I'm not sorry for causing this.
Also holy fuck if someone says "obligate carnivore" to me one more fucking time I am going to reach through the screen and suffocate them by stuffing a head of cauliflower down their throats.
Anyway, one reading of this TOS update bans discussions of meat eating as it advocates immanent harm and is an unhealthy diet.
I doubt any of the people yelling obligate carnivore like it's an incantation to banish vegans actually know what it means.
You should have more faith in yourself. I am certain they don't
yelling obligate carnivore at vegans
Seeing as vegans are definitional proof that humans are not obligate carnivores...
humans aren't even carnivores, they're omnivores. Our bodies literally cannot handle being meat only diets. 'obligatory carnivore' makes no sense.
"You're telling me that only eating 4 steaks/burgers a day and constantly being in physical pain isn't normal?"
If it isn't a cat or a snake or a spider or some shit like that it isn't an obligate carnivore. Just keep asking them if they are a cat snake or spider and if not to shut the fuck up.
FYI this conflict was precipitated by a discussion on the vegan comm about feeding cats a vegan diet
Obligate carnivores are also called hypercarnivores, which are animals whose diet consists of at least 70 percent meat.
let's start another struggle session on whether or not it's ethical to selectively bread vegan cats into existance.
Obligate carnivore is an ecological descriptor. It doesn't mean plants are poisonous, only that in the wild they seek their nutrients from meat and when not available they starve.
In the most extreme case you could startrek replicator some meat, and by logical extension there are steps before that are nutritionally complete and digestible while still being artificially constructed. E.g. by isolating or synthesising nutrients and pellitising it.
It is a fallacy to go from "snakes only eat mice in the wild" to "therefore humans must feed mice snakes" and anyone who doesn't see the extremely obvious flaw in that reasoning is outing themselves as a complete buffoon. Whether it is practicable does not make waving "obligate carnivores" any more respectable.
The wrong person is apologising here. You did nothing wrong.(lol I misread what you wrote)Also I have zero interest in non-vegan's opinions on vegan matters. If someone knowingly and calmly get involved in the industrial murder and exploitation of animals, everything they say about the issue is just concern trolling. It's like the millions of carnist Westerners who hold strong opinions on PETA.
my dbzero account was purging the science deniers and argued with rooki over it.
I'm not going to weigh in on pets particularly because I don't know enough, I'm also not vegan. I do however want to remark that you can sense the meat eating guilt and reactionary emotional defensiveness in a lot of this stuff. People feel very attacked and very defensive.
There is an underlying feeling deep down that it is wrong but because they personally enjoy it and get happy hormones when eating the topic triggers a massive emotional response.
Speculation: Eating food is probably one of the only times some people truly genuinely feel happy and is responsible for the massive defensive reaction when anyone suggests food habits should be changed. I suspect that the non-vegans that do not react poorly to the topic have much stronger sources of happiness that aren't food.
Eating food is probably one of the only times some people truly genuinely feel happy
ha ha
I'm not going to weigh in on pets particularly because I don't know enough, I'm also not vegan.
I wish more people did this about things
In hindsight it sort of sounds like I think you need to be vegan to weigh in on that. Those should be two separate things. I just wanted to mention that I'm not for the sake of the post itself. The pet part is just genuinely because I've looked at literally no research. I avoid forming opinions on shit I know nothing about.
Ya I think it's cool people can just go "ya I don't have the knowledge to weigh in on this subject". I unironically wish people did this more.
It's not quite that early, but China is going to be building a ton of schools in Iraq. Maybe they'll soon have a country of smol investigators 🥹
Eating food is probably one of the only times some people truly genuinely feel happy and is responsible for the massive defensive reaction when anyone suggests food habits should be changed
Yes, it's like literally saying "i don't want you to be happy", i have that too, albeit only about bugs (but seriously i did almost ended a friendship over that, fortunately they weren't serious about it and backed off when they realised i was).
No, we talk about eating bugs, i expressed my absolute deathly disgust and next few meetings they were teasing me for it and finally they brought package of crickets and eated it demonstratingly before me, seeing that i freaked out and told them to get the fuck out of my home before i puke on them, and looking at the mirror shortly later i was really green-red-yellow and felt also like this so it wasn't a hyperbole. Fortunately after looking at my face they understood i'm serious so they packed it back and never brought it again, and even brought me some delicious mochi next time as apology, so it's all good.
I have thoughts so strap in. This is a bit of a rant trigger for me.
Food is awesomely important to humans. Every culture I have looked at (layperson, not anthropologist so there's that) has some sort of food-hospitality ritual. Festivities have particular foods associated with them, you eat and drink certain things at weddings, funerals, birthdays, season changes, whatever. In houses it is often the kitchen which becomes the center of activity and socialisation. Food is probably involved to some degree in the vast majority of good memories you have, from meals with family, self indulgence after a hard or stressful day, meetings with friends, celebrations of achievement etc.
This isn't that surprising, we are meat and it needs sustaining. A huge amount of effort in any individual's life goes into securing and eating food.
But if you're the kind of person that doesn't view the world through a systemic lens, that looks at structural issues and ideological hegemony as a series of individual moral failings. Well someone raising veganism is obviously doing so to say that you are a bad person and you should feel guilty about all of your good memories. You see this shit directly, people constantly accuse vegans of having moral superiority complexes and wanting to shame people. Research says people vastly overestimate how negatively vegans judge non vegans. Antivegans also conveniently forget that almost every single vegan was non-vegan and thus was complicit in carnism until they were given the chance to change by someone else's advocacy and education.
Generally the data say that people who anticipate negative judgement less from vegans are more likely to rate vegans as more moral/more positively. Notably this is true even in the absence of any actual interactions. The lashing out is massively driven by a guilt complex caused by a garbage understanding of how human societies and systemic evil actually work.
This makes me wonder if there is an approach to selling veganism that offers the same approach marxism makes when it comes to socialism - not being a moralist about it. I suspect selling to those people would be more effective without the preconceived beliefs they have about vegans and moral judgement. Maybe a specific spinoff branch of veganism without the name vegan, named intentionally to get people to ask what it is. It would potentially enable a foot in the door because it wouldn't trigger the reactions.
Idk, figure out how to make yourself vegan and get back to me with what opened your mind?
My experience was studying/working in ag and packing chickens I loved into crates to go be murdered triggering a lifetime of guilt and a slowly narrowing list of people it was acceptable to murder for pleasure based on the latest science. Before I realised my null hypothesis was entirely fucked up and kept leading me astray. I can't really empathise with people who aren't acutely aware of the guilt and shame in carnism as it happened to me around the time I feel I can start recalling consistent memories (14ish) so it's hard for me to understand what would be individually effective.
The only times I've managed to actually change anyone's mind in person it has been a process of relentless reminders that another way is possible which has preventing them from embracing the "normal, natural, necessary" required to justify stuff.
Lots of activists try different things, and many studies have been done. But it appears that mind-changing happens over a long time and we're basically highly persistent to being persuaded of anything once we form our first opinion. The best studies basically say "after such and such an intervention people rated their likelihood of going vegan higher/lower on the exit survey". Not useless, but it's impossible to capture what actually converts people that way.
Personally I get the most "huh" faces when I wear my elwood's dog meat Tshirt and cause random people to come up to me and make most of the case of veganism for me in the face of my apparent inhumanity.
Idk, figure out how to make yourself vegan and get back to me with what opened your mind?
My reasons are dietary. I have IBS that might be crohns or worse or something else (nobody seems to reliably know) that basically makes eating right now a very annoying thing to manage. Everything I do is about being as insanely boring as possible and not upsetting my body when I am seemingly balanced.
Mayyyyybe I could figure out balancing things while also being vegan but the barrier for me is quite high, I become completely incapacitated for days at a time when something sets me off, it's very severe, and sometimes it just happens all by itself without a trigger. Going low fodmap is helpful. But nothing reliably has fodmap testing and fodmap info isn't on any packaging for anything despite the prevalence of bowel problems and the well researched fact that low-fodmap diets are well known to help it.
I'm not really trying to audit you it was mostly a little joke since you seem self aware but for what it's worth I also have IBS.
I am sick a lot, but such is life. If I could make myself well by like harvesting a substance from the hearts of orphans I wouldn't do that, and I basically feel the same way about killing non human people. That said a couple of things: if crohns get it figured out, early intervention is important, if IBS fodmap exclusoom is not considered a long term solution by the folks at Monash that discovered it anyway but rather a diagnostic test.
I have slowly improved, with gradual introduction of trigger foods. Some stuff like sprouting lentils appears to help a bit. Cooking them in alkaline water (e.g. teaspoon of bicarb). Ferments help a lot! I assume the bacteria are eating the problematic sugars.
Isolates like tvp are also great! seitan and TVP are lifesavers for me during bad flares.
I won't lie, it's painful and gross and I have to wear pads 24/7 for mucus leakage at unexpected times but like if I was in the middle ages with bone cancer mine would be to suffer and die, I'm in this era with shitty food options and mine is to cramp and leak.
Other options poop transplant trials? They show promising results, I'm keeping an eye out.
Don't fence sit! Go vegan, we get magic powers like firebreath (need a lighter) it comes out the wrong end though.
If you think you will eventually you should probably just do it, since you anticipate a future you finding it correct it seems that you anticipate finding each day you didn't do it incorrect. So you probably owe it to yourself to conclude what you think you will anyway. It seems harder than it is, there's lots of useful inspo over at vegantheoryclub and loads of people to answer questions you might have.
I don't really know what you mean re believer vs sympathiser. Like it's not a set of strict beliefs. I assume like most people you think hurting others is bad, either you believe living beings deserve the assumption of sentience (i.e. that there is an other to hurt) unless proven otherwise or you do not. If you do not veganism would look like people avoiding skimming rocks lest they ruin the lake's weekend, if you do then veganism is just living in accordance with the values you already hold.
Re self discipline. I have faith in you, I mean I'm a human garbage fire; I am don't get-out-of-bed some days depressed and a polydrug user just to cope with life. I manage! It really does seem harder from the outset. Mostly because all it requires is for you to not do something, it's not like exercise (or even brushing your teeth :P) where you have to make yourself do a thing. You can live off pressure cooked beans and rice for a long time while you figure stuff out :) and there is a veritable army of us willing to help with whatever specific issues.
I am unsure if the belief that is ok to hurt sentient beings in certain scenarios or de-emphasis on consumption allows for veganism.
We're not Jains! haha I think it's fine to hurt someone who wants to kill someone if they wont stop trying and I don't have better options. The literal definition from the club that invented the word is:
"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."
Nothing particularly consumerist or absolute pacifist or whatever in there. I mean some of the most based vegans go around sabotaging farms and shit. The reality is most of us are always buying things so a lot of visible veganism is seen through those small acts of defiance. This is the result of circumstance though not some inherent belief that all there is to do is not buy fur coats or whatever. All sorts of vegan movements take non consumerist forms such as research and development of alternatives (some small scale, like figuring out how to garden without manure etc and teaching others is vegan praxis), producing propaganda/investigating animal ag, rescue from and sabotage of facilities that abuse non human animals, working at sanctuaries, organising politically to further animal rights and so on.
As far as believer vs sympathizer: generally, it’s someone who won’t try to resist or even will even help in some way the changes you (and your group) are making to society because they sympathize with you and your beliefs even if they dont necessarily agree with them. It’s a a concept I think more easily applied to socialism but I think it can still apply to veganism too.
Ah that makes sense, thanks for explaining.
I wonder if this also applies to racism, sexism, etc.? Like if people who associate their positions on the hierarchy with happy memories (relationship swith their relatives, hanging out with a group of guys after school, etc.). So when you attack their position of power, they take it really personally. The "white guilt" stuff they spout is pure projection.
Now I'm wondering about how bullying the other manifests itself. It's pretty common for white people to bond by using racism. Perhaps some chuds think fondly of the time they made fun of some gay person with their group of friends. When you tell them stuff like that is wrong, they flip the fuck out.
-31•
We reserve the right to remove information that could cause imminent physical harm to any living being. This includes topics like conversion therapy, unhealthy diets, and dangerous medical procedures. Information that could result in imminent physical harm to property or other living beings may also be removed.
And people pointing out the Democrats are complicit in Genocide apparently.
I was thinking they just wanted to fuck the Eiffel Tower
I think your take is unfortunately more likely
I think they're still butthurt about the fact that pets can go vegan and call pets "property".
Worse yet when they justify harming people in the name of protecting private property.
When they're finished licking boots, it's time to lick the wall.
Linkerbaan is god's chosen soldier, destined to preach among those who hate them so that their souls may some day be saved.
Medium credibility??? I mean, sure for us that's true but for libs The Guardian has transcended reality and provides only the tuthest of all truths
From a mod:
Israel has been committing war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria for DECADES before Biden and Harris held political office. They are not to blame here, Israel is. Bibi is. Their crimes will continue regardless of support from the US or who is President.
Blame the actual perpetrators, not those you imagine are involved via six degrees of separation.
critical thinking is officially banned on .world
I saw an exchange yesterday where a lib was insisting the US is responsible for Israel's genocide in the same way that Sweden is responsible for the Columbine shooting because the gun used was manufactured there.
That exchange actually broke me
Yup, it was in the 'progressive politics' comm, which is moderated by TokenBoomer who seems to have similar politics to Linkerbann. I've actually never been around so many libs just barely hanging on to the edge like this, I'm more familiar with reddit where there isn't even the pretext of being progressive.
These people are so desperate to hold onto their benevolent self-identity that they will literally say anything to affirm their status in both camps. I have to imagine they are having a quiet crisis of identity behind their phone screen, otherwise I simply cannot fathom how they can be so politically incoherent
It's easy to radicalize them, the tricky part is radicalizing them in the right direction
I mean, would be a pretty apt comparison if the Columbine shooters mailed the government of Sweden "we intend to do this thing, please give us guns to do it" and the government of Sweden personally gave them the guns.
So basically the same thing as the gun being manufactured there i guess /s
Aside from basically all the details except for people being murdered with the involvement of a weapon that originated in a country, it's a perfect comparison!
Another mod there considered commenting on the mbfc bot about how shit it is spamming their comm.
So yeah not the brightest
As someone who has worked in science, this passes the sniff test.
As someone who also has “worked in science” I find it incredibly cringe to read something like this. It just makes me read it in the voices of all the dumbass scientist coworkers I’ve had over the years who think they’re uniquely qualified to solve X problem because they have a bachelors and a few years on the job.
Basically a long-winded way of invoking Dunning-Kruger
imagine wasting your time and fragile ego on this fucking nonsense lmao
world.mins writing a 20 paragraph legaleese document ensuring no vegan will ever touch them in there safe space ever again.
hey this could be used in these ways you didn't consider which will hurt the community - users
interesting we didn't think about any of that, we'll consider it lw admins
Rooki is the same admin forcing the MBFC bot on every news post.
They refuse to listen to the community. Their way or the highway.
Who needs fed when you got admins like this? Probably still a
Embarrassing that people continue to use these instances
Apparently news is now gonna say no for now?
But bot still on every post so expecting rooki to say no it can't be turned off
- Show
I believe this study. It’s true that vegans say their vegan cats are healthier than other cats.
Vegan cats being the thing that tears .world apart is really funny because I've seen it irl and wouldn't be surprised if ya'll already had that struggle session here.
Not trying to start that debate here if not, but among most vegan groups I've been part of, many people had cats for years before adopting a vegan lifestyle in every other way, so it becomes a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. Otherwise, you get into endless arguments about how the cat havers aren't really vegan. But the non-cat havers offer no real individual solutions and just tip toe around the idea that the cat haver should kill them to balance out the moral calculus, or give them to someone else to wash their hands of the issue while not materially affecting anything.
If you ever want to destroy a vegan community, ask if you should feed your cat a vegan diet or more generally about taking care of meat-eating animals at all.
Doubly funny, in an absurd way, is that .world will so fiercely advocate for their kitties, but ignore the deaths of humans that their favorite politicians are causing.
Hexbear had a nearly site destroying struggle session that took a while to rebuild from after vegancirclejerk was lifeboated. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the powder keg.
Nah I was there for it, it was 100% omnivores just being giant dickheads who saw themselves as the furthest left/most moral/whatever the fuck people being confronted with the gigantic moral black hole of how they enjoy the fruit of mass torture & murder. Eventually they couldn't handle the heat so had to run crying to the mods. There were also the usual spurious accusations of vegans being anti-indigenous levied by non-indigenous people. Truly a deeply embarrassing episode that omnis here do their best to forget, just like they do their best to forget how if they witnessed the process of their meals being made for more than five minutes they would get lifelong PTSD. It's fine to inflict that damage on the colonized people who work in the meatpacking plants though.
plus it was done by a pro vegan group
It was done by a uni. Fuck off, shit.just.works poster.
Guy (not OP, I mean the one from .world), fucking read the lit review. The unhealthiness of vegan cat food is based on vibes, not published evidence. There's also a lot of back research that vegan cat food is fine, it's not just this one study. Again, READ THE FUCKING STUDUY.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
To study health outcomes in cats fed vegan diets compared to those fed meat, we surveyed 1,418 cat guardians, asking about one cat living with them, for at least one year. Among 1,380 respondents involved in cat diet decision-making, health and nutrition was the factor considered most important. 1,369 respondents provided information relating to a single cat fed a meat-based (1,242–91%) or vegan (127–9%) diet for at least a year. We examined seven general indicators of illness. After controlling for age, sex, neutering status and primary location via regression models, the following risk reductions were associated with a vegan diet for average cats: increased veterinary visits– 7.3% reduction, medication use– 14.9% reduction, progression onto therapeutic diet– 54.7% reduction, reported veterinary assessment of being unwell– 3.6% reduction, reported veterinary assessment of more severe illness– 7.6% reduction, guardian opinion of more severe illness– 22.8% reduction. Additionally, the number of health disorders per unwell cat decreased by 15.5%. No reductions were statistically significant. We also examined the prevalence of 22 specific health disorders, using reported veterinary assessments. Forty two percent of cats fed meat, and 37% of those fed vegan diets suffered from at least one disorder. Of these 22 disorders, 15 were most common in cats fed meat, and seven in cats fed vegan diets. Only one difference was statistically significant. Considering these results overall, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent.
Not to be a stick in the mud here, but... what? How on earth does "cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets" follow after "considering these results overall"? You mean the results that weren't statistically significant? Those results? And that one statistically significant disease difference? It was for kidney problems, and the vegan cats had more problems than the non-vegan ones (table 6).
If there's a case for feeding cats a vegan diet, this ain't it.
I'm actually genuinely surprised that cats do that well on a vegan diet. It doesn't have to be healthier than meat to be an upgrade—if it's on par with meat and no animal dies to make it, it's a clear winner.
I didn't think we were there yet with cat food, but the study seems to suggest we are, even if they try to draw a stronger conclusion from their data than they can actually justify.
Look at their data. The vegan cats are roughly where meat eating cats are:
Show
Yeah! It's actually really encouraging. I need to look into seeing if I can get my hands on any and if my cats will tolerate it.
Aggressively vegan here: Please do, but be careful. Loop your vet in (it's gonna be painful as fuck, ask me how I know), when introducing any novel food (even if it was a new type of meat) be on the lookout for allergic responses and go slowly. Kitteh will need time to acclimatise.
Also research the food carefully, there are a lot of brands that are dubious and very poor regulation. I don't care for any cats so I can't help there sorry :(
READ THE STUDY!
Evidence concerning ingredient bioavailability and interactivity can indeed be lacking, but to our knowledge there is no published evidence that such concerns are any greater for non-animal-based ingredients, than for animal-based ingredients.
This is why feeding trials are considered the gold standard to ensure nutritional soundness of new formulations [15, 16]. The health status of cats maintained on different diets has been the subject of limited studies to date. In 2021 Dodd et al. [17] published a Canadian-based survey of 1,325 cat guardians, of whom 1,026 described their cat(s) diet. These included 187 (18%) vegan cats. More guardians of vegan cats reported their cat to be in very good health, and fewer were reported to have gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. These cats were more often reported as having ideal body condition scores, than those fed a meat-based diet.
FFS don't skim the study. 3% of non vegan cats had kidney problems, 4% of vegan cats did.
So you're saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats and we're not destroying our planet in industrial livestock murder. Sounds great!
READ THE STUDY!
No need to shout. I did.
So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats
No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not." Which is understandable, given the methodology. Internet-based questionnaires/surveys are easy to conduct, but tend to have big error bars. It's a common trade-off made when first beginning to investigate a hypothesis.
It's your typical "absence of evidence" versus "evidence of absence" conundrum. The authors note this in their comments on the limitations of their study and on avenues for further research:
As we’ve noted previously [30], large-scale cross-sectional or ideally, longitudinal studies of cats maintained on different diets, utilising objective data, such as results of veterinary clinical examinations and laboratory data, as well as veterinary medical histories, should yield results of greater reliability, if sufficient funding could be sourced.
and we’re not destroying our planet in industrial livestock murder. Sounds great!
Comrade, I'm not trying to argue that cats are "obligate carnivores," or that cats should or should not have vegan diets. I'm not arguing about whether or not cats can meet their nutritional needs from vegan diets. I am only stating that the particular study linked does not provide any usable evidence in support of a conclusion. That's literally what "no reductions were statistically significant" means: that the collected data is not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions.
Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies that convincingly demonstrate the nutritional completeness of vegan diets for cats. But not this study.
I think if there was something else major in meat that we were missing this study would have shown it.
That's fair enough. Not all nutrient deficiencies have acute presentations, and the seven indicators of illness may not account for all the ways nutrient deficiencies could present, but if the crowd shrieking about animal cruelty was right in its hyperbolic hypothesis, then it would be likely for at least one of those seven indicators to get tripped.
FYI I have no patience for non-vegans concern trolling vegan issues. If you're actively harming sentient animals, your opinion is clouded by your own guilt. Apologies in advance if you happen to be vegan.
So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan catsNo. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not."
I don't know why you're so concerned about my taking my ending summary, out of context, when I wrote paragraphs summarising the lit review and minor differences in kidney issues with non vegan vs vegan cats.
couldn't tell if there was a difference or not
Science doesn't speak in absolutes expect in maths. If you read anything outside of the abstract, you'd see that there's a few other existing studies that support it, no studies claim the opposite, and further research should be done as in all medical research of this type.
Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies
No kidding. No if only the "cats must eat meat" side had this sorta need for rigorous methodology.
I know it's not intentional but fuck me if I didn't doubletake at 1418
Im tempted to make a world account just to ram my face into this thread in particular. Just no thoughts in this persons head other than
. Information justs slides right off like a tab of butter on a slide during a hot summer afternoon.The biggest issue with Reddit and Facebook was that they let stuff like this stick around it and eventually consume it.
It’s a good policy imho, and I’m happy to see it
Science should prevail
Because the priority for them is engagement, regardless of how harmful the content could be to people. Engagement doesn’t mean shit here because nobody’s profiting off of it.
Am I really hearing this shit from a .world user?
@Rose 3•
As noted in my post on the “moderation incident”, by adding more subjectivity to the rules, you are opening the door to even more instance moderator misconduct. There is already evidence of how that would go.
Rooki felt it right to intervene in the !vegan cat food thread (and got a pat on the back with the new rules made to justify their actions), then not only took no issue with comments like “Meat is not something diabetics need to worry about.” but also fueled the fire in the same thread by saying “To be honest linking something like meat to death of people is like saying everybody that breathed air died.”
So much for taking action against harmful dietary advice.
That post is wild just carnist after carnist whining
Bewildered Carnist
"What the fuck is “vegan cat food”? I sometimes can’t understand people."
"Ok. I get it. As people, we are bad. We mass husbandry just for food, modifying them with artificial selection for productivity. So I can understand veganism (although I am not vegan)."
"But have we really reached the point where we stop animals from eating meat? Either I’m a bigoted idiot or people are out of their minds."
q
Brave Poster
"For me, the purpose of the post is exactly what it asks for. I don’t think I’ve ever posted to !vegan except for today, to cross-post the OP, but my own fate as an active lemmy.world user likely rests on the outcome of this request. I run a tiny community that has no relation to animal rights or ethics but I feel it is absolutely threatened when there are moderators like Rooki that act based on their views rather than the rules."
Smug Carnist
"That vegan community has a rule against misinformation. The idea that a cat is perfectly healthy on a vegan diet is misinformation. You feel threatened by mods like Rooki who act based on rules rather than your views. You’d rather mistreat animals than admit that anything any vegan has ever said ever might be wrong, and not allow anyone to point out that your wrong."
Concern troll Carnist
People are out of their minds. It’s a cult. Thankfully, mostly constrained to the west.
Famously some British folks invented caring about animal rights in 1940 or whenever. There has never been any large or long lived philosophical movements against the eating of animals outside the west. Certainly there are no religions that take non violence to mean that people should eat plant based. None at all. Outside britian and the vegan cult that is.
They're apparently going to release an actual statement on the "incident" Later today. It would be surprising if anything good came from that after they wrote these new rules to justify further actions.
I hate that i ever had a positive interaction with someone as pathetic and worthless as rooki. (not that any of the other disgusting tumors that run stormfront.world are any better)
assuming I'm interpreting this right, people were just coming in and spamming pictures of meat? actual loser behavior it sounds so boring even ignoring how gross it is to do that.
Oh yeah, carnist trolls are extremely averse to any creativity, it's always literally the same thing, and they think we are so fucking owned lol. As if we haven't watched stuff like Dominion and other slaughterhouse footage, or just shop in regular stores that stock meat next to tofu
- ShowMa, I'm famous
Hope lemmy.wehrmacht follows their leader. Also hope you repost this comment too, fascist losers
Libs stop making us look cool challenge level: impossiable
The moral panic over hexbear is so cringe. Like there are a few people that post here I think are a bit cooked, but it's honestly a low % than world or whatever. They seem to think you're some hoard of psy-ops agents champing at the bit to round people up and Dirlewanger Brigade them.
Mostly it's just shitposts and bitching about the usa which is entirely justified as it's an evil military empire...
Being allergic to cats has saved me from so many arguments, both online and off.
