I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on !vegan@lemmy.world 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.
Pretty sure i heard they are banning people based on the downvotes/ upvotes. If you downvote a vegan or upvote a non- vegan then you get banhammered.
That community is a joke though and i refuse to participate (as a vegan).
That’s the most fragile thing I have ever heard of.
Why the fuck is Lemmy making votes visable to moderators? This is RIPE for corruption and abuse. Secret ballot is the only way voting works!
Votes are not specifically visible to moderators. Instance admins can see them through the database and everyone can see them through other federated platforms besides Lemmy.
They’re visible to anyone with a lemmy instance, or any activitypub compatible platform. It’s likely that she set one up to monitor the votes on the community and ban anyone she saw down-voting her, and yes that is very much a thing that power-hungry losers do.
I think they’re trying to damage the vegan brand by being as excluding as possible.
I don’t mind vegans, I really dislike this type of treachery giving any group a bad name.
I would definitely agree with that conclusion, and unfortunately it does work, many people think of the angry vegan stereotype when someone talks about veganism, and that’s because of assholes like her. She would say that it’s because of the meat industry and alt-right think tanks, which is true but they also do feed off the bad examples people like her give and go “see we’re not lying”.
If she wanted to be helpful or benefit that community she wouldn’t intentionally behave in the exact way that people criticize the community for acting, she should shun that behavior and banish people who do it. That’s the only way to bring about positive change.
For a community that just tries to exist peacefully and gets brigaded by “jerks” all the time, they sure are weirdly fixated on becoming the centre of attention every single week.
You should not feed the troll, but it’s too fascinating not to look at it. Like a pack of chimpanzees flinging their doodoo at the glass walls.
They could make the community private. They could keep rabbits as pets. They have made veganism their entire identity, a pseude-religion, and they have a pathological need for validation. Anyone who questions their absolute moral superiority challenges that identity so they seal themselves up in a hermetically sealed, idea tight echo bunker where only supportive ideas are allowed and only validating up votes are tolerated.
They, of course, feel quite free to spread their extremism to discussions outside of the echo bunker, they just don’t tolerate other ideas in the echo bunker.
You can tell this is a good faith criticism by how it simultaneously criticizes them for not making the community private and for being an “echo bunker.”
I didn’t criticize them for not taking the community private. I simply pointed out that they could completely seal the echo bunker by taking the community private. I also pointed out that they could keep vegetarian pets and feed them a vegan diet without anyone criticising them for trying to feed a vegan diet to a carnivore.
Fair warning: The account you’re arguing with is a troll account who bad-faith argues with everyone, as evidenced by their post history - they often simply have their posts deleted by mods. It’s best to block and move on.
As much as I hate echo chamber-ing, when it comes to trolls, it is occasionally required.
Wait, vegans have animal prisoners? Like in cages and leashes, and glass prisons?!?!?!?
Real coherent .
I think it’s an expression of ego. They are absolutely convinced of their moroal superiority and are frustrated by the fact that they haven’t been able to insult, harass, bully, shame, and threathen everyone into joining their quasi-religion so they’re going to prove to themselves that they are right by keeping a captive carnivore and forcing it to eat a vegan diet. They justify this by self-absolving. Self-absolution is one of the hallmarks of extremists. Anything they do, even when it goes against their own beliefs, is ok because they are morally pure.
I don’t understand why most people even care. They would have never know this community existed except for for this post.
B/c this is just the tip of the iceberg, and b/c a stitch in time saves nine and all that jazz. And b/c some find it entertaining to discuss about:-). And b/c it’s not fair, e.g. how would you feel if I told you that because you commented here, you automatically receive a…
Yeah, I don’t care about that community either!:-P
Your equivalency is not great. If you told me I was banned on !genv@lemmy.world (saw in the trending communities) I wouldn’t even spend the time to find of if it was true.
B/c this is just the tip of the iceberg, What?
b/c a stitch in time saves nine and all that jazz What’s the bigger problem?
Personally, I think it justifies their choices. Not that I would have made the same choices in their shoes. They are just getting shit on left and right by random people that would never take the time to even honestly engage, but just believe they are terrible for personal choices.
Well, remember this is social media - we aren’t here to read, but to talk. This gives something for people to talk about, sharing their opinions and such. Also, if it were even possible to read the comments in time order, you’d see people solving the puzzle as it went - first a question was asked, several people put forth different answers, and it snowballed forward from there.
As for why people care - why do any of us like anything? Books, games, movies, etc., it’s all a variety of entertainment to distract us from our real lives:-P.
Eh. If you look over the mod log for the months before the incident, it makes sense why they just started banning anyone with negative interactions. People were just dropping in to harass them.
Also, some social media spaces are closed for most - i.e. you can only read and not comment unless you’ve been approved…
Fair. I don’t really care either way, but do feel like mods of communities like that have a hard job. I wouldn’t sign up to do it.
I did not do that look, but indeed that sounds bad. And yes, it might be nice to have at least the option to create a closed space.
Part of the issue though was whether the mod was banning people for offering so much as a singular downvote - crucially (imho): in some other community. Downvotes are part of the normal functionality of the Fediverse, but if people thought that they could be banned for such, then they could avoid them, thereby lessening the functionality of the Fediverse.
And all the more so when the decision was not reviewed by human eyes. And again even more so when the mod in question was becoming unhinged, refusing to communicate with their fellow mods. And even more so again, trying to ban even instance admins who literally own the machines upon which the Lemmy code is being run.
So… lots of drama. Just like watching a TV show I guess.
Do you want to build an echo chamber? This is how you build an echo chamber.
(I find this entirely unsurprising. I think they do want to build an echo chamber.)
Yeah.
I left beehaw because they seem determined to build a echo chamber too
A minority literally accused of me of wanting to kill all of them simply because I only half agreed with a post.
And then a admin overlooked that, and accused me of causing a fight in a “safe space” which seems to be just another term for echo chamber
I have friends from that minority 😂
Bro’s unironically saying “I’m not a racist, I have minority friends” and wondering why Beehaw doesn’t want him around.
Holy hell! It’s over 19 pages long, and that’s over the past day. They even went as far as trying to ban admins.
Edit: it looks like they only tried to ban one admin. I thought I had saw more, but I guess not. But damn, talk about sour grapes.
There’s a lot more to the story on Rooki.
Their own irrationality means their feelings on what is “bad-faith carnist rhetoric” depend entirely on their subjective feelings for the day.
I’m a flexitarian who’s morality can actually be defended logically, unlike with vegans.
But their community, moderate as they see fit, I can’t complain.
When you’re not a vegan and argue against veganism online and the vegans don’t want to let you into a vegan space
The last time I spoke about veganism whatsoever was over 7 months ago.
Not to mention that it was specifically in a debate thread dedicated to discussing veganism, nor was I overly negative.
Was this intended to be a strawman of some kind?
So, to be clear, you’re saying that you are not a vegan and you did argue against veganism, and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space, but at the same time, saying that you’re not a vegan and argued against veganism and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space is a “strawman,” somehow.
Are you strawmanning yourself? Wtf are you talking about?
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?
I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome.
The
lie detectorsearch 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 detectorMy 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.
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.
or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again
You weren’t supposed to pick this option.
The post you’re citing was not the 7 month old one I was referencing anywhere. Also, the one you cherry-picked was from a year ago and isn’t anti-vegan either. It’s anti-logically unsound argument (kind of like this one here). I can agree with a stance and disagree with the reason someone does something. I agree with multiple reasons to be vegan explicitly in the post you cite.
And escalating the issue is in concern about the hundreds of rampant bannings, not the veganism.
Also, if that was what you call a parody, you are pretty terrible at parody.
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.
