this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024

613 points (96.1% liked)

memes

10506 readers

3040 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

!tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
!linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
!comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

613

I was only gone for a day or two... (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world

868 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The pet sector must die, pet ownership isn’t vegan, pet breeders are the enemies;

We’re not doing “optimal nutrition”, sorry. That biohacking shit to create immortal adopted pets isn’t going to work out. It’s hardly even clear for humans what the optimal diet is, and they pretend that they know what it is for cats??? These fools don’t even comprehend that evolution doesn’t give a shit about longevity. It’s a standard imposed by the marketing agencies of pet foods who want to milk pet owner feelings to have their pets die after they do. It’s a false standard that is great for advertising, but otherwise functions as a Nirvana fallacy machine.

This is just a rephrase, but pet ownership is bourgeois. Well, aristocratic, then bourgeois. Detach. This isn’t about you, you don’t get to annex a sentient being just to keep them as an emotional service slave or as a status symbol. This one is especially for Americans where pets live better than poor people.

Uh. Hardly reasonable.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's well and truly off the deep end. This is someone who I'd cross the road to avoid.

[+] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Are you just posting a random comment to me or what? What relevance does this have to the admin retaliations?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's one of the Vegan mods on .world expressing their views on vegan diets for cats. That's not "The vegans stated very clearly that current science shows that the cat would need a fuckton of supplements and attention to be on a vegan diet but it’s functional.", that's outright "Science doesn't know shit" lunacy.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's not the comment which caused this whole issue. It seems to me you're cherry picking out of context

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Alright, since "Things the mods have said" isn't acceptable evidence for whether or not the mods are pushing ridiculous views on vegan diets for cats, and not just "The vegans stated very clearly that current science shows that the cat would need a fuckton of supplements and attention to be on a vegan diet but it’s functional", I suppose them saying the ASPCA doesn't know what they're talking about, while THEIR simple 'common sense' allows them to understand a cat's TRUE dietary needs is also kosher?

This whole thing comes down to aggressively anti-scientific mods pushing misinformation and removing information to the contrary and getting removed by an admin for their troubles. Or was removing the link to the ASPCA for being 'misinformation' also a sign of how reasonable the c/Vegan mods were?

I don't give a single solitary fuck what happens to Rooki. Whether they were too quick to remove or too uncivil or what. But defending misinformation, or defending mods pushing misinformation as just being reasonable? That gets my dander up.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The commentary you're pointing is way more reasonable than you make it sound. I implore people to read the context themselves and not to trust summaries with rage bait agendas here.

Stop doing the reddit thing. Making people angry at people more radical than them isn't helping.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The commentary you’re pointing is way more reasonable than you make it sound.

No, it's just politely worded. That's not reasonable. That's civility politics.

I implore people to read the context themselves and not to trust summaries with rage bait agendas here.

I agree. They absolutely should read the context, and the modlog.

Stop doing the reddit thing. Making people angry at people more radical than them isn’t helping.

Should people... not be angry at those who spread misinformation and suppress actual information to the contrary? Is there a 'get out of jail free' card you get once you get radical enough that permits you to spread misinformation, no moral qualms necessary? Whether they're 'more radical' or less shouldn't fucking matter, even assuming such a linear evaluation was valid.

[+] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I haven't seen them try to push misinfo. If anything, I've seen them post scientific articles supporting their claims and accepting that it's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

And yes, very radical people will have some radical fucking takes. Y'all are using this as a foothold to promote generalize anti-vegan hate in this thread. There's no nuance anymore, just bashing.

And yes, just trying to make people angry by painting all vegans as "let's feed our cats veggies, YOLO" when their approach was way more careful and nuanced, is fucked up

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I haven’t seen them push misinfo.

I literally quoted one of them.

If anything, I’ve seen them post scientific articles supporting their claims and accepting that it’s an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

You literally saw them remove articles to the contrary in the link provided.

And yes, very radical people will have some radical fucking takes.

Oh, okay, that's alright then, if they're radical, then they're allowed to have dangerous takes and spread misinformation without pushback. Pack it up everyone, let's go home!

And before you try "I didn't say there shouldn't be pushback", let me reiterate that this started because the c/Vegan mods removed an ASPCA link and argument they didn't like.

Y’all are using this as a foothold to promote generalize anti-vegan hate in this thread. There’s no nuance anymore, just bashing.

Some vegan bashing in highly upvoted comments:

For the record, cats can not be vegan. They can survive on it but they will have shorter more painful lives and they will go blind. There bodies start breaking down without the proteins and amino acids found in meat. I understand why vegans would be unhappy with that answer but it is the way it is.

Interesting enough, that’s not the case for dog. You can put a dog on a vegan diet as long as you are very careful and are constantly monitoring. It isn’t for the faint of heart and can have very sad outcomes. It isn’t something you can arbitrarily do.

Until I joined Lemmy I had no idea how militant vegans could be. I sorta just assumed they were a different brand of vegetarian.

I’m not opposed to their ideaology in any way, but after reading the comments on a few posts that found their way into my feed… I had to block their communities. It didn’t seem likely that I’d be reading any productive discourse there.

It’s so sad, because veganism is a good force in our culture. Look at all of the vegan meat alternatives and more and more restaurants that have to have at least vegetarian options in certain areas. That wasn’t a thing 20 years ago.

Remember you’re only seeing the very online vegan.

Whoah whoah whoah. Let’s chill with the general fuck vegans statement. Most vegans are just people. Now the psycho vegans who try to make their cats eat vegan. Fuck those people. But broad statements like “fuck this group” tend to stick in people’s heads and promote undeserved hate. “Fuck the Nazi’s”? Yeah. “Fuck Germans”? No.

[+] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Sorry mate, but there's no point in talking to you anymore. All you do is trying to ragebait and win the internet argument and there's no point in wasting time on that.

I repeat that people should look for themselves in the discussions the vegans had in public and in their own threads where they didn't have to be so defensive and adversarial in the face of rando hate. If you're interested, see for yourselves whether they were unscientific or not but please don't trust summaries like these who just want to make you dismiss radicals vegans without further thought.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry mate, but there’s no point in talking to you anymore. All you do is trying to ragebait and it’s not gonna work on me.

You first claimed that they were being reasonable; when faced with clear evidence of the mods having very unreasonable positions on vegan cat diets and on scientific evidence more generally, you shifted to the claim that the mods being unreasonable wasn't the source of the issue (and was thus irrelevant); when presented with evidence of the mods putting up that selfsame unreasonable argument in the thread in dispute, you said it wasn't misinfo and was scientifically supported; and now that it's been pointed out that scientific information to the contrary was deliberately removed in that very comment thread by the mods pushing their view which, by both the material of the argument (appeal to common sense) and context, was founded on deeply unscientific positions, you say that all of that is well and fine, but people in this thread are just using it as an excuse to hate on vegans; when I display that the most upvoted comments in this thread are far from hating on vegans, you decry me as engaging in 'ragebait'.

You've come in determined to defend the c/Vegan mods, and the realities of the situation be damned. It's a reflexive reaction, and it's bullshit, and it deserves to be called out as much.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They have been providing sources and quotes to back up their points. You have not. You just seem upset that people don't agree with you lol.

You keep saying people should look into it themselves. This guy did, he's showing you what he found and you don't like it.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Someone claims mods were being reasonable
Post quote showing they are not being reasonable
"Stop cherry picking"

Wut...

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

If that's what the community moderators are saying, I imagine the comment section was far worse than you're making out.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The context of the convo was vegan admins, that was a comment by one. Are you really having that much trouble following the convo?