This is about the comment removal and ban by @aeronmelon@lemmy.world. Well more the reason for it, I have received many ridiculous bans before, for longer times even, but accusing me of "harassment" and "following someone around" in the modlog where I can't reply is fairly egregious.

I felt this much context was necessary to show why I remembered (and even bookmarked) a discussion I had with the person months ago. It is pretty hard to show that I am not stalking someone so I went with adding as much context as possible.

I agree that the focus very much gets pulled from the mod and to the other user, but this is at it's core about the accusations that got put in the modlog, so that at least I have noted a defense for it while it's still fresh. Since these modlog accusations tend to compound like for e.g. another ban I received for calling out Germany's complicity in the Palestinian genocide citing all the other bans I had received.

It is also to call out the double standard in moderation where this user seems to never be at the receiving end of mod actions despite (rather obviously imo) engaging in bad faith behaviour.

I'll trim it down, please have a look again in 5 minutes. I don't think anonymizing the other party will be possible however since my comment is in direct reply to them, even references a discussion I had with them and ultimately it is an accusation that I'm "following them around". Very hard to talk about while completely omitting who "they" are.

How did I stalk them? What behaviour of mine constitutes stalking? They replied to me first. To my recollection I never initiated an interaction with them.

ptb

It seems to me they are more about JAQing off to their own perceived intelligence.

Apparently only vegans can make poorly formed arguments however. The carnists are a bastion of logic and reason, no ideological bias whatsoever, this is just your friendly neighborhood cop who polices internet comments that don't constitute a formal argument

In the pictured comment chain, the quote text asked OP to prove the absence of something (sentience in plants). Then Commie later admitted that it was impossible to do so. And from the start, the claim that plants are sentient is likely one that no one involved actually believes. I cannot think why you would make such an objection other than to exhaust someone and waste their time.

And even if plants were somehow sentient, it would still be less harmful to eat them directly than raising animals to eat due to the massive calorie loss from going up the food chain. Having animals be a middle man for humanity's consumption would result in more plants being killed, not fewer. OP touched on this briefly in their replies. Meaning that even if it was intended to object to veganism, the argument only adds an additional reason to adopt it.

OP did imply an objection to the plant sentience claim disproved it, which is the wrong response, but only because they should have rejected it out of hand as something unfalsifiable. Commie chose to be pedantic that it could still be true.

There's not enough here to judge Commie as a troll, but they did support a spurious argument much more than OP.

thank you.

That was in direct reply to "Which is probably why no one cares about outspoken vegans". This is a classic blindspot for many nonvegans where the ridicule and rude dismissal of vegans is so normalized it doesn't track as offensive.

Imagine someone saying "that's why no one cares about outspoken anti-trump activists", I think a clapback along the lines of "oh no why won't the fascists like me 😢" would read quite differently to other antifascists than to the fascists who would certainly see it as the replier provoking and not the other way around.

And no, my point isn't to "win" a debate, which is why I rarely engage in debating behavior. I want to push back against popaganda, to make vegan voices heard and to not leave carnist propaganda unchallenged.