https://www.wikiart.org/en/giotto/st-francis-preaching-to-the-birds-1299
This is a proposal for an internal moderation alignment: recurring forms of anti-vegan discourse that exhibit anti-scientific reasoning patterns should be treated analogously to other forms of science denial (such as antivaccination rhetoric), and understood as incompatible with anarchist commitments to opposing domination and systemic harm.
The intent is not to prohibit disagreement with veganism as such. The distinction is between isolated critique and recurring patterns of reasoning and rhetoric that degrade discourse, misrepresent evidence, and function to stabilize harmful systems.
(Panthers of Bacchus Eating Grapes)
Epistemic Pattern: Directional Skepticism
Both anti-vegan and antivaccination discourses frequently follow a recognizable epistemic pattern. Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically. Well-established scientific consensus, such as nutritional research on plant-based diets or immunological evidence around vaccines, is subjected to disproportionate scrutiny. At the same time, anecdotal evidence, marginal dissenting views, or non-expert commentary are elevated beyond their evidentiary weight.
This results in a consistent structure: systematic distrust of research institutions, selective reliance on outlier studies, and the framing of scientific consensus as ideological rather than evidence-based. What presents itself as skepticism is, in practice, a form of contrarianism that is not applied consistently.
From a moderation standpoint, this pattern is already widely recognized in other domains as characteristic of science denial. The proposal is to apply that same recognition consistently when it appears in anti-vegan discourse.
(The Large Blue Horses, by Franz Marc)
Anarchist Framework: Domination and Structural Harm
From an anarchist perspective, the issue is not only epistemic but material. Industrial animal agriculture constitutes a clear system of domination: it exerts total control over sentient beings, depends on exploitative labor conditions, and contributes significantly to environmental degradation. It is also a highly centralized and industrialized system that concentrates power while externalizing harm.
Anarchism is fundamentally concerned with opposing unjustified hierarchies and systems that reproduce coercion and suffering. On that basis, critique of animal agriculture is not peripheral but aligned with core anarchist commitments.
Anti-vegan discourse, particularly when it dismisses or derails these critiques, often functions to normalize and defend this system. By shifting attention away from structural harms and toward dismissal or trivialization, it reduces the visibility of domination rather than challenging it. In this sense, it is not merely a neutral disagreement but a position that frequently operates in tension with anarchist principles.
(Marc Chagall – I and the Village)
Convergence with Other Anti-Scientific Discourses
The comparison to antivaccination rhetoric is instructive at the level of function. Antivaccination discourse undermines collective health infrastructures that rely on cooperation and shared trust, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations. Anti-vegan discourse, when it follows the same epistemic patterns, undermines critique of large-scale systems of harm and redirects attention away from structural analysis.
In both cases, the effect is not to challenge power but to fragment collective capacity to respond to systemic issues. These forms of discourse tend to weaken coordinated responses to harm while leaving dominant structures intact.
(Henri Rousseau – The Dream)
Rhetorical Dynamics: Whataboutism and Derailment
A recurring feature of anti-vegan discourse is the use of whataboutism. Rather than engaging directly with ethical, environmental, or scientific claims, discussion is redirected toward unrelated or superficially comparable issues. These comparisons are rarely subjected to the same level of scrutiny or concern.
This produces a moving target that prevents sustained engagement and diffuses accountability. While it can resemble critique on the surface, in practice it functions as derailment. When used persistently, it disrupts evidence-based discussion and can reasonably be treated as a form of bad-faith engagement.
(Sue Coe – Dead Meat series)
Moderation Implications: Epistemic Integrity and Opposition to Harm
Moderation should not target viewpoints in the abstract, but it must address recurring patterns that degrade discourse and reinforce harmful systems.
Content that persistently misrepresents scientific consensus, elevates anecdote over reproducible evidence, dismisses expertise without substantiation, or relies on bad-faith rhetorical tactics should be treated in line with other forms of science denial when these patterns are clear and repeated.
From an anarchist standpoint, there is an additional justification for intervention. Allowing discourse that consistently functions to normalize or defend systems of domination—such as industrial animal agriculture—undermines the broader aim of opposing coercive and harmful structures. Similarly, tolerating anti-scientific reasoning that erodes collective understanding weakens the capacity for coordinated action against those systems.
Rebecca Horn – Unicorn (1970 performance/sculpture)
Implementation Approach
This framework does not need to be codified as an explicit or user-facing rule. It can function as an internal alignment principle guiding moderation decisions.
In practice, content that clearly reflects these patterns may be removed, and repeated engagement in such patterns may lead to escalating moderation actions, including bans. Isolated disagreement or good-faith critique remains permissible; persistent anti-scientific reasoning and bad-faith derailment do not.
The goal is consistency across domains: similar epistemic and rhetorical behaviors should be treated similarly, particularly when they contribute to the normalization of harm or the degradation of discourse.
Anubis as Defender of Osiris / Dionysus (?)
Some vegan comms that will offer you better info than I can:
- https://anarchist.nexus/c/vegan(!vegan@anarchist.nexus)
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@slrpnk.net (!vegan@slrpnk.net)
- https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@hexbear.net (!vegan@hexbear.net)
Some theory etc:
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-veganism-is-a-consumer-activity
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gerfried-ambrosch-defending-veganism-defending-animal-rights
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carl-tobias-frayne-the-anarchist-diet-vegetarianism-and-individualist-anarchism-in-early-20th-c
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-a-dominick-animal-liberation-and-social-revolution
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/animal-liberation-is-climate-justice
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/flower-bomb-what-savages-we-must-be-vegans-without-morality
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-veganarchist-underground-veganarchy-anti-speciest-warfare-direct-action
- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/len-tilburger-and-chris-p-kale-nailing-descartes-to-the-wall-animal-rights-veganism-and-punk-cu
Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/snokenkeekaguard
This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:
- For:
- Against:
- Local Community: -1.2
- Outsider sentiment: Positive
- Total: -0.19999999999999996
- Percentage: 49.00%
This vote will complete in 2 daysReminder: Simply use the up/down votes on this topic to cast your vote.
Why is this a simple majority vote?
I’m OK with this. I have also noticed that anti-vegan discourse patterns are often non (or pseudo) scientific. In the broader context of climate action it is an important issue.
is policing discourse really going to help the issue though? many people lose whatever indifference they may have had when you start applying the same language filter that’s used for racial hate-speech
- For:
This seems like personal vendetta-running in the form of governance. That serves no purpose in improving the quality of discourse on db0. HARD no.
This is such a bizzare proposal. The terms outlining what types of discourse would be allowed or warrent removal/bans seem to be very open to moderator interpretation. Wouldn’t this leave anyone who takes part in a discussion vulnerable to heavy-handed moderator action, if a moderator happens to disagree with or dislike an argument?
And if we assume that no moderators would take advantage of the vagueness of this proposal to silence the discussion of viewpoints opposing their own, it still undermines free speech.
Additionally, I strongly believe that if a viewpoint is incorrect or based on misinterpretation, or if an argument is built on a shaky foundation or made in bad faith, it should be the job of those who recognize this to refute it properly, publically, for everyone to see. To simply silence them robs everyone of the chance to read or write a properly argued opposing viewpoint, and spares the offending party a potentially much-needed “verbal evisceration” of sorts.
Hard no from me, if my vote is worth anything at all.
Hard against from me
How is this just about even when the post itself is currently at -68 (84 upvotes, 152 downvotes), and most comments I see are against it? I don’t understand the math.
some people’s votes are worth more, like people who can afford to donate.
Other than the fact that you’re not mentioning that plenty of people who haven’t donated can vote, I’m sure you have many great ideas on how this can be done better and I’m looking forward to your proposal.
i just answered the question. there is no criticism in my comment
You wrote it specifically to make the voting process look bad. You’re being disingenuous right now.
i dont remember my state of mind two days ago. re-reading it here, i think its a very evenhanded answer.
Absolutely not. It’s clearly meant to make the voting seem more exclusionary than it is and without nuance, to people who haven’t noticed it before. I don’t know why you think you can spin this.
i linked the post explaining how the weighting works, and there is a lengthy explanation in that post about why its implemented the way it is. i haven’t commented on this at all, nor voted on the comments about it. your kind of snarky request for proposals to improve it belies that you know it’s not great, and the fact that a great solution might not even exist.
as it is, it’s good enough. it’s a massive improvement (ideologically) over the BDFL model. in practice, i think it’s also turned out pretty well.
stripping away all the nuance and justifications to answer their question isn’t criticism. it’s just being brief.
Seriously? That seems kinda antithetical to our purpose.
That’s a hilarious post for an anarchist comm. Thanks for sharing it.
Yeah, the first time I read that felt like they were reinventing some of the federalist papers. It’s extremely similar to arguments that representation should be tied to land ownership. Hard to not see the irony in both their logic and their conclusions in an anarchist space. The challenges of needing governance that resists hostile takeover are real though 🤷♂️
Its ironic that this proposal talks about how hierarchy is antithetical to anarchism, yet is being propped up by one.
Yeah that’s wild, literally setting up an intentional hierarchy on a supposed anarchist space…
I’m not sure what you mean by “intentional hierarchy”. Regardless, would you prefer the unintentional hierarchy of the BDFL server owner?
I’m against, this is too vague.
Also a separation needs to be made between Veganism the philosophy and the practice of having a Plant Based Diet
Fighting philosophy with science is risky business.
Against. As many have indicated, I trust our ability and will to implement such a thing far less than I worry about it’s misuse, accidental or otherwise.
I do think veganism aligns very well with anarchism and leftist ideology in general, I support having any comms devoted to it and those comms should be free to make the rules they see fit to keep discussions at the level of quality and focus they prefer. And I definitely see folks who go ballistic and hyperbolic on the topic, meaning the meat eaters overreacting badly to being told things they don’t like hearing. No dispute about the fraught nature of the topic overall.
But trying to define dialog in terms of scientific vs not, while I understand the point is to narrow what’s disallowed and make it actionable, I just don’t see it being actually possible to make such judgment calls well on a case by case basis. Just way too nuanced.
So in light of that ~impossibility alone, instance-wide is way, way overstepping. It would be, even were there plenty of evidence of this being an active ongoing and significant problem. But there isn’t any that I saw. Solidly in “absolutely not, no way” territory for me.
-
Hard disagree with “doesn’t align with leftist ideology”.
I’m saying veganism aligns with anarchist & leftist principles very naturally.
Wow, I use a screen reader and my brain still parsed it as do not. My bad :(
I read your comment as a signal about a specific way I could’ve written more clearly (and for fuck’s sake more succinctly, regardless, but I’ll never win that battle against myself - here’s why - [jk lol. ya know, kinda]).
The screen reader just makes it more damning, haha.
And anyway I do that shit too. Humans, eh. Cheers.
Against. I understand and acknowledge the idea behind it, but this is heavy handed and this sort of censorship shouldn’t be encouraged. If people are being abusive or antagonistic, there are already tools to deal with that behavior.
Against, this is veering into heavy speech policing which heavily goes against the spirit of the instance.
Unfortunately, this instance is not free speech, just anarchist.
To be clear, I agree that this is going too far when we already have tools to deal with bad faith and harassment, but it has been stated in previous instance votes that anarchism =/= free speech.
anarchism =/= free speech.
Ah… I can only laugh cynically as virtually day-by-day I watch internet anarchists move further and further away from anarchism.
If there is any way by which another person can nominally legitimately limit what you may, may not, must or must not say, then it can only be the case that a hierarchy has been established by which that person’s opinion on the matter is superior to your own, and therefore the system is not and cannot be anarchistic
It really is just that simple.
I already fully understand that hence why I have no issue with the shutting down of Zionist arguments to stop a Nazi bar situation, but this is just going one step too far.
I mostly lurk, but for once I will come out of the woodwork to say, this feels absurd and heavy handed.
If a person argues with pseudoscientific reasons and has nothing substantial to back their claims, then fine, we as humans should try to correct them, present counter points, facts, research papers, citations, etc.
You have to give a best effort attempt to change hearts and minds, if the person cannot see reason then they should be ignored, downvoted, disproven. If they threaten to harm anyone, or work actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc., then moderation should be considered.
Banning, forbidding, or otherwise shutting down discourse you don’t like, regardless if you’re right or wrong is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it. Period.
Then is moderation in a debate useless, beyond, as you put it, when someone “[threatens] to harm anyone, or [works] actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc”?
I find that absurd.
People, in general, do not engage critically with discussion! Especially discussion with any scientific basis, particularly when the people don’t have the scientific basis to wholly understand the issue.
I fear your whole argument rests on the assumption that people will do this; that bad arguments will be debased by good arguments, and that the public will recognise this. However, we know that this simply does not happen. Some do it, but most just don’t.
People prefer pithy comebacks to accuracy, emotion to reason, and their assumptions affirmed.
It’s not that I think you’re wrong, in a sense. I agree that we should try to correct people, that we have to give a best effort to change hearts and minds, and that unreasonable people should be ignored, downvoted, and disproven. I also don’t like shutting down discourse; but some discourse is harmful, even if it doesn’t directly threaten harm, and to allow it to flourish feels like a disservice to all. And it does flourish.
I think that to work on the assumption that good debate happens naturally is foolish, at least when the arguments take place in a public anonymous square.
Funny that arguments for censorship almost always boil down to “Well, you and I are smart and perceptive enough to recognize bad things, but think of the poor gullible idiots and/or children who aren’t. We need to protect them from things from which they’re not bright enough / mature enough to protect themselves.”
So it’s not just hierarchical in execution, but in intent. Not only is it the case that enforcing censorship requires the establishment of a hierarchy, but calls for it already presume a hierarchy.
And in both cases with the person calling for censorship glibly assigning themselves to the ruling class…
I fear your whole argument rests on the assumption that people will do this; that bad arguments will be debased by good arguments, and that the public will recognise this. However, we know that this simply does not happen. Some do it, but most just don’t.
I can’t speak for the other poster, but I don’t believe that this is the case at all. It’s not that they assume that “people” (by which you self-evidently mean “people stupider than me or you”) will do this, but that it’s ultimately up to them and not you to decide if that’s what they’re going to do or not.
Yes - it’s unfortunate when “people” make poor choices. But denying them the right to choose is not the solution.
(by which you self-evidently mean “people stupider than me or you”)
That’s not what I mean at all. This has nothing to do with stupidity or gullibility… I’m fallible as well, and I’m very happy when I see community fact-checks (such as Twitter community notes) and justifiably censored posts, as a signal that unproductive additions aren’t tolerated. I like those reminders, and I like when there’s a group of people whose responsibility it is to check anti-scientific bullshit (or straight-up lies), for when I fail to do it, because everyone fails to do it, sometimes.
I’m not putting myself above anyone; I’m recognising my own limits, and pointing out that those limits are also present in others. Bullshit derails discourse, and if we want discourse to stay on track, we should get rid of bullshit.
If we’re going to establish some basis for truth and good discourse (and we have already established that basis in db0), then it should be extended to other contentious points of discussion. I am presuming a hierarchy because it has already been established; it’s not of people, but of truth, with some assigned members responsible for moderation.
I find your framing distasteful. Glib.
Mind you, I think something like Twitter’s community notes would be much (much) better than straight up removal[X]. It’s basically the only good thing on Twitter… But we don’t have that mechanism on Lemmy, so we do what we can to keep discourse on track. People can still see deleted comments in the modlog.
but that it’s ultimately up to them and not you to decide if that’s what they’re going to do or not.
Just like it’s my decision to leave if this place turns into a pig-sty of pseudo-science and conspiracy gibberish! Except I would prefer it not to turn into that, and I think that, without this sort of moderation, it just might. Hence my arguments.
[X] I really think we ought to establish something like that on Lemmy. It’s democratic.
Hard no. This should be left up to each community and their mods.
Nope, against.
I don’t see why this rethoric would need any special rules versus any other arguments that may be made in bad faith. Trolling in general should be moderated, but the rules shouldn’t differ from topic to topic. If a discussion is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad. The topic and the view points are irrelevant to that.
Trolling in general should be moderated, but the rules shouldn’t differ from topic to topic. If a discussion is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad.
How would you define a troll and whether someone is speaking in good faith? It’s very vibes based. I think someone bringing up plant’s feelings or their suffering is probably trolling (does actually happen even in this thread), saying they’ll eat double the hamburgers out of spite, even going as far to say vegans shouldn’t harm bacteria (taken from a comic that was posted recently) is trolling. Right now, bringing these things up to antagonize (even after haven been told these things are antagonistic) is not something that can be actioned against.
I think “bringing things up to antagonize even after being told these things are antagonistic” is a good standard.
I don’t think this post challenges that.
This post is seeking to equalize moderator efforts in determining which discussions are good and which are bad by appealing to the same standards of moderation that the current FAF Team applies to other realms of discourse, notably vaccination, climate change, anti-fascism, etc.
This post is not about mods forcing vegan beliefs on FAF users. This post is about allowing vegan/anti-vegan discourse to flourish in a safe space with charitable exchanges of evidence and viewpoints. Users that announce their opinions on FAF platforms, and when pushed to explain or defend themselves use anecdotes, strawmans, troll tactics, or recoil by name-calling and attacking other’s credibility - avoiding discussion altogether around the facts at hand - would be against instance rules and subject to moderator action.
If anything, this post extends the same rules FAF mods use on other topics of discussion to veganism. It does not introduce special rules to discussions specifically around veganism.
If that’s the case, the proposal should be focused on discourse in general, not on veganism.
I agree. Although it may have been explicitly codified previously in the FAF instance rules that dictate other realms of discussion. I’m not sure if those rules explicitly carried over to anti-vegan dogma. I’d have to learn more about how we govern these instances. I’m just a user, don’t spend too much time thinking about these meta-things.
This sounds ideological, and food studies are so difficult to do correctly I trust none of them.
Hard disagree.
As for a pure practical point of view I think it could be really hard to police its correct application and it would give ground to abuse, for instance labeling non non-scientific arguments as such.
As for the intrinsic political tesis. While I do think that industrial meat production might conflict with anarchism. I think there are alternative ways to eat meat that do not conflict anarchist principles. And, AFAIK, veganism does not make exceptions to these alternative practices to consume meat, so I do think that not being vegan does not constitute, by itself, and exclusive argument for being anarchist.
This is absurd, and it’s so vague on what is and is not “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” lmao how do you expect a non vegan mod (or any mod) to enforce that. If an account is repeatly harassing vegans about all the dead animals they eat maybe that’s bannable?
An example of something that might be considered “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” I’ve already talked about on my Lemmy account is I don’t exactly trust the corpos behind some vaccines. Am I vaccinated? Yes. Do I believe in vaccine science? Also yes.
If someone brings up of how much better they feel after going off vegan diet and switching to fish/seafood once a week, does that count as “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” in your book? Is it just up to whatever mod decides what is truth at the time?
And I’d like to be clear, I personally I think the meat and dairy industrial complex is one of the great atrocities of our time. Policing what meat eaters say won’t turn them vegan
Thanks, these are very useful point to discuss.
First, on vagueness: you’re right that “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” sounds abstract if it’s not grounded. The intent isn’t to have mods decide “what is truth,” it’s to look for recognizable patterns of engagement over time, not isolated statements. While clearly anti science interactions can be removed immediately, decisions on bans or removing comments/posts which aren’t clear can use an accounts history to make a decision.
“I don’t trust corporations behind some vaccines”
That by itself wouldn’t fall under this. Skepticism about institutions—even strong skepticism—isn’t the issue. It becomes a problem only if it turns into a pattern like “therefore the science is invalid” without engaging the evidence itself. What you described (being vaccinated, accepting the science, but distrusting corporations) is actually a pretty normal position.
“I feel better after adding fish/seafood”
That also wouldn’t count. Personal experience is fine to share. It only becomes an issue if it’s used to dismiss broader evidence entirely (e.g., “therefore all plant-based nutrition research is wrong”) or if it’s repeatedly pushed as universal proof.
So no, mods wouldn’t be policing anecdotes or individual dietary choices.
Third, on enforcement:
This isn’t meant to be a hard, user-facing rule like “X is banned.” It’s closer to how mods already deal with bad-faith behavior in general—looking at patterns over time.
And you don’t need a “vegan mod” to do that. The standard isn’t “does this align with veganism,” it’s “is this person engaging in a way that’s recognizably good-faith and evidence-based?”
That’s something mods already judge in other contexts (misinformation, trolling, etc.).
“Policing what meat eaters say won’t turn them vegan”
I actually agree with that. The goal isn’t conversion. **Im not vegan. ** The goal is much narrower: maintaining a discussion space where conversations don’t get derailed into the same bad-faith patterns and people can actually have substantive discussions without it collapsing.
Thanks for taking the time to go over each of my points! And know your intentions are good.
I just feel any there’s any online community that’s good at spotting astro terffing talking points or just trolling this community has to be as high up on that list as it gets.
In my personal opinion its still a rule with too much left up to mods figuring things out that is not clear cut, that’s a slippery slope.
I’ve ran into a not insignificant amount of people both on and offline that I put in the vegan evangelist category, if you have ever ran into someone like that they tend to have a black and white view of the world. The type of person that would call someone a murder with a smile on their face because they eat meat, when that person works 50 hours a week and lives in a food desert and cannot afford + does not have enough time to be vegan. What would a mod with that belief system do with a rule like that?
