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:

1. https://anarchist.nexus/c/vegan(!vegan@anarchist.nexus)
2. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@slrpnk.net (!vegan@slrpnk.net)
3. 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

Wow.

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

If it's forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on "settled topics" - that is anti-science.

You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed.
While the idea is that certain patterns of reasoning and engagement are disallowed.

This is also why it isnt proposed as a user facing rule but as an internal alignment principle.

Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically.

straight from the post, this was actively smth i was thinking about.

There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.

Also, open inquiry is necessary for challenging systems of domination. But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo.
That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.

Proposal: Treating Anti-Vegan Discourse as Anti-Scientific

You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed.

From the post title it strongly implies that any discussion or conclusion that doesn't align with pro-vegan tenants would be banned as anti-scientific. i.e. If I have a paper that demonstrates a egg a day in developing children in areas with strong economic vegetarianism shows a massive impact in cognitive development. (this paper https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.4.1119) wouldn't this be against this policy proposal? Remember the policy is framed as anti-vegan discourse, anything that demonstrates meat as a benefit could be seen as "anti-vegan".

But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo. That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.

Can you honestly say my communities don't run afoul of your proposal?

There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.

Then the framing of this rule should be about standards of evidence for any discussion, not only around a single topic where you bake in the allowed outcome in the rule.

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 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.

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 know, pretty cool, right?

would love to hear from people better informed on the matter than I am @Sunshine@anarchist.nexus @YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com @thisfro@slrpnk.net

The intent is not to prohibit disagreement with veganism as such

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

formal position: against.

ah so this is exactly the whataboutism i talk of.

Against.

Have to go now. Folks, please please please read the post and not just the title.

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.

Votes are tallied by simple up/down votes, not comments

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.

Yes. All for it.

Edit: After reading the comments I never knew dbzer0 had so many chuds. Disappointed in this instance rn.

What kind of child calls themselves a carnivore?

lmao anti veganism is the correct course, veganism is worse on the whole than eating meat.

Yeah this shit needs to be banned. These sorts of comments are beyond ridiculous.

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 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.

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.

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.

Nay, moderation is not your personal crusade, go mod one of the vegan instances if you want to evangelize.

I’m not going to debatebro a carnist.

@SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com

How does this type of discussion fit into your moderation model?

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.

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.