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
I mostly lurk, but for once I will come out of the woodwork to say, this feels absurd and heavy handed.
If a person argues with pseudoscientific reasons and has nothing substantial to back their claims, then fine, we as humans should try to correct them, present counter points, facts, research papers, citations, etc.
You have to give a best effort attempt to change hearts and minds, if the person cannot see reason then they should be ignored, downvoted, disproven. If they threaten to harm anyone, or work actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc., then moderation should be considered.
Banning, forbidding, or otherwise shutting down discourse you don't like, regardless if you're right or wrong is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it. Period.
Then is moderation in a debate useless, beyond, as you put it, when someone "[threatens] to harm anyone, or [works] actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc"?
I find that absurd.
People, in general, do not engage critically with discussion! Especially discussion with any scientific basis, particularly when the people don't have the scientific basis to wholly understand the issue.
I fear your whole argument rests on the assumption that people will do this; that bad arguments will be debased by good arguments, and that the public will recognise this. However, we know that this simply does not happen. Some do it, but most just don't.
People prefer pithy comebacks to accuracy, emotion to reason, and their assumptions affirmed.
It's not that I think you're wrong, in a sense. I agree that we should try to correct people, that we have to give a best effort to change hearts and minds, and that unreasonable people should be ignored, downvoted, and disproven. I also don't like shutting down discourse; but some discourse is harmful, even if it doesn't directly threaten harm, and to allow it to flourish feels like a disservice to all. And it does flourish.
I think that to work on the assumption that good debate happens naturally is foolish, at least when the arguments take place in a public anonymous square.
Funny that arguments for censorship almost always boil down to "Well, you and I are smart and perceptive enough to recognize bad things, but think of the poor gullible idiots and/or children who aren't. We need to protect them from things from which they're not bright enough / mature enough to protect themselves."
So it's not just hierarchical in execution, but in intent. Not only is it the case that enforcing censorship requires the establishment of a hierarchy, but calls for it already presume a hierarchy.
And in both cases with the person calling for censorship glibly assigning themselves to the ruling class...
I can't speak for the other poster, but I don't believe that this is the case at all. It's not that they assume that "people" (by which you self-evidently mean "people stupider than me or you") will do this, but that it's ultimately up to them and not you to decide if that's what they're going to do or not.
Yes - it's unfortunate when "people" make poor choices. But denying them the right to choose is not the solution.
That's not what I mean at all. This has nothing to do with stupidity or gullibility... I'm fallible as well, and I'm very happy when I see community fact-checks (such as Twitter community notes) and justifiably censored posts, as a signal that unproductive additions aren't tolerated. I like those reminders, and I like when there's a group of people whose responsibility it is to check anti-scientific bullshit (or straight-up lies), for when I fail to do it, because everyone fails to do it, sometimes.
I'm not putting myself above anyone; I'm recognising my own limits, and pointing out that those limits are also present in others. Bullshit derails discourse, and if we want discourse to stay on track, we should get rid of bullshit.
If we're going to establish some basis for truth and good discourse (and we have already established that basis in db0), then it should be extended to other contentious points of discussion. I am presuming a hierarchy because it has already been established; it's not of people, but of truth, with some assigned members responsible for moderation.
I find your framing distasteful. Glib.
Mind you, I think something like Twitter's community notes would be much (much) better than straight up removal^[X]^. It's basically the only good thing on Twitter... But we don't have that mechanism on Lemmy, so we do what we can to keep discourse on track. People can still see deleted comments in the modlog.
Just like it's my decision to leave if this place turns into a pig-sty of pseudo-science and conspiracy gibberish! Except I would prefer it not to turn into that, and I think that, without this sort of moderation, it just might. Hence my arguments.
^[X]^ I really think we ought to establish something like that on Lemmy. It's democratic.
You were meant to.
Shame though that you didn't have the integrity or courage to face the fact that that's your framing - that that's, even if you don't enunciate ot or arenieven conscious of it,cwhat you do in fact believe, and what you did in fact clearly imply.
Ah, well, I guess that's a point I didn't consider. Touché.