them to have sentience. But science fundamentally cannot answer questions about morality.
This post appealing to pro-science debate and discussion when veganism is an ideology is odd. It might be a useful tactic to push back on bad faith actors that intentionally go to harass and berate vegan communities just for the sake of their existence, but there can be (and most certainly is) science out there that shows veganism is not the only worthwhile lifestyle that causes positive outcomes in humans and which people would want to adopt into their personal lives.
When we get to the bottom of it, the discussion of veganism sits within the larger discussion of morality and how the most amount of moral actors, whether human or animal, reach their innate potential and flourish. This gets into moral schools of thought like Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Consequentialism, which again by themselves cannot be proven or disproven scientifically.
As a vegan myself, I want more people to join our movement, and the way you do this is in safe spaces where people can think freely. Bad faith actors, trolls, harassers, stalkers, etc. work against that goal.
Some people may be fine with that, but it is a tenant of the FAF for there to be freedom of thought and expression without propagating hate and hostility towards others. Veganism promotes that, as does Anti-Zionism, Anti-Nazism, etc.
This is actually not a rule and you can antagonize vegans for being vegans, despite other rules seeming like it would not be allowed. But I appreciate this thought of not antagonizing people for no reason.
My personal ethical framework is "if everyone involved is consenting and cool with what's happening, then it's probably fine"
It gets muddy at times, but it usually works out okay.
Vegans abide by that. And vegans haven't ever really attacked me. I've had people who hate vegans attack me for defending them.
Nay. This proposal is moderation overreach. I'm down for rules to keep discussion relatively civil and in good faith, broadly, but it's odd to ask a bunch of not-scientists moderators to determine the scientific validity of discussion on a topic. As long as discussion is being had in good faith things will work themselves out.
Nay, moderation is not your personal crusade, go mod one of the vegan instances if you want to evangelize.
Against, this is veering into heavy speech policing which heavily goes against the spirit of the instance.
Unfortunately, this instance is not free speech, just anarchist.
To be clear, I agree that this is going too far when we already have tools to deal with bad faith and harassment, but it has been stated in previous instance votes that anarchism =/= free speech.
I already fully understand that hence why I have no issue with the shutting down of Zionist arguments to stop a Nazi bar situation, but this is just going one step too far.
Ah... I can only laugh cynically as virtually day-by-day I watch internet anarchists move further and further away from anarchism.
If there is any way by which another person can nominally legitimately limit what you may, may not, must or must not say, then it can only be the case that a hierarchy has been established by which that person's opinion on the matter is superior to your own, and therefore the system is not and cannot be anarchistic
It really is just that simple.
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.
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.
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
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.
yes.
this is rhetoric, not fact.
the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminated jew and other "undesirables". no one is trying to exterminate livestock
Doesn't veganism result in the harm of others, including plants?
Veganism recognizes that consciousness exists on a spectrum, and that there are distinct biological differences in organisms that allow them to experience pain.
If you want to have a discussion of the evidence that animals experience pain and plants/algae/bacteria/fungi don't, let's take this to a different thread than the one at hand. OP made this post to discuss the meta surrounding vegan debates on the FAF, and not particularly the debate itself.
Hard no. This should be left up to each community and their mods.
Nope, against.
Labeling certain kinds of arguments in a discussions non valid from the start, just for the reason of crushing said discussion, is unacceptable. Your arguments on veganist discourse are fine (and I appreciate the artwork) but this has nothing to do with moderation.
Also the parameters of anti-science reasoning paterns are too vague, this is not an academic platform. Let people be wrong and try to correct them, don't ban discussions outright.
This is such a bizzare proposal. The terms outlining what types of discourse would be allowed or warrent removal/bans seem to be very open to moderator interpretation. Wouldn't this leave anyone who takes part in a discussion vulnerable to heavy-handed moderator action, if a moderator happens to disagree with or dislike an argument?
And if we assume that no moderators would take advantage of the vagueness of this proposal to silence the discussion of viewpoints opposing their own, it still undermines free speech.
Additionally, I strongly believe that if a viewpoint is incorrect or based on misinterpretation, or if an argument is built on a shaky foundation or made in bad faith, it should be the job of those who recognize this to refute it properly, publically, for everyone to see. To simply silence them robs everyone of the chance to read or write a properly argued opposing viewpoint, and spares the offending party a potentially much-needed "verbal evisceration" of sorts.
Hard no from me, if my vote is worth anything at all.
Nay
I think there's an honest conversation to be had along the lines of the ethics of animal exploitation and veganism within anarchist discourse broadly, but framing it as an anti-scientific ideology is not just highly contestable but IMO a misdirection.
Vaccination denial isn't a problem just because it's rooted in anti-scientific discourse, it's a problem because it harms not the antivax adults that spread it but their non-consenting children and to vulnerable populations that dont have access to adequate Healthcare. If it were a question of scientific consensus, we could just as easily be having this conversation about UFO enthusiasts and flat earthers.
I would be open to hearing the same question posed with its anti-exploitation framework, but I would still have hesitations.
I feel the same way since I am a vulnerable population when it comes to vaccines. It was clarified that vaccine denial would be allowed which I think is why this post was framed this way.
This sounds ideological, and food studies are so difficult to do correctly I trust none of them.
Hard disagree.
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.
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.
Seems odd to specify misinformation pertaining to veganism, but not anti science misinformation in general.
Either way, I'm against regulating conversation topics.
Absolutely!
I too would like the power to stop people spewing anti-scientific stuff against my position that all humans should be killed.
It's well documented in many scientific studies that people are bad for Environment in many, many ways, hence anybody denying that all humans should be killed is going against the Science.
Oh, and might as well throw in all pets should be killed, based on similar scientifically-supported reasons. So, yeah, anybody against getting rid of all pets is denying the Science that pets are bad for the Environment.
It is totally logical that when something has been scientifically shown to be bad, that means that the only acceptable solution is the absolutist one of "totally stop doing it by the means I favor" and anybody denying that solution is Denying Science.
Good point, lol.
Against.
I personally am not vegan/vegetarian because of medical reasons (Dietologist made it very clear that i do not have the option of covering my required nutritional intake when excluding animal products without suffering from deficiencies). I am already a fringe case that makes clear that veganism is not a choice everyone can make. I cannot see how mods could decide if my argument has a scientific basis without me submitting my medical history, which creates the risk of being silenced for "bad faith arguments" when i wont do that.
I would not ban for this. You don't need to send your medical history. I have not looked through your posts/comments but please don't think you would be banned for a medical issue you have no control over.
I think it is hilarious that the viewpoints laid out in one of your own theory sources would seem to be off limits as "anti-vegan" discourse.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-veganism-is-a-consumer-activity
"As an ideology, veganism fails to understand capitalism and ecology. It is incontestable that to save animals and the planet, capitalism must be abolished. Emphasizing the dubious power of consumer choices sabotages the fight against capitalism and ecocide. Existing as consumers, which is a role involuntarily imposed on all of us, is not compatible with nature, and in the long run the vegan diet is not the same as an ecological diet. The most important factors are not the presence or absence of meat, but if the food is local, and if it is sustainably produced. Today, only a limited number of people can achieve this lifestyle. The point is not to be one of those people, it is to abolish capitalism and develop ecological perspectives within anti-capitalist movements (and anti-capitalist perspectives within ecological movements, which are not one in the same only because of short-sightedness in each movement)."
This is such a severe critique of veganism that it actually implies that being vegan is to have entirely lost the plot from a socialist perspective... which would seem to me as an argument against veganism entirely...
This doesn't give me confidence that the author of this proposal has a consistent worldview, or really understands the implications of the proposal as presented. It seems purely reactionary, likely a reaction to being criticized or (more charitably) to being trolled.
I thought there would be more support overall and wanted to offer atleast one source that would critique the ideology to give people a more balanced view.
Particularly an anarchist view. (Even still it is a bad critique of veganism but the best I could find)
(I'm not a vegan and have never engaged in vegan discussions on this or my other platform)
A lot assumptions there lol.
Why do you say this ? Or maybe someone else critical of Gelderloos' critique could chime in, because I thought it was pretty good.
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.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35557475
That's a hilarious post for an anarchist comm. Thanks for sharing it.
Yeah that's wild, literally setting up an intentional hierarchy on a supposed anarchist space..
I'm not sure what you mean by "intentional hierarchy". Regardless, would you prefer the unintentional hierarchy of the BDFL server owner?
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.
I am against this. It feels like shutting down a conversation before it even happens. I'm not really down for policing conversation in this way
I am voting against. Far too vague and specific a stance to be part of our bylaws. Bad faith arguments are close enough to trolling to be conflated within that rule, there's no need for an explicit vegan rule.
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.
Against.
Votes are tallied by simple up/down votes, not comments
Right, there was a change. Feedback: add a small passage at the end telling people how the vote works, which votes are counted. Might help people who are not fully in the loop of the rules on the Anarchy Flotilla.
Against. I understand and acknowledge the idea behind it, but this is heavy handed and this sort of censorship shouldn't be encouraged. If people are being abusive or antagonistic, there are already tools to deal with that behavior.
I'm a vegan and I am pro-science in the practical sense of believing that the academic science communities are a useful and consistently true source of fact. I'm against this because I believe that controlling conduct on the basis of some conduct being "anti-science" is a post-hoc justification for policing norms. If conduct should be banned, let's be honest about the reason: it's because we (or more accurately, the moderators) believe the conduct is wrong or harmful or is otherwise distasteful and would rather it be gone. Hiding our motivations behind bureaucracy, procedure, or appeals to authority is a mechanism behind the centralization of social power.
If you, like me, want to be part of a community of individuals which agrees that harm against animals matters but this community doesn't, then the anarchist options are to leave and make or find a new one, or to get to work persuading people.
I am against this.
There is more room to build towards a participatory concensus. I think the bar for declaring a (well founded) moral stand as a scientific consensus that demands all a single stance is high. I do not believe we are equipped to demand that of all yet.
Thanks for bringing the topic.
I'm against, this is too vague.
Also a separation needs to be made between Veganism the philosophy and the practice of having a Plant Based Diet
Fighting philosophy with science is risky business.
I fail to see the pertinence of most art in this post, but it is lovely; thank you very much for that.
I agree that the FAF should actively curb anti-scientific rhetoric and apply heavy-handed moderation to anti-scientific discourse, e.g. anti-vaxx; this should be extended to all topics, frankly, that are socially-contentious and scientifically-settled, including veganism!
Many people have expressed their concerns about moderation, though, and I think that's fair. We simply cannot allow fair questioning and fair scientific critique and inquiry to be treated as science-denial or anti-scientific and removed! We also cannot allow users to shield their harassment of different lifestyles and diets under the guise of science-based argumentation. This "internal alignment principle", as you called it, mustn't be used to sanction the harassment of users based on dietary choices, regardless of the scientific basis of said choices.
If users are talking out of their ass and/or degrading reasonable discourse, the offending posts should be removed, and, upon repeated offences, the offending user should be reprimanded.
ah finally an excuse for me to talk about it lol. ive been waiting. actually ill make a post in the art comm about it all later lol.
that is precisely the plan, the boogeyman you see in the comments does not exist.
Slippery slope
I disagree because I want a different approach, and I'd like to know if you see it's failing the purposes of your proposal.
I insist that protection of dietary behavior choices should land in CoC, paragraph What is Unacceptable, part Degrading, disrespecting, or insulting another person or group of people, because of their .... I would've put it in it's own line right before Substance and medicinal use. Veganism, vegetarianism and others are not attacked as a theory in a vacuum, but as a part of identity or/and ideology or/and belief system of an individual or a group of people, therefore IMHO it's a given it should be there, in that neighborhood, and therefore become a CoC violation to attack consumption-based identities.
I propose that it'd be open-ended, so with that standard-establishing approach every option is treated as valid, while any intergroup attack would be treated as a CoC violation. This should be later included in the CoC part Authoritarism, ....
I can see how it can be compared to All Lives Matter bullshit, but the whole point of a mod ruleset is to be a generalistic checklist to establish predictable and transparent system of classifiers/markers, so we can easily check modlist entries against it and call PTB if something doesn't check out. Specifics and ambigueties overwhelms such systems
a. Death by thousand cuts approach: systemic and repeated (more than three) light violations result in more serious measures
b. If violating behavior is shared between what is assumed as one person or a conspiring group of persons, it is treated as brigading, and their violations sum up for mods to enact blanket measures, and put up a vote for undoing or keeping them with provided evidence
c. This two clarifications can be further specified by \c\ommunity-specific rules and limitations and employed by local moderators
I tried to formulate this comment as a series of points in an opposition to you, because I didn't feel like I get what exactly you propose, and how mods would act on this. You describe the motivation behind your proposals and what you want to see, but leave it up to our imagination what a dry, lawyer-like entry in the rules you want to be put into actions. I can't vote positively before I can see your vision of a rule, sublimated into a direct instruction you insist all mods should follow. It is not your intent, and I trust you and it is a pretty generic mistake, but what I see in this post is you engaging the crowd in a conversation about common and understandable goals but leaving out your exact plan (you'd be checked against). I want to see the opposite hardwired into every instance of community management and/or voting with consequencies affecting everyone.
I really like this approach and have brought it up with others. We have a warning system btw, I've used it a few times and it would be great for telling people how many times they have done X before more extreme measures are taken. Before you were either PM'd if more info was needed or temp banned.
Hugh, I guess it's cool I haven't seen it in action yet? :D
I and others would be pretty interested to see if there would be something coming from that post of OP although it is in negatives. Would mod team post something detailing that stuff, and if so, where? I'm afraid I may miss that.
The vote is currently at 60% which means the proposal passes. But I cannot in good conscience say this is the will of the broader community and hence will retract the proposal.
Btw ive been meaning to reply to your reply since I saw it but haven't had the brain power to write a thorough response that it deserves.
Basically your proposal was smth I had considered very very strongly.
That sounds like responsible modding and another sign of your and team's effort to keep the ship afloat. I'm glad to be of some help towards that. I hope the new proposal about that itchy topic would easily hit universal approval (:
Against. As many have indicated, I trust our ability and will to implement such a thing far less than I worry about it's misuse, accidental or otherwise.
I do think veganism aligns very well with anarchism and leftist ideology in general, I support having any comms devoted to it and those comms should be free to make the rules they see fit to keep discussions at the level of quality and focus they prefer. And I definitely see folks who go ballistic and hyperbolic on the topic, meaning the meat eaters overreacting badly to being told things they don't like hearing. No dispute about the fraught nature of the topic overall.
But trying to define dialog in terms of scientific vs not, while I understand the point is to narrow what's disallowed and make it actionable, I just don't see it being actually possible to make such judgment calls well on a case by case basis. Just way too nuanced.
So in light of that ~impossibility alone, instance-wide is way, way overstepping. It would be, even were there plenty of evidence of this being an active ongoing and significant problem. But there isn't any that I saw. Solidly in "absolutely not, no way" territory for me.
Hard disagree with "doesn't align with leftist ideology".
I'm saying veganism aligns with anarchist & leftist principles very naturally.
Wow, I use a screen reader and my brain still parsed it as do not. My bad :(
I read your comment as a signal about a specific way I could've written more clearly (and for fuck's sake more succinctly, regardless, but I'll never win that battle against myself - here's why - [jk lol. ya know, kinda]).
The screen reader just makes it more damning, haha.
And anyway I do that shit too. Humans, eh. Cheers.
Hard against from me
Wow.
I know, pretty cool, right?
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.
Thanks I was starting to get really confused. From the bits I was reading from that article that's the impression I was getting.
I must confess that the more I read OP's post the less I understand it
I just posted about that, glad someone else caught it... and honestly I agree with Gelderloos 😂
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.
And what a lot of vegans try to argue is that heterotrophic energy transfer is unnecessary. We can go straight to autotrophic energy transfer while reducing harm as much as practically possible.
But more broadly, this post isn't about forcing one ideal on others.
This post is about combatting anti-science rhetoric and bad faith arguing specifically applied to the vegan discourse just as FAF mods would want to apply the same principles to climate change, vaccination, other conspiracy-led beliefs, etc., and equalizing moderator responses to FAF users that engage these ways. Evidence in the form of scientific consensus is at the forefront of moderator action here, only applied to a vegan context.
Then the policy should be about standards for evidence and how to participate in good faith.
Consensus isn't science, if it were so then we would be still be based on geocentrism. Science is a model that makes falsifiable predictions. If a better model comes along that predicts better you leave the old model behind. A policy that moderates anything against consensus is anti-science by its very nature.
Agreed.
But there can be consensus in science, with the underlying belief that any consensus can and should be challenged according to new evidence.
Social organizations need some source of truth in order to govern their operations. Scientific consensus is the best tool we have for that, so long as the governance also follows the science should the prevailing consensus be scientifically dismantled.
Very much agreed.
The trouble is we are not talking about a organizations guiding philosophy, we are talking about moderating people who don't follow the consensus as 'anti-science'
In my postings here on lemmy focusing on metabolic health I've been called anti-science many times, I hold little faith the nuance you are demonstrating here will apply to a policy over a long enough time horizon.
Humans consuming plant matter constitutes heterotrophy. Until you sprout leaves and start photosynthesizing (no shade to any plant therians) you will always need heterotrophic energy transfer. Keeping animals as pets, or even just letting animals exist requires heterotrophy. Animals eat plants. Plants eat animals. Animals eat other animals. Obligate carnivores would cease to exist if they were prevented from eating other animals. You've created a moral system here that demands the extinction of any heterotroph, including humans. Personally, I'm not a misanthrope, and I also like seeing birds of prey out in the wild.
Yes but there is a difference between first order heterotrophy, where organisms feed off autotrophs directly, and higher order heterotrophy, where organisms feed off other heterotrophs.
Higher order heterotrophy is unnecessary with today's advances in technology.
This is absurd.
This comment is useless. Worse, actually. Make some real points. I'm still forming an opinion on the topic, but man I hate shit like your comment here.
Here you go, pal.
Unless a person is capable of citation of scientific peer-reviewed papers or studies that are proven sources without bias, "anti-scientific" is a subjective term which can be misinterpreted or misused to further the agenda and views of a topic. RFK's leadership and decisions made at HHS is a perfect example of this sort of behavior.
"Anti-_______" is a subjective term for any topic which can be abused by anyone in charge who takes umbrage with the position of the commenter. "Antisemitic" or "Anti-Patriotic" are examples used in our media all the time as means to paint someone as problematic. The accuser uses the term to bend the opinion of others without founding.
There are no officiators other than the moderators of a comm to determine whether either of the above are true. It can be assumed that the mods of a comm are going to have a vested interest in that topic, therefore they will likely be more sensitive to any sort of language that goes against their beliefs, regardless of its validity.
To summarize: This is absurd.
Thanks sincerely, lots more to work with here and I find it valuable. Plus hey, we agree, so that's always nice lol.
As for a pure practical point of view I think it could be really hard to police its correct application and it would give ground to abuse, for instance labeling non non-scientific arguments as such.
As for the intrinsic political tesis. While I do think that industrial meat production might conflict with anarchism. I think there are alternative ways to eat meat that do not conflict anarchist principles. And, AFAIK, veganism does not make exceptions to these alternative practices to consume meat, so I do think that not being vegan does not constitute, by itself, and exclusive argument for being anarchist.
would love to hear from people better informed on the matter than I am @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I was thinking more of addressing trolls overall rather than being unscientific. Yes we have antivegan trolls that try to hide behind being "pro-science", but the problem is that these trolls are trying to disrupt and drive people away. When they tell users you can't prove animals don't want to die, or that it is unhealthy to be vegan, or that you can't prove animals suffer in factory farms, they're going to eat extra meat since vegans were brought up, etc. in any thread mentioning veganism, they aren't being genuine, they are trying to get a rise out of people. When you tell these same trolls "please leave me alone" or "stop replying to me multiple times" or "stop following me" users should expect mods or admins to help, but these users are often ignored or told it's not against the rules because that's not how a disengage works... even though it just looks like harassment of a user IMO. Vegans are told to keep vegan subjects to vegan communities/instances and to block antivegan trolls. Which after a while, just seems like no one cares about moderating trolls. I mean, I was the only one who noticed one of the trolls was moderating our vegan community, how does that happen? Edit: also they keep asking to mod the vegan community again 🫠
I thought about making a post about the trolling behavior overall, but one of the trolls admitted they have 100 alts and have no intention of stopping and that me doing anything about it would lead to me getting recalled so I wanted to take time off before that can of worms exploded. I was told that these trolls probably have ASD, which is weird because my loved ones with autism don't spend every day trolling people with 100 accounts and threatening admins with a recall when told to knock it off. People have fed these trolls, including me, because talking it out doesn't work with trolls. And at the moment, trolling is not explicitly disallowed in our rules. I know because when I argue for different types of trolls to get any type of punishment, it can be an uphill battle.
The behavior of the troll can be applied to more than just being antivegan or unscientific, it's antisocial disruptive trolling. I was thinking of making a meta post about how the instance feels about trolling, the types of trolls they run into that they think are a problem, and such before a governance post as a sort of temp check. I know we have users that like to tell off right-wingers and libs so I don't want it to be considered trolling to tell people to fuck off if someone says some vile shit. But the problem that I see is the trolling and harassment of what should be allies. For instance, if someone told me they just don't want to be vegan, they like meat, they've never had a tasty vegan dish, blah blah, I don't press for a ban because they are not trolling, and may be bad at cooking. Now if they did what I said before, that is trolling trying to get a rise out of people. Some instances take a more pro-vegan approach, which we could do if the users wanted that too, it is a bit of an adjacent subject.
Totally agree. There are some reasonable critiques regarding veganism, but mostly they are just issues with production in a capitalist system.
Nay, against.
While I appreciate the sentiment, it seems too broad for an instance wide rule.
The heart is in the right place, and avoiding meat also helps avoiding eating hearts, but this tries to place upon the wrong hand, a hammer far too heavy and unwieldy with rules and requirements to file the trimmings of conversactional conduct. Soft against for me, willing to renegotiate it if the depth of requirements is lessened and the scope is generalized beyond the specifics of veganism and the "meat problem".
Whereas you are correct, people are stupid and this strategy will have no practical impact.
as an admin, this would help shorten some of our endless debates.
really sorry but i find this really unwieldy and hard to read even though i know all the words. i've put it into goblin tools to hopefully make a good summary:
Goblin Tools Formalizer Make my text More to the point (unwaffle) x2:
I know I’m an outside whose opinion doesn’t matter in the slightest, but this is a very cool post - aside from the uncensored depiction of meat.
youre welcome to be part of the discussion of course!
I mean, I don’t think the proposal goes far enough, but I do think it’s a great first step towards decreasing pro-exploitation arguments.
We have a rule for "no anti-science topics". Maybe that could be expanded to also include "blatant misinformation" or something to cover this sorta issues.
I feel like this rule suggestion is WAY more specific to a singular topic than it needs to be.
yes we're just clarifying what falls within. this wont add a rule to the instance.
Mostly against. Vegans have some good points, but they also have their share of pseudoscience. For example, protein. For many people, plant protein is enough. For anyone who's had bariatric surgery... it's not. So vegans can say plant protein is enough for them. But if they're telling bariatric patients that their care team is lying to them to push a vegan agenda... I think that is as bad as anti-vaxx. I feel like you can sell veganism without lying to someone. Harming someone who actually needs those other proteins because "meat is murder" or whatever is not good for anyone.
I'm all for vegans making their points as long as they aren't harming anyone. I don't disagree with them at all (except for the protein thing, as I have had bariatric surgery (sleeve) and I trust my doctors over some Internet fanatics) but as long as they push misinformation and aren't fighting misinformation in their own camp, I feel like we shouldn't punish people for disagreeing with them. I know you (OP) said that isn't the goal, but that's my knee-jerk reaction to it.
That being said, if your entire profile is about trying to convince people veganism is the only way to go, you're just as relevant to me as someone whose whole profile is about discrediting veganism. I love to cook. If someone were to tell me, "I'm a vegan, what can you do for me?" I'm not going to throw them out. I'm going to ask them what they like and what I absolutely cannot use (I think I know, but I would clarify) and I would take that as a challenge.
If you see vegans doing that, please call them out on it and tell them they're wrong. I'm sorry you had to deal with that.
As a vegan myself, there is a difference between choice and want.
If a person is diagnosed with a medical ailment that limits where they can get adequate nutrition to survive and thrive, then vegans ought to support them in meeting their specific needs for a simple reason - because they are needs. Vegans do not advocate for a world in which our relationship with animals is black and white, where either I die or they do, at least in the context of medical issues. Vegans recognize that the world is complex, and that many people have many good reasons to continue seeking nutritional and medical sustenance from animals. What this also means, however, is that vegans advocate for scientific research into plant-based alternatives for those needs people currently get from animals. In a non-medical context, the most well known example of this is lab-grown meat with the hope that people can transition away from meat extracted from slaughtered animals in favor of a more ethical solution that doesn't involve animal harm, suffering, and death.
But a good reason has to be good. Necessity is one of the primary ideas in which vegans can parse these types of dilemmas. Do I NEED to eat these McDonald's chicken nuggets, or do I have the option to eat vegan chicken-like nuggets from the store? Do I NEED to wear leather boots, or do I have the option to wear vegan leather (i.e. plastic, apple leather, pineapple leather, etc.) boots made by a supplier online? And for people who still, for example, use horses as a means of transport, do I NEED to ride a horse to get to where I'm going, or do I have the option to walk or take some other method of transit? Another example: do I NEED to "own" this exotic animal from the Global South, or do I have the option to live with a domesticated species like dogs that have already adapted to living with humans for millennia?
Many people just don't know that there are better alternatives out there, so part of being a vegan is educating others about these other ways of life. Some people still refuse to recognize the alternatives until they're confronted with the reality of how their favorite products are made (see slaughterhouse workers) or how their bodies might end up if they continue on their current trajectory (see cardiovascular disease). Some people still refuse to change after that. Speaking as a vegan, I think our time is much better used if our main focus as activists and a community is to focus on the first two groups.
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.
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
How can killing be ethical???
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.
they don't need a source to be suspicious of the claim.
If a chicken dies of old age or a fish dies after washing up on a beach, can it not be eaten?
Ahh... there are few things that cynically amuse me quite like the idea that anarchism is advanced by prohibiting things that somebody has taken it upon themselves to declare to be in opposition to it.
The "anti-science nonsense" of today is the "we should of known" or "it was obvious" of tomorrow. At this point "trust le science" is just another tool in the hellscape dystopia we live in.
Is there a different, more free lemmy instance that doesn't censor wrongthink?
Its pretty wild but not unexpected to see one after another lemmy instance self-destruct in a race towards thoughtcrime.
Have to go now. Folks, please please please read the post and not just the title.
i would support this if this wasn't so specific to veganism. i've shrunk it down to the following quote that would hopefully suffice:
i've removed "scientific" since half of the bad-faith discourse i sometimes see on here deals with opinions, and misrepresenting the mainstream view (within a group) is bad whether in academia or not
(also, obviously, i don't intend to have this conflict with gRule #8... so "should not target viewpoints in the abstract" could also be amended to somehow prevent conflicting with such rules)
Idk how to vote, but I agree with this.
As a vegan, I agree with this post.
I don't want FAF forums to become echo chambers. I want there to be safe spaces where people from all backgrounds can come together and talk about veganism in healthy, positive ways with the latest science and philosophical/moral frameworks.
Spaces where discussions surrounding veganism instantly get derailed into name-calling, trolling, strawmanning, threatening by community banning, etc. are not helpful for anyone.
Aligning moderator action here is great. The more we can institutionalize rules of moderation (and make them transparent for all to see), the better moderation teams can do the good work of the Fediverse as well as onboard/offboard individuals over time.
Yes. All for it.
Edit: After reading the comments I never knew dbzer0 had so many chuds. Disappointed in this instance rn.
I fear it was my provocative post title and long post that was the issue lol.
I think the content and potential direction for future suppression of discourse are way more alarming than the length of post.
I think your heart is in the right place and you seem passionate about this but I and many others are very alarmed at this as being a slippery slope because it objectively is.
Moderation like this proposal is much more appropriate at a community level instead of instance wide. It feels like government overreach imo
lmao anti veganism is the correct course, veganism is worse on the whole than eating meat.
farms produce a fraction of a percent the pollution that private jets, and billionaire assets produce; not even mentioning the shit that AI data centres use.
Yeah this shit needs to be banned. These sorts of comments are beyond ridiculous.
cowards. suppressing dissenting opinions is just what r*ddit mods do, you've disgraced yourselves.
You're not expressing a dissenting opinion, you're just being an asshole.
You didn't read anything about the actual post. This is a knee trigger response, and one that OP wants to actively combat per their reasons in the post.
The issue isn't banning anti-veganist beliefs. The issue is regarding treatment by anti-vegans of vegans in the ways conversations about veganism are held. There are trolls, dogmatists, and bad actors on FAF instances and across the Fediverse that seek to stonewall any discussion about veganism.
This post is the opposite of that: promoting safe spaces where scientific discussion in good faith is allowed to flourish so anti-vegan, vegans, and others can be better educated about the science at hand and the ideology more broadly.
You're absolutely right!
however, a valid counterpoint, is that this is the internet, and therefore, shitposting is always an effective means of communication.
MEMES, THE DNA OF THE SOUL!!!!
ah so this is exactly the whataboutism i talk of.
good bot.