I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on [email protected] to thank someone for a recipe that looked good, and found out I had been banned.

Odd, considering I hadn't posted to that sub at any point in the past. I checked the modlog to find that "Mod" had banned a bunch of people citing "Rule 5."

Their Rule 5 states: Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).

I (and hundreds of others) seemingly broke rule 5 of this community without ever posting there. What is going on?

And my apologies if this isn't the place for this, but I had no idea where else to post the question.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

For full clarity of what occurred (and not that my diet is any of your concern, but since you brought it up):

I am not vegan, but have been greatly reducing my meat intake and have been toying with going vegetarian.
I was kicked from a vegan Community I have never posted in and was about to do for the first time to thank someone for something I found interesting.
I do not know why I was kicked from a vegan Community. The reason was cited as a rule that I did not violate. I found hundreds of other bans while looking for why I was banned.
I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome. This should be irrelevant to what occurred with these bans.
I did all discussion in a single thread specifically created to discuss veganism in a discussion Community on a completely different instance.
The Strawman comment is you claiming I'm somehow screaming "1984" because of the ban. I am not.
You are being needlessly combative and creating arguments based on assumption. That is the definition of a strawman.
My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

Is that enough for you to parse what has occurred, or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome.

The ~~lie detector~~ search function determined that was a lie.

If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? That’s not a logical jump to make. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the smarter jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product.

If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering? Nope. You’re just making substitutions for things you’re comfortable with. Bad logic. Bad argument. You’re also applying your own morals (because this is a moral standpoint) to other people, which is stupid no matter who is doing it. From anti-abortion activists to Muslim extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world.

If you want to be vegan because it eliminates death? That’s also a moral argument. In fact, in the short term and per unit of death, being vegan adds MORE deaths, they’re just not a style you choose to recognize. Not to mention that increasing the crop yields to make up for the caloric deficit created by meat vanishing would also potentially kill the planet at this stage of human occupation. Crops that are easy to grow, less destructive to the land so they can grow it again immediately after, low maintenance, and cast-offs from other production are where animal feed comes from. This stuff could not be fed to humans or are excess.

Those certainly look like arguments against veganism to me! What would you call them?

The Strawman comment is you claiming I’m somehow screaming “1984” because of the ban. I am not.

That's not a "strawman," it's a parody.

My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

~~The lie detector~~ My ability to read the rest of this thread determined that was a lie.

Perhaps you guys could/should elevate this issue to the lemmy.world admin team.

That was kind of what I was attempting to do here.

So you're attempting to escalate the issue to the admins... but not because you're upset or anything. Right. In that case, why are you trying to waste their time?

All the rest of your points are completely irrelevant and I don't care about them at all.

[–] Ceedoestrees -3 points 2 months ago (7 children)

What a great ride. I started this thread thinking Objection was being a dick, but OP bringing up logical fallacies in an internet argument is usually a red flag signalling a nugget head.

Jumping into a vegan space to argue someone isn't being vegan for the right reasons? While I don't think it's permanent-ban worthy it's annoying as fuck.

I'm not even vegan and that looked like some bullshit to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

But I didn't go into a vegan space, nor did I mention logical fallacies.

The thread they brought up was from a memes Community. The person I was posting against at the time was PMing people and telling them to kill themselves.

[–] Ceedoestrees 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oops you're right. I did not correctly check the sub. I stand by the rest. Arguing logical fallacies against someone's diet choices is a dick move and is still arguing against veganism.

I can't verify if they were telling people to kill themselves or what that has to do with their reasons for eating plants. If I made death threats online, which no one should do and is a faux pas, I should still be able to use factory farming as a reason for avoiding meat.

Again, don't think it's ban worthy. I'm in the peanut gallery over here just having a good time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I also wasn't arguing against their dietary choices. I was showing that their arguments could be turned back on themselves because they were spurious at best.

Before I replied, the now-deleted user was stating that there was no reason to eat meat unless you're a psychopath and love murder and was threatening suicide, violence to others, and other such garbage throughout the thread, then followed it up with a stream of PMs to a bunch of users including myself with some... not great / illegal content (we'll say).

My response was purely a "let's look at your statements, but in good faith" exercise.

Put simply, they started attacking food choices first and I called them on it. I'm okay with what I said.

[–] Ceedoestrees 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You know what? Even with missing the content, I think your statement is fair. I've got a sore spot for using fallacies and disagree with your arguments against the reasons for a vegan diet, but you seem genuine in your motives. I apologize for calling you a nugget head.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I legitimately appreciate that.

As an aside, it's odd how much was purged from this thread. Not just deleted, but straight up purged so it doesn't show in the modlogs. I don't think I've seen that done on my instance outside of the illegal stuff. Is that normal here on .world?

[–] Ceedoestrees 1 points 2 months ago

I don't read comments often enough to know what's normal. The only good reason I can think of is anti-bot/anti-spam measures and even then it's a bit strange. How do you know they were purged?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)