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](/c/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
As someone who runs various metabolic, ketogenic, and even a carnivore community - I don't think I have a anti-vegan viewpoint, however - reading this proposal it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes?
Isn't the legislation of outcomes and allowed topics of discussion anti-scentific by its vary nature? It sounds like it is codifying dogma. Very reminiscent to the Catholic church forbidding any discussion of settled matters and banning heliocentrism
The scientific method itself requires open questioning!
If it's forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on "settled topics" - that is anti-science.
A distinction needs to be made between good faith discussions of peer-reviewed, published research, and bad faith discussions of anecdotal evidence.
If you're carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don't think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.
Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies. This same thinking is why FAF mods have taken proactive and reactive stances against Zionists in the recent weeks and months. Zionism is a racist ideology that mythologizes Jewish supremacy over Native Arabian peoples, and results in real-world harm in the form of open air prisons, land stealing, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, among other harms.
Zionism, however, is an INTRA species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans. Carnivorism is an INTER species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans and all other wildlife on Earth. The hierarchical principle is the same.
Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.
I think carnist is used as a insult in the vegan space? Other then that, I agree with this statement.
I agree with this, I'm putting my human health above that of animals. I admit it.
Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?
OP please correct the post if I'm right, or let me know if I'm misunderstanding if I'm wrong.
If the goal of a specific community is to improve the health of its constituents, then that's fine. If that can be accomplished in ketogenic and zero-carb ways without unnecessary harm of others via animal consumption, then that's fine.
As a vegan myself, I would appreciate a safe space that I think OP is trying to advocate for where the topic of health with regards to ketogenic and zero-carb diets is discussed, and the possibility of doing those things in vegan ways is broached, considered, and allowed to stand on its own.
But if health is the ultimate concern for any of these communities, I would want leaders in these communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways, and for there to be respectful discussion (where vegans don't automatically shove our views down other's throats) between vegans and members of those communities should they be curious to exchange ketogenic or zero-carb methods in favor of vegan methods.
Let's not forget the core tenants of veganism: reduction of animal suffering as much as possible. Vegans recognize that there are other people that exist who cannot get all their nutritional needs in vegan ways. What vegans argue is that there is a distinction between what is nutritionally necessary and unnecessary. If people have the means and knowledge to achieve their goals in vegan ways, whether health related or other, then they should be encouraged to do so..
How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?
I'm not an expert on the latest research surrounding zero-carb diets and if any research has been done with vegan diets in particular.
But if you wanted to make a new post on the community you mod/admin, I would be interested in learning the facts and willing to do my own research to contribute to the conversation.
Sure thing! Here you go: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68390626
I would not ban you or your carnivore community. I may be wrong (and honestly don't feel like scrutinizing your history rn), but you don't troll. We will never agree on veganism and your advocation of eating mostly meat, I am a moral/ethical vegan first and the rest of it is a bonus. While there were some seriously questionable things that got c/carnivore banned from .world, the problematic mod is gone afaik and I already have your communities blocked (as a user). We would be able to ban people who intentionally antagonize and troll vegans, and that would be a bonus for anyone tired of the hostility. Do you go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here. If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.
That is a problem. my issue is the proposal as written doesn't address that but is very broad in quashing discussion in any place on topics that don't align with a philosophical outcome.
This is how I see the proposal as written in the post as actually functioning.
You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed. While the idea is that certain patterns of reasoning and engagement are disallowed.
This is also why it isnt proposed as a user facing rule but as an internal alignment principle.
straight from the post, this was actively smth i was thinking about.
There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.
Also, open inquiry is necessary for challenging systems of domination. But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo. That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.
From the post title it strongly implies that any discussion or conclusion that doesn't align with pro-vegan tenants would be banned as anti-scientific. i.e. If I have a paper that demonstrates a egg a day in developing children in areas with strong economic vegetarianism shows a massive impact in cognitive development. (this paper https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.4.1119) wouldn't this be against this policy proposal? Remember the policy is framed as anti-vegan discourse, anything that demonstrates meat as a benefit could be seen as "anti-vegan".
Can you honestly say my communities don't run afoul of your proposal?
Then the framing of this rule should be about standards of evidence for any discussion, not only around a single topic where you bake in the allowed outcome in the rule.
I think this critique is fair in one specific sense: if the rule were interpreted as “content that shows animal products can have benefits is anti-vegan and therefore disallowed,” then yes—that would be dogmatic and anti-scientific.
But that’s not the boundary I’m proposing, and your study example is actually a good way to clarify it.
A paper showing that meat can improve cognitive outcomes in malnourished children is not “anti-vegan discourse” in the sense I’m describing. It’s a context-specific empirical claim. It doesn’t dismiss nutritional science as a whole, it doesn’t rely on anecdote, and it doesn’t misrepresent consensus—it adds to a body of evidence about nutrition under specific conditions.
If someone uses that same study to argue something like nutritional science supporting plant-based diets is unreliable, without engaging the broader body of evidence, that’s where it starts to fall into the pattern I’m describing. Particularly in vegan spaces.
The reason it’s written in relation to anti-vegan discourse is because that’s where the pattern is being observed repeatedly. But the underlying principle is general. We're applying the same rule to vaccines, climate, etc. already.
the rule is general (epistemic standards), the application highlights anti-vegan discourse as a frequent case.
when discourse systematically functions to dismiss or obscure large-scale systems of harm (industrial agriculture, labor exploitation, environmental damage), then it’s in tension with anarchist commitments to confronting domination. That’s about patterns and effects, not isolated claims or individual studies.
Im sorry i havent gone through your communities yet. Will look at em later.
What kind of child calls themselves a carnivore?
The type that doesn't insult others for mild differences in diet. Call it zero-carb if you find the other label disagreeable.
I'll call it childish thanks.
As childish as opening my profile and downvoting the last 14 posts and comments I made?
I'd do worse if I could carnist.
The worst thing you can do to me is prove your lifestyle is better, and if you do that, I will happily change my behavior. I'm open to any constructive non-slapfight discussion, I actually read papers - so we can do a book club if you like. I don't take low hazard ratio, low absolute value, epidemiology as anything other then hypothesis generating, so lets restrict ourselves to papers that can speak to cause and effect.
I’m not going to debatebro a carnist.
@SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
How does this type of discussion fit into your moderation model?