this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
611 points (96.2% liked)
memes
9680 readers
3050 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 [email protected]
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
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really hate how many people are spreading disinfo for no reason here. We should be better than that.
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.
The admins then overstepped and removed such comments.
I'm not going to argue the validity of any of those claims as I'm not a vegan and I don't care to research, but the vegan mods were a lot more reasonable than they're being painted here.
Uh. Hardly reasonable.
Yeah, that's well and truly off the deep end. This is someone who I'd cross the road to avoid.
Are you just posting a random comment to me or what? What relevance does this have to the admin retaliations?
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.
That's not the comment which caused this whole issue. It seems to me you're cherry picking out of context
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.
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.
No, it's just politely worded. That's not reasonable. That's civility politics.
I agree. They absolutely should read the context, and the modlog.
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.
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
I literally quoted one of them.
You literally saw them remove articles to the contrary in the link provided.
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.
Some vegan bashing in highly upvoted comments:
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.
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.
Are you done grandstanding? or should I get you a medal as well? It's ok, you can now have the last word.
db0, I think you're cool overall, but your characterization of PugJesus here is pretty unreasonable. :/
Your comments have had no substance and have devolved into straight insults while the other guy constantly puts forth well reasoned points, even if you don't agree with them.
You told him not to do the reddit thing but your interactions with him have been pure reddit quality.
Yeah i gotta agree with the other guy, coming off like a dick here.
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.
Wut...
If that's what the community moderators are saying, I imagine the comment section was far worse than you're making out.
The context of the convo was vegan admins, that was a comment by one. Are you really having that much trouble following the convo?
Good. I don't give a shit about what you put in your mouth. But if you think it's ok to give your pets a shit load of supplements for no reason at all other than forcing your extremism on helpless animals you're out of your mind.