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]
I’m not undoing the bans as the comments literally go against the definition of veganism ie no animal products for the reason of ethics, serving meat options in an establishment isn’t even vegetarian let alone vegan. Words are supposed to have meaning or language is completely pointless.
The foods that are vegan and plant-based have zero animal products. It is not up for debate.
You’re welcome to post and comment in flexitarian communities instead.
You do realise that plants get pollinated by animals, right?
And…? They’re not being used by humans. They do it out of their free will in the wild.
You’re gasping at straws.
That’s like bees and honey, yes? Do you eat honey? Eggs?
I don’t eat those. You have to imprison and exploit chickens and bees for those 2 things. Pollination is no way comparable.
Veganic farms don’t use bees and if they’re there it’s because they’re interested in some flowers or scent.
That’s hilarious, especially when referring to bees
Pollination is not comparable to honey production? Oh boy, I may have a news for you.
Yup, just like anywhere else. Chickens are interested in being fed and have a night time shelter where they be safe.
Great now you’re grasping at straws. Arguing in bad faith.
Bees aren’t murdered or starved for pollination that’s what happens under honey production by bee enslavers.
Laying eggs is a painful experience for hens and people who sell their eggs prioritize the production output over the living environment for the chickens.
That’s what you are doing with your argument that pollination by bees is somehow different.
🤣🤣🤣
How do you know that, exactly? Any evidence?
And yet I somehow don’t see plenty of free roaming chickens living around. Have you ever considered why?
Thanks for taking the time to comment here.
From my perspective, that’s a classical strawman. No one said that food with animal products is vegan or that a restaurant that serves animal products should be considered a vegan restaurant.
I just prefer a restaurant that still serves a large number of vegan options over the average omnivore restaurant that has no or just very few vegan options. That’s better for me personally but IMO also for the vegan movement as a whole as it eases access to vegan food for everyone.
I went fully vegan 3 years ago - I don’t think it’s fair to call me or others fake vegans or flexitarians just because we have a slightly different opinion on a certain topic.
I would trip over your description “a vegan restaurant that serves a bit of meat” as well, because it doesn’t make sense to call it “vegan” then.
I can understand why someone would want to prevent the term “vegan” from being watered down.
If a supposedly vegan restaurant suddenly offers non-vegan dishes, this carries more weight for vegans than if some other restaurant tinkers with its menu.
You may have already advertised the “vegan” restaurant in good faith and now they’re stabbing you in the back.
The change also shows that the owners themselves are not vegan. And then, of course, you question everything: were the ingredients ever properly screened? What about the wine? Were the chairs covered in leather? Were the candles made from beeswax?
Just imagine a “vegan” restaurant that has an advertising banner for the elephant circus hanging on the door. Outrage would be justified. But they even put fucking meat on the menu.
“Vegan” is a statement. People should not tag it on their business if they’re merely coicidentally plant-based and don’t actually care for animal rights.
It would certainly have been more conciliatory for everyone if the mods had made it clear in the thread why they were upset about the comments. On the other hand, I can also understand if they were not in the mood for the hundredth discussion and would rather take the “easier” route and delete the comment. But I also think it’s excessive to justify it with “fake vegan”. You’re vegan if you leave your hands off the animals. Semantic considerations are not necessary.
That being said, it’s wonderful that you’re both vegan and that the topic is obviously important to you. Don’t let a loose string on the jointly pulled rope divide you. We have more important battles to fight.
Vegan btw
I was almost certain that I wrote ‘mostly vegan restaurant’ or something similar. Indeed, my wording wasn’t ideal.
That’s very good arguments that I can get behind and which I would have been very happy to hear in the original discussion. With such an explanation I can understand one’s reaction much better. From my perspective, that’s exactly the kind of discourse that I seek when I write to a vegan community.
Different people have different opinions and not in all cases the one side will succeed to convince the other. But still we should at least try to explain our stand point and likewise try to understand others.
With posts like yours, you have a chance to bring change to the world. If you just ban and censor your opponents, you just keep on dividing society.
Serious question, not meant to be antagonistic. I’m honestly just curious.
Is the purpose of your community to simply be an echo chamber of similar opinions? Is debate not allowed, or having a different opinion?
I will never visit that community, but this seems like a wild abuse of mod powers. You do whatever you want, I don’t care and have no skin in the game, but don’t you want to foster discussion on your community? An echo chamber with other vegans doesn’t seem conducive to achieving anything, other than maybe a feels good circlejerk. The downvote button exists if you have a different opinion. A straight ban for not toeing the line seems like further isolating your view points from the greater Lemmy community, as well as entrenches the view point a lot of people have that vegans are hostile to non-vegans.
Calling other vegans fake vegans and banning them tho is whack as fuck but pretty hilarious
When I go to a vegan community, I don’t want to debate with carnists. I would consider that trolling. There are other places meant for debating. Vegan communities are basically safe spaces to talk with other vegans and people that want to be vegan.
Too many carnists troll the vegan communities, they created this problem. I first joined lemmy during the reddit exodus on a .world account. The vegan community at that point was poorly moderated and most of the comments were carnists circle jerking about how eating meat is so great to them. Finally, active people took over and it became so much better to actually browse that community once these trolls were banned. This behavior is nothing new btw, I’ve seen assholes on reddit and facebook do the same to vegan spaces. You’ll notice I’m no longer on .world, I disagree with their modding practices and lately I feel even more justified in leaving that cesspool.
I want vegan news, vegan recipes, and vegan discussion. I do not want carnists coming in, at all. People can come in asking genuine questions about veganism, but no debating whatsoever. I do not mod any of these communities btw, but this is what I want as a user.
It seems hostile to you because you have not had to deal with the constant carnist trolls. People who complain vegans are militant or hostile is a red flag for me, it really means that vegans are too unapologetic about their veganism instead of being passive people who don’t rock the boat or question the status quo. These people are defensive about vegans pointing out that they are consuming products made from abuse, rape, and murder. They want to be treated with kiddie gloves. Sorry, but no vegan is obligated to do so.
Thanks for the honest reply. I guess a couple thoughts I have on your response.
The screenshot in question was a vegan banning other vegans for not being vegan enough, so this didn’t seem like carnist trolls, this seems like multiple people integrated within the vegan community getting banned for having a slightly different opinion.
Is carnists a real term? I don’t think I have ever heard of someone who eats exclusively meat, unless this term is meant a different way
Anyway, sorry about the trolling you experience. I am personally not vegan, though I find the endeavor admirable. I think a lot of Lemmy and social media, and social circles in general need to practice a bit of “live and let live”
Hope the late reply is fine, I had a trip that wiped me out.
yes, the mod is being protective of the community. To you it is a slightly different opinion, to someone who follows a vegan lifestyle, it is not really vegan. Like at all. Vegans want to eliminate meat altogether. So if you eliminate meat by having a vegan restaurant, but then bring meat in, it is not vegan anymore. Idk what I would have done as a mod. Wanting meat at a restaurant is not vegan even if you are just trying to attract more customers so you do not close down. It might make more sense if you replace the word “meat” with “abuse, rape, and murder.” Would you accept a little murder, even killing children to stay in business? I get it is hard to get a non-vegan to try vegan food, I’ve written before about how my SO basically refuses to try vegan food even if it is my birthday. My SO also likes to bring up how stupid and extreme my veganism is to them, way too often. I now understand why vegans prefer dating other vegans.
carnists is a real term. It is:
“A proponent of carnism; one who supports the practice of eating meat and using other animal products.”
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/carnist
It is the opposite of veganism. They are essentially anti-vegan. They like to go in vegan areas and debate with everyone to try to justify their consumption of meat. It makes them feel good to troll us.
And yes there are people who try to eat nothing but meat, it is called a carnivore diet. I have a family member who is on the diet, they pretty much only want to eat steak. There is a new community on lemmy about it, I blocked it obviously. The mod of said community was whining about their stuff getting downvoted in their community on a different lemmy community. Judging by the amount of people (including admins) who hate vegans on lemmy.world, I thought their community would be very successful.
I get the whole “live and let live” thing about a difference in opinion on who the best character on a show you are watching is. But when it involves actual lives, I think it’s time to speak up. Vegans are annoying because they want people to stop killing animals for consumption and people would rather vegans just shut up and go away so they can enjoy their meat without thinking about where it came from, that’s it. Talk about veganism outside of a vegan community and be prepared to get ratioed.
that is not what carnist means
A carnist is the opposite to a vegan, the opposing side. If you support the use and consumption of animal products, you are a carnist. If you are vegan, I am interested in how you define carnism. If you are not vegan, I am not interested in how you define it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
EDIT: this person is not a vegan and is actually a carnist wasting people’s time
it’s not antivegan, and no lexicon, encyclopedic or scholarly article would support the assertion it is. it’s not about how I define it: it’s about how it is defined in reputable sources.
Right. So you are nitpicking the “anti” vs “pro” language commonly used in reference to concepts, principles, policies, ideologies, etc. Got it. I think this convo is going nowhere and ask you disengage.