Goldfishlaser

Hello! For a little while I wasn't posting to the community open_source_ecology that I created and it looks like the community was removed. It may have even been by me who removed it in an attempt to prevent spammers from using an unmodded board. I am wondering if it can be reopened as now there is news I would like to share with the community and am happy to mod again. Thanks!

This thread is just becoming people arguing about what type of vegan speech is effective and failing to understand the concept of the seriousness with which vegans promote and believe in animal rights. To vegans, animals are individuals and their sentience is respected and taken very seriously.

I can't speak to "off topic" or "bundled insults" but if something is "off topic" or "bundled with insults" then it can be moderated accordingly.

A lot of vegans who have had enslaved ancestors are still ok with the analogy and a lot of vegans who ancestors in the holocaust are still ok with the holocaust analogy. Since there is a wide spread of people with this very common opinion, if you censor it, you're ok censoring vegan speech which is hostile to vegans.

I've already said - people compare animal agriculture to slavery because we captivate, force impregnate, mutilate, steal their children, and economically exploit animals. We violate their rights for mere taste pleasure because today, in most parts of the world, it isn't required to do this to them.

People compare it to the holocaust because every year billions are killed, in gas chambers and in abattoirs. They're led to their deaths packed on top of each other in trucks, breaking their legs on floors of shit, dehydrated, and terrified.

When people say this, it's not TRYING to get an emotional response, this is just WHAT happens and WHAT you contribute to if you consume animal products. And some people really wish you'd stop and sometimes emotions get in the way and ok, if someone crosses a line, moderate that shit.

It looks like what's really going to happen here is that because vegans are a minority, even here, the sensibilities of people who get offended by the animal rights point of view is going to blind them to the fact that they're being incredibly censorious. Enjoy your echo chamber if you want, I guess. Disappointing.

Context matters here when we're talking about what speech you're going to outlaw on this platform. You can have whatever opinion you want on whether its ok to exploit a backyard chicken but if you ban someone for this, that's quite censorious. Why don't you just say to them what you said here and let the people suss it out.

Forbidding the comparison of animal captivity, forced reproduction and child stealing, and economic exploitation to slavery would be a clear example of indulging a censorious impulse.

I rarely use this comparison personally because it's subject to this kind of confusion (thinking comparison to human slavery is equating to human slavery). Nevertheless it's my personal opinion that when you account for the massive scale of the suffering, billions of animals yearly, a comparison of severity can still be drawn, even with any inspecies prejudices about the richness of human lives and experience potential compared to animals.

So it seems you're automatically defensive about wanting to moderate vegan speech (preempting with "don't feel personally attacked) and deep down I think you know why.

I understand you're just trying to make a space where everyone feels welcome. But harrassment policy and other conduct policy should cover people getting out of bounds and requires no vegan specific clause. Making a vegan specific clause is a little hostile.

Unless you are truly aiming to ban people for having the opinion that it's not ok to not be vegan. That would be tone policey and censorious, in my opinion. If a vegan is actually harassing someone that calls for moderation, but its already a rule to refrain from harassing. If you want to make a rule on harassment and include several examples, and one of them is a vegan example, that would be fine.

It just reminds me of other contentious issues like racial justice or gender issues. Sometimes people didn't like getting called racist, but do you censor a racial minority because their message is intense and makes someone a little uncomfortable? People have the right to decline interactions that arent going well but they shouldnt expect to always be perfectly comfortable when writing in the public square.

Why don't I gain anything by it?

How is it not helping to remind them where the ice cream came from, since they obviously forgot if they're complaining about it to a vegan.

And what makes you assume moral superiority? You said yourself that you understand how frustrating it is for us to hear about animals being exploited. That's where the joke comes from. People unthinkingly doing wrong and expecting us to say nothing.

I feel ya.

The other day my friend was complaining that his ice cream he had delivered was melted. And I was like "Aw man. They raped a mother and killed her calf to make that ice cream for you and you didn't even get to enjoy it cold". He just rolled his eyes at me but yea, like sorry I'm not sorry lol.

And your cry baby wah wah comment is why carnists get the reputation they do.

Depends on what OP means by being mean. I read it as the sometimes sardonic remarks that are almost compelled from us when they want to discuss their carnist lifestyle around us or to us as though we are just gonna be like "you be you".

And so many people think eating chicken is healthy. Eating chicken is eating disease, filth, and suffering.