/c/food is basically /c/veganfood at this point, and is all but being moderated as such with meat posts requiring NSFW tags* and pinned threads pushing veganism. /c/omnivore (or something along those lines) would be an explicitly non-vegan food community so there just doesn't have to be interaction between vegans and non-vegans wrt food posts.

* Despite members of the community expressing multiple times that we didn't want that. And the thread announcing it was locked immediately.

Sorry this borders on /c/strugglesession, but this is still the right comm for this. We shouldn't struggle session about the merits of veganism here; just discuss whether there should be an explicitly omnivore community.

  • asaharyev [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I agree. It seems adding a content warning because of food containing meat does a disservice to the intended purpose. Basically implies being vegan is equivalent to being a survivor of assault.

    A somewhat (I guess) more apt comparison to veganism is being in recovery. Alcohol and tobacco addicts attempting to quit have a more visceral response to posts about those substances than vegans do to meat posts.

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I just think it looks gross. Like if your food browsing was also full of gore pics

    • Veganhydride [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I don't view it as equivalent to something intended for survivors of assault, but it is literally a corpse and many vegans do not want to see pictures of corpses when they're expecting to see food. I know that probably sounds overdramatic but this is how I view it and it is based in reality (again, it's literally a corpse). It's not just a joke / censorship thing, and it shouldn't be viewed as undermining "actual" content warnings that have been "officially" deemed to be necessary.