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
Why is this a simple majority vote?
- 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
(by which you self-evidently mean “people stupider than me or you”)
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.
but that it’s ultimately up to them and not you to decide if that’s what they’re going to do or not.
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.
I find your framing distasteful.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason
according to the proposal, that is what is happening right now, but not in veganism discussions:
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.
I don’t understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.
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
If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason
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.
I don’t understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.
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.
It has data to back up it’s philosophy, but it’s not a science.
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.
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.
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, moderation is not your personal crusade, go mod one of the vegan instances if you want to evangelize.
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.
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.
anarchism =/= free speech.
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.
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.
Hard no. This should be left up to each community and their mods.
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.
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
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
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.
-
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.
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.
