Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from [email protected] for being fake vegans.
From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.
PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don’t want to insult anyone here being a ‘bastard’. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.
PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they’re unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
Linking the affected users and mods: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Veganism isn’t a diet, it is a social justice movement for animal rights.
It’s both!
No,since veganism impacts way more than diet. Diet is only one part of it.
It can be. I know a lot of the loudest vegans insist this is the only acceptable definition. But that’s not how language works. A vegan is someone who abstains from all animal food products, and usually all/most other animal products. Their reason for doing so is not an essential part of the definition.
This is the kind of nonsense we have to deal with.
Not quite sure what you mean, sorry.
Carnists having a good ol’ game of “muddy the waters, then play coy”.
Oh, my comment was the alleged nonsense? In that case I disagree strenuously. The nonsense is one quite extremist vegan using their powers to silence other vegans from having respectful conversation.
Promoting animal products isn’t abstaining from animal products.
Being against the exploitation of animals is the main thing that sets vegans apart from the plant-based folks.
Veganism is abstaining from animal products. The reason is immaterial. Repeatedly asserting the contrary doesn’t change that fact.
So you’re just going to ignore a part of the definition because it doesn’t suit your argument.
I’ve explained the definition here already. The definition given by one vegan organisation is not authoritative. Because definitions are defined by how words are used, not by how individual organisations say they should be used. I’m not going to keep repeating myself on this point. Catch up on the thread next time before responding.
The British vegan society was founded by the man Donald Watson as he coined the vegan word with his friends. Its not just “one vegan organization”
You’re not vegan so you do not get to speak so authoritatively on the topic.
Already covered elsewhere in the thread. Read the thread before commenting out of ignorance and making yourself look like a fool.
You are simply not correct and there isn’t much more to discuss. There is an actual agreed on definition of veganism by vegans, created by the vegan society who created veganism and coined the term vegan to describe themselves. They created the word vegan for this specific reason, it didn’t exist before and you can’t redefine it because you don’t like it. The reason for doing so is absolutely an essential part of the definition. If they are not doing it for this reason then they are plant based and not vegan.
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
Sorry, but that is just not how language works. One group does not get to define a term and insist everyone else uses it in the precise way they do. Words’ meanings are defined by how they are used. And the term vegan is used in the way I described all the time.
A word’s meaning can also change over time. Even if you were correct that the term was coined to be an ethical standpoint, that would not preclude it later evolving to have the broader meaning it does in today’s society. That would be the etymological fallacy. But in fact you are not correct about that either. The term was coined by Donald Watson and Dorothy Morgan, because they wanted a more concise term for non-dairy vegetarians. The first time the term had caught on in the wider public enough to make it into a dictionary, the agreed meaning of vegan was “a vegetarian who eats no butter, eggs, cheese, or milk”. You can thus talk about ethical veganism (which seems to be the only subtype of veganism your definition would accept), environmental veganism, or dietary veganism.
I made exactly the same point to the university when I wanted to open a quantum research lab studying really big distances (see quantum leap) but they said it would be confusing and stupid to accept ignorant people’s definition of technical terms.
If you don’t know the difference between a scientific term in scientific research and a casual term used informally, I don’t know how to help you. But I suspect in this case, rather than ignorant, you are acting in bad faith.
But anyway, I don’t view the casual meaning of quantum leap as being that different from its scientific meaning anyway. Quantum leap in physics doesn’t mean “really small leap”, it means a leap that is very sudden and does not pass through any point in between. It seems quite reasonable, by analogy, to use it to refer to any paradigm shift.
blah blah blah, I am dumber for having heard from you
Hey look it’s the problem
Whoof, the projection is strong with this one lol.
Dude, we really don’t care. Could you please go back to [email protected] and yell at clouds there instead?
Edited
Not really. It is a diet and a lifestyle based on abstaining from animal products.