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.

Against.

• The proposal blurs the line between being pro-science and pro-ideology, which is contradictory.
• The proposal expects moderators to be experts on the current scientific understanding of nutrition to be fair. Even worse, it expects common users to be the same, or they have to fear the risk of being silenced, creating a chilling effect.
• The grievances regarding anti-scientific discourse are well covered by rules already in place.

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.

Here you go, pal.

1. 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.

2. "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.

3. 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.

Idk how to vote, but I agree with this.

Seems odd to specify misinformation pertaining to veganism, but not anti science misinformation in general.

Either way, I'm against regulating conversation topics.

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.

comparing Palestinians to animals is bad

Thanks sincerely, lots more to work with here and I find it valuable. Plus hey, we agree, so that's always nice lol.

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.

I fear it was my provocative post title and long post that was the issue lol.

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.

I fail to see the pertinence of most art in this post, but it is lovely; thank you very much for that.

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.

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.

that is precisely the plan, the boogeyman you see in the comments does not exist.

We have a rule for “no anti-science topics”

yes we're just clarifying what falls within. this wont add a rule to the instance.

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 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.

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.

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!!!!

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'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.

the Holocaust was wrong (partially) precisely because it treated humans like animals.

And what if I was comparing Palestinians to animals?

bad look

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slippery slope

But if they're telling bariatric patients that their care team is lying to them to push a vegan agenda...

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.

Sure thing! Here you go: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68390626

I would not ban you or your carnivore community. I may be wrong (and honestly don't feel like scrutinizing your history rn), but you don't troll. We will never agree on veganism and your advocation of eating mostly meat, I am a moral/ethical vegan first and the rest of it is a bonus. While there were some seriously questionable things that got c/carnivore banned from .world, the problematic mod is gone afaik and I already have your communities blocked (as a user). We would be able to ban people who intentionally antagonize and troll vegans, and that would be a bonus for anyone tired of the hostility. Do you go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here. If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.

go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here.

That is a problem. my issue is the proposal as written doesn't address that but is very broad in quashing discussion in any place on topics that don't align with a philosophical outcome.

If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.

This is how I see the proposal as written in the post as actually functioning.

one has nothing to do with the other

the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminated jew and other "undesirables". no one is trying to exterminate livestock

Is slitting the throat of a cow or pig and different than doing the same to humans

yes.

This sounds ideological, and food studies are so difficult to do correctly I trust none of them.

Hard disagree.

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.

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.