Yeah, trying to figure out what Beaver did via the mod log and reach out to those affected was kind of a nightmare to a point where I just gave up (she banned so many people for ‘Rule 5’ because she was using MBin/KBin to view who voted on what).
I’d suggest changing rule 5 anyway. There’s a lot of vegan individuals on here that give off the perception that they think they’re free to argue and criticize, but shouldn’t be criticized themselves. Even using the word “carnist” and calling it a rhetoric is critical. It opens you guys up to hypocrisy
We don’t shy away from the fact that Rule 5 enforces a double-standard, namely that carnism is free to be argued against in basically any tone and capacity not amounting to mis/disinformation (or harassment of someone who’s talked here about how they feel as an omnivore politely and in good faith), while comments from omnivores should be polite, in good faith, and made with some underlying acknowledgement that this isn’t a DebateVeganism community. At the end of the day, this is a community for people who are activists against carnism, either just through their own lifestyle or also through outreach, protest, etc.
To give an example that might seem extreme to you but measures up to the same way vegans feel about carnism: imagine we had a community called PreventPetAbuse. It’s a community about people who want to support laws banning pet abuse, foster pets who’ve been abused, raise awareness about puppy mills, etc. I think you could imagine that even discussion of why someone thinks abusing pets isn’t that bad in that community would be strictly banned, while anyone would be almost unconstrained in arguing against pet abuse. Maybe people could debate the particular practicalities of specific laws, how to most effectively create change, or the edge cases of that ideology, but there would be no such thing as people coming in and saying: “I don’t think buying dogs to flay them alive is that bad. Let’s debate.”
If anything, Rule 5 is made pretty excessively generous because carnism is such a prevailing societal ideology that it’s treated as a trade-off to the benefit of outreach. Vegans have their lifestyle debated literally everywhere else on Lemmy, the Internet as a whole, and in the real world; giving them one place where they can round a corner and hopefully not see a debate on the merits of their decision not to unnecessarily abuse animals for food etc. is what we try to do here.
Fair enough, I feel there is a very large difference between animal abuse and eating meat as a whole, but just as you said, this isn’t the place to debate that.
This is a vegan group, we shouldn’t bend over backwards in our space to nonvegans when they dominate everywhere else using language that normalizes violence towards the animals, we have higher standards here.
And that is exactly my point right here. The belief that animal violence is normalized with people who eat meat and that people who disagree with you have no standards. You say stuff like that and then think that you and your way of thinking should be respected. That’s a bad faith argument is it not?. Plus the general mentality that I’ve observed is that even not in your own community, the belief is your way if thinking is infallible
When you’re talking about “bad arguments” it’s ironic you’re opening up with a strawman claiming that I said “people who eat meat have no standards” when I actually said they had lower standards.
Obviously you need to kill an animal to eat meat that in of itself is normalizing violence towards the animals.
I’m not very interested in appealing to the “respect” of those who harm others when they don’t need to. I can be as polite and to myself as possible but that doesn’t stop the carnists from wanting to mistreat me or debate me.
I never said you. You spoke generally, so i spoke generally. You assumed I was talking about you and took it personally. I haven’t mentioned anything about my personal beliefs on the matter.
There is the mod logs, but I can only view my most recent on page 1. Any subsequent page won’t load
Yeah, trying to figure out what Beaver did via the mod log and reach out to those affected was kind of a nightmare to a point where I just gave up (she banned so many people for ‘Rule 5’ because she was using MBin/KBin to view who voted on what).
I’d suggest changing rule 5 anyway. There’s a lot of vegan individuals on here that give off the perception that they think they’re free to argue and criticize, but shouldn’t be criticized themselves. Even using the word “carnist” and calling it a rhetoric is critical. It opens you guys up to hypocrisy
We don’t shy away from the fact that Rule 5 enforces a double-standard, namely that carnism is free to be argued against in basically any tone and capacity not amounting to mis/disinformation (or harassment of someone who’s talked here about how they feel as an omnivore politely and in good faith), while comments from omnivores should be polite, in good faith, and made with some underlying acknowledgement that this isn’t a DebateVeganism community. At the end of the day, this is a community for people who are activists against carnism, either just through their own lifestyle or also through outreach, protest, etc.
To give an example that might seem extreme to you but measures up to the same way vegans feel about carnism: imagine we had a community called PreventPetAbuse. It’s a community about people who want to support laws banning pet abuse, foster pets who’ve been abused, raise awareness about puppy mills, etc. I think you could imagine that even discussion of why someone thinks abusing pets isn’t that bad in that community would be strictly banned, while anyone would be almost unconstrained in arguing against pet abuse. Maybe people could debate the particular practicalities of specific laws, how to most effectively create change, or the edge cases of that ideology, but there would be no such thing as people coming in and saying: “I don’t think buying dogs to flay them alive is that bad. Let’s debate.”
If anything, Rule 5 is made pretty excessively generous because carnism is such a prevailing societal ideology that it’s treated as a trade-off to the benefit of outreach. Vegans have their lifestyle debated literally everywhere else on Lemmy, the Internet as a whole, and in the real world; giving them one place where they can round a corner and hopefully not see a debate on the merits of their decision not to unnecessarily abuse animals for food etc. is what we try to do here.
Fair enough, I feel there is a very large difference between animal abuse and eating meat as a whole, but just as you said, this isn’t the place to debate that.
Killing animals is animal abuse.
That’s cool if you want to think that, but just as I stated before. This isn’t the place to debate that. As per the mods order
Let’s just agree to disagree for now.
Feel free to PM me if you’d like to discuss it more
This is a vegan group, we shouldn’t bend over backwards in our space to nonvegans when they dominate everywhere else using language that normalizes violence towards the animals, we have higher standards here.
And that is exactly my point right here. The belief that animal violence is normalized with people who eat meat and that people who disagree with you have no standards. You say stuff like that and then think that you and your way of thinking should be respected. That’s a bad faith argument is it not?. Plus the general mentality that I’ve observed is that even not in your own community, the belief is your way if thinking is infallible
When you’re talking about “bad arguments” it’s ironic you’re opening up with a strawman claiming that I said “people who eat meat have no standards” when I actually said they had lower standards.
Obviously you need to kill an animal to eat meat that in of itself is normalizing violence towards the animals.
I’m not very interested in appealing to the “respect” of those who harm others when they don’t need to. I can be as polite and to myself as possible but that doesn’t stop the carnists from wanting to mistreat me or debate me.
I never said you. You spoke generally, so i spoke generally. You assumed I was talking about you and took it personally. I haven’t mentioned anything about my personal beliefs on the matter.