Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from !vegan@lemmy.world 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: @Cypher@lemmy.world @gaael@lemmy.world @gredo@lemmy.world @iiGxC@slrpnk.net @veganpizza69@lemmy.world @veganpizza69@lemmy.vg @jerkface@lemmy.ca @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world @Sunshine@lemmy.ca @Aqua@lemmy.vg
Is Sunshine Beaver’s alt? If so then yeah i could understand why this happen.
I was thinking exactly that, she is certainly behaving very similarly to how Beaver did back in the day and is absolutely power-tripping now. If banning people who criticize the mod’s posts in any way is power-tripping, then accusing people of being fake vegans for disagreeing is absolutely power tripping.
I don’t know about this and I also don’t know if she is the one who deleted the comments and triggered the bans. In general, I appreciate her content. She is posting lots of interesting articles (not only in the vegan community) and I guess Lemmy needs people like her providing content to debate about.
Just if debate is not desireable, then I don’t think it makes sense to post it to a social platform. Social platforms without interaction and different opinions are just dead link lists. Then I can also just set up a RSS reader on the news sites I’d like to follow.
No dispute here, i’m just saying this sorta remind me of the controversy beaver kick off 4 months ago in the vegan community, behaviour-wise it’s very similar.
I (a vegan) got banned from there for finding the love of cows cloying. I said we shouldn’t have to pretend cows are cute to convince others not to kill and eat them.
It really isn’t a place for even back and forth amongst friends, “no conversation - only agreement”
PTB. vegans deserve better representation in their leaders than this i hope we can get an alternative community that can allow discussion without weird purity purges.
This is super weird to me. Back on the Asian ass porn site known as Reddit I could just go into vegan subs and have casual conversations about recipes and cooking techniques. It didn’t matter that I eat meat.
After the API kerfuffle we all celebrated how friendly the internet can be and now you get preemptively banned because you COULD be a bad actor in disguise.
To a point I understand the frustration vegans have to live with. The constant childish trolling can be exhausting, but this is pretty much the worst way to handle this.
Generally very radical vegans also have a right to their own community, however I also think there should be spaces for less radical veganism as well. It seems that currently there’s none of those available, or maybe the general hostility of social media against vegans makes any of their more tolerant spaces eventually close ranks to protect their sanity. Unfortunately vegan spaces are constantly brigaded by trolls so it’s understandable they have a very short fuse, and a lot of people get caught in the cross-fire.
I think the only solution here would be for a new vegan community with a focus on debate with non-vegans. However it will be tricky to find the right moderators for it who either won’t be non-vegans themselves and therefore support a flood of concern-trolls and bad faith arguments, or be vegans that won’t get immediately burnt out.
So, last time people were mad that vegans were mean to them this community got created:
https://lemmy.world/c/plantbased
Edit: I should finish my coffee before posting, the only post there literally points to this more active com lol: https://lemmy.world/c/plantbased@lemmy.dbzer0.com
See: https://lemmy.world/post/23634881
We all know r/vegan exists and is a cesspit of carnists, but there doesn’t seem to be an actual demand for a ‘plant based’ space. I’m not sure why people would post about something they are kind of meh and not committed to?
If people are interested in just the food, there are communities for that:
I really don’t think the rules there are onerous. Just don’t talk about abusing animals and don’t be a jerk to the other posters and you’re good?
Hey, I didn’t make plantbased to be a less committed version to veganism. I made it because from reddit to lemmy every vegan community I’ve encountered has power tripping toxic mods and I wanted to provide an alternative space.
I’m fully committed to my veganism. But I also wanted people who aren’t to be able to discuss it without being attacked.
After I wrote this I see you’re writing from a vegan instance. I have less experience with there versus vegan communities around here.
The hardcore/toxic crowd do nothing except alienate and turn people against the cause and make people think being vegan means being surrounded by assholes.
It’s people like you that welcome everyone into the discussion that inspire more people to try it out; you’re bringing about the real change.
Lol, every vegan I know which includes a chunk of my own family went vegan because of militant vegans.
I see lots of carnists with no intention of going vegan talk about how militant vegans are bad but I have never actually met someone who is vegan and stays vegan that found wishy washy people motivating or inspiring.
You can be committed and firm on your issue without being a raging asshole about it at the same time. Most of the vegan communities I’ve come across don’t even talk about being vegan, it’s just finding more ways to shit on non vegans.
I’m apparently banned from vegan theory club. I have no idea what I could have done to them.
Lemmy world is a blocked instance on vegan theory club. @Arcanepotato@vegantheoryclub.org won’t be able to see your comment.
Lol found out here that I had been banned from the community. Ty for sharing the information :)
Regarding the matter, I understand their reaction.
I’ve been interacting with some vegan circles IRL and some are more “hardcore” (not in a negative way) than others. When you consider animal exploitation as mass slavery, mass torture and mass murder, it becomes increasingly difficult to tolerate even light deviations from the all-vegan path.This being said, I would have preferred they had a better wording for the temp ban reason than “fake vegan” by which I feel insulted and hurt.
The “all or nothing” crowd really knows how to stomp on progress, huh?
Lol, I got my vegan card revoked (declared “a carnist”) and handed my first fedi ban by the “Real Vegans™” too, for daring to call out their bullshit and ableist militant gatekeeping.
Good luck to them and the toxic cesspit they’re so adamant on maintaining, the last thing anyone should be seeking is these people’s approval, especially not on being a “good” or “real” vegan, since they make it crystal clear that their top priority is and always will be their own egos. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Another day, another
dietvegan/carnivore dramaVeganism isn’t a diet, it is a social justice movement for animal rights.
It’s both!
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.
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.”
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
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.
Promoting animal products isn’t abstaining from animal products.
“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.”
all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food
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.
Looks like the vegan admin has an aggression problem. Maybe he or she should at least occasionally eat some meat to calm the cravings.
Edit: /s, for the idiots who did not get it. Wow, are some people stuck up. Do they have the same problems that the admin had?
Shit like this is why I went back to eating eggs and dairy.
Also my (still vegan) wife took in a bunch of chickens.
Damn the dairy industry is the worst for the world too. Wouldn’t you say your morals are pretty flimsy if you’ll give up on em to avoid looking cringey?
No, I asked myself why am I spending more money to the same conglomerates to receive a shittier product.
It’s “easy” to be a modern vegan…if you give half your food budget to Monsanto and Kellogs.
Being an ethical vegan is damn near impossible in the modern grocery market. Especially if you have a life outside being a vegan.
So I can pay top dollar for some shit cheese that barely melts, made by some giant food corp…for what? To feel better about protecting the environment? Why? So that more hicks in Texas can roll coal to their nearest buccees to buy a liter of diet coke in a Styrofoam cup?
Fuck it. The world’s going down in a hand basket anyway. If nobody else is gonna change them I’m not gonna disadvantage myself financially before the coming collapse by eating inferior ice cream.
This is an Appeal to Futility fallacy, which can render any argument immobile. “Why vote, it doesn’t matter anyway”. “Why help the needy, my contribution won’t fix the problem”. “Why continue living, we’re just gonna die anyway”.
If everyone thinks along your lines, society and the world basically just falls to bits. If the world suddenly adopted my view, climate change is basically solved, the risk of zoonotic diseases (COVID, bird flu, swine flu etc) basically stops, the risk of treatment resistant antibiotics hugely drops, conscious feeling creatures aren’t tortured and killed for pleasure.
The worst Monsanto vegies are absolutely more ethical than the best meat, for the planet, for your health and for the animal.
