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 think "bringing things up to antagonize even after being told these things are antagonistic" is a good standard.

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

I just posted about that, glad someone else caught it... and honestly I agree with Gelderloos 😂

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:

Treat recurring anti-vegan rhetoric that mirrors science denial, like antivax claims, as systemic opposition to harm. Disagreement is allowed, but persistent misrepresentation, distortion, or undermining of evidence should be addressed. Such rhetoric often features contrarian skepticism—dismissing scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions—which aligns with science denial.

Anti-vegan arguments often defend industrial systems of exploitation—of animals, workers, and the environment—and hinder efforts to challenge these harms. Like antivax rhetoric, they erode trust and fragment collective action, perpetuating power structures.

A key tactic is whataboutism—diverting from core issues—which impedes meaningful debate. Moderation should focus on patterns that distort evidence or engage in bad-faith tactics, not on personal disagreements. Permitting defending harmful systems conflicts with anarchist goals of opposing coercion and injustice.

Enforcement involves guidelines to remove content that displays these patterns; repeated offenders may face sanctions. Genuine critique remains valid. The aim is consistent moderation of behaviors that contribute to systemic harm.

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:

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 [...] 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

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)

Hard no. This should be left up to each community and their mods.

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.

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".

cowards. suppressing dissenting opinions is just what r*ddit mods do, you've disgraced yourselves.

And what a lot of vegans try to argue is that heterotrophic energy transfer is unnecessary.

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.

Against, this is veering into heavy speech policing which heavily goes against the spirit of the instance.

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.

Humans consuming plant matter constitutes heterotrophy

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.

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

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.

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.

Nay, against.

While I appreciate the sentiment, it seems too broad for an instance wide rule.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have removed anti-vaxxer crap before but that issue doesn't come up that often in reports, nowadays.

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?

Good point, lol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're not expressing a dissenting opinion, you're just being an asshole.

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.