In short
I got a reply from a prolific anti-vegan troll and referred them back to an earlier conversation we had. Got banned for “harassment” and “following someone around” when in fact they replied to me and keep following vegans around when they post against anti-vegan propaganda.
The 14-day ban and comment removals by @aeronmelon@lemmy.world: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111
And the posts in question:
The comments when I posted them rendered as
Oh hey its you
The link is to a discussion which expanded is this here (The link goes to the comment with the highlighted star):
With background
The person in question is a very dedicated anti-vegan troll who is known to make non-sequitur claims as replies to vegans, in the hopes of roping then into a defensive position under the guise of “debate”.
To exemplify this I engaged with them a couple months ago and got a perfect showcase of their behaviour. I had never used this and have never replied to them since then (at least I don’t remember that I have and searching didn’t turn anything up). But then when they replied to me yesterday I did. And got promptly banned for “harassment” and “following someone around”. I messaged the mod who banned me to no reply.
Their behaviour is being enabled by lemmy.world mods like @aeronmelon@lemmy.world who will readily delete comments made by vegans should they dare step a foot outside of the norms of “civilized debate”, like e.g. in the same thread (1) and (2). The petulant and incessant trolling by them is of course never subject to such moderation actions.
To any vegan comrades, do not engage this troll, you risk getting banned and your comments deleted.
Apparently I used wrong account to post this. Will have to switch accounts to my blahaj account on occasion to reply to comments, apologies.
Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
FYI It’s not appropriate to use this comm to target a user who has not taken mod actions against you. Please edit your post accordingly. If you wish to report a user, you can do so using the normal channels. This comm is specifically for complaining about power tripping mods/admins.
However, if you feel mods have not taken appropriate action against a reported user, in your opinion, then you can complain about those mods here, preferably without identifying the user in question. In that case, please make sure you explain what mod actions you feel would be more appropriate, so we can have that discussion.
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.
Ok I think that’s fair enough, thanks.
Thank you
CLM. This is one of the dedicated anti-vegan trolls we have. Being a sea lion is fine on lemmy, libs care only about being “civil” during these discussions. Lemmy.world’s incivility rule is used to silence people all the time. It’s no surprise this behavior is still happening, we’ve had this same thing happen before. Yes it is annoying and off-putting to troll people and then report them. I would say that is being shitty to others, not very genuine / welcoming / cooperative/ authentic / considerate etc. I would love for vegans to feel more comfortable on lemmy and across the fediverse, but until people give a shit this will continue to happen. Hexbear is one of the only instances I know that will ban bad-faith carnists, yes one of the evil boogeymen of the fediverse is not afraid to take a stand. Meanwhile, most instances don’t care what their users do during off-instance communities. Always check someone’s modlog to see if they have previously been banned for this shit, I think you will find that they have been.
wouldn’t you know if I reported them? you told me in the past not to report people who treat me poorly.
edit: of all the things you could have contributed, you neglected to mention the one thing you know no one else could, and instead just shit talked me. idk how you became an admin, but I am interested in the recall procedure.
him please and thank you
PTB. Remembering someone and linking back to an earlier conversation is hardly stalking or harassment, particularly if it’s on a similar topic. It’s natural to start recognizing the usernames of people that engage in the same spaces as you on a platform as small as Lemmy. And as you pointed out, they replied to your comment, so if anything it would have been them following you around. And while I could see people finding this argument annoying, it’s certainly still civil. No one should have been subject to mod action here imo.
It seems like commie is less about anti-veganism and more about anti-poorly-formed-arguments.
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.
I think you are a bit confused about proof and logic, it is possible to prove absence of a property X if the presence of X has a necessary condition Y. Should Y fail, X cannot be present. This is one of the basic tools for proving theorems in math, for example if I can prove that the derivative of a function f is never zero, I can indeed prove that f has no localized minimum or maximum. More formally, given sets A and B we want to prove that their intersection is empty by proving that the complement of A is a superset of B.
Or in more laymans terms (I don’t mean to be condescending I have no clue how well you know this stuff and want to cover my bases) If the streets are wet after it has rained, the fact that they are dry is proof of the absence of rain.
So there absolutely is a sufficient condition to prove the absence of sentience, the “ability to experience feelings and sensations”. Or rather, there is a necessary condition to having sentience, since at the bare minimum it requires an organism to be capable of collecting sensory inputs, processing them and reacting to them. That is, it needs a nervous system. A lack of such facilities therefore means a lack of sentience.
A tree has no capacity to “feel” what’s happening to it’s branches. Lopping one of will have the rest of the tree completely unaffected, only the cut will “experience” the change and heal. An animal on the other hand can anticipate (even if erroneously) damage and react to it, by processing input with it’s nervous system. A clam will close, a cat might jump, a human might scream etc.
This argument is presented in the link that sparked that comment chain just to be clear.
Now this isn’t a formal proof of course. Such a proof would require the careful dissection and experimentation of plants to show that indeed no nervous system or similarly functioning facility is present. I think this is an inappropriate amount of work to ask of someone when arguing on the internet, which is why I would consider the above argument proof enough. Most people I would think can see clearly that salad is not sentient but a pig is. To pin this on the nervous system should also make sense to most and if someone is intrigued by such a topic usually they ask follow-up questions and don’t combatively dismiss everything that’s said (this argument is wrong therefore the claim is wrong is also some-type of fallacy).
The reason I didn’t spell all of this out is because I had enough of these “that’s not a proper proof/argument” counterpoints, lazily shifting the burden for even the most trivial arguments on to vegans, which is why I made the point that it is a proof, just not a formal one. That there are different layers of formalization and depending on context being lax can be more appropriate than a formalized argument.
What then followed was a continued stream of claims with 0 arguments provided and a prompt dismissal of the conversation when pushed for even one.
my whole point was that it is unfalsifiable. I did what you are saying they should have done.
It seems to me they are more about JAQing off to their own perceived intelligence.
everything I said was true. I don’t think I actually asked any questions (the q in jaq).
That’s the raw high grade pedantry I miss from reddit.
thank you.
Looks like you’re searching for people to agree with you on this debate and incite a brigade against this user.
You both have terrible arguments and the mod shouldn’t have removed your comments.
As an aside, I require animal protein. Not only have I been vegan/vegetarian at different times, but I was a chef in a vegan/vegetarian/raw restaurant and a vegan production kitchen. It took a long time, a doctor and a (vegan) nutritionist to figure out how much animal protein I need and how to limit my impact, so I’m not super cool with some of your comments about people who eat meat.
If I were searching for people to agree with me I would post this to a vegan community. I’m looking to defend myself against the accusation of “following someone around” and “harassing” them.
As an aside I have heard the dietary reason a couple times now but never anything concretely about it and I’d like to learn more about it. Please don’t see this as a reason to defend your right to live or feel pressured into replying in any way, I do want to learn more about this but you obviously are under no obligation to talk about your health on the internet to a stranger on the internet.
Also veganism is about minimizing harm, if you need animal protein to live then I’d consider that non-minimizable. I for instance require adhd medicine to function but unfortunately all the derivatives come with gelatin for the delaying effect necessary for it to correctly function. I consider this non-minimizable as well, since this is a choice forced upon me by society. There might be plant-based alternatives possible but they are not getting produced and I do not posses the means (or legal basis) to produce it myself.
Posting the whole argument doesn’t support your statement about not stalking and harassing, is what I’m saying. I still don’t agree with the mod action.
I added that for context, to be aware of when making disparaging statements about eating meat.
I don’t understand the biological reasons myself. I know I feel like shit (sluggish, sick, can’t sleep) when I go more than a week without about 6-10oz of meat-based protein, which aligns with what the nutritionist told me. She said people like me need 1-2 chicken breasts a week to stay healthy.
I stick to low-impact meat products, rely on a couple hunter pals, and only buy what I can eat. I still eat a lot of fully vegan meals, vegan sausages, tempeh, and mix in a lot of vegetable protein to “beef up” traditionally meaty recipes. Avocados and beans and all that. I always have eggs for a quick “pick me up,” but they aren’t enough to fill the meat gap.
Cooking skills help. I probably wouldn’t have tried a vegan diet if not for that job, and probably wouldn’t have put as much work into figuring out my needs if I didn’t have some very cool, conscientious, knowledgable people around me, like that nutritionist. Not everyone knows why they feel/need the things they do. Like you, most of us are just trying our best.
Pointing out that a person was an annoying shithead in a previous conversation about a related topic (and tries to do so again) shouldnt get you banned. But the way you worded it in the removed comment really makes it easy to misunderstand your intent. Did you try to talk about this with the mods before posting here? I think it could be genuine mistake / misunderstanding of the situation.
I did, got no reply
It’s only been a day. Some people have lives and work.
Guys posts valid opinions in a threat about veganism, notably NOT in a vegan community. Then you get all stalkery for now reason. If you can’t deal with opposing opinion in neutral spaces, block and move on.
YDI.
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.
You literally just dug up 2 year old comments to make your point …
Yeah while researching for this post… Meaning I dug into their past posts after I got accused of stalking in order to better showcase their behaviour to an audience that isn’t familiar with them. What behaviour made the accusation of stalking and ban for it appropriate?
edit:
also they encourage digging into their past to look at how long they’ve been doing this, on the same comment:
… i do encourage you to sort my comments by old.
i have been objecting to your feckless method of protecting teh environment for years.
Meaning I dug into their past posts after I got accused of stalking
Then what exactly did the two removed links you posted contain? They don’t work any more but it feels like they were linking to this guys post history.
A past discussion we had that I had marked for later.
I mean I did write that I engaged with them before that, so I think it’s pretty clear that I didn’t have to go out of my way to look for it, since it’s a discussion they had with me. I even had it bookmarked for reference.I don’t know why they dont show up for you, they work for me: lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346
edit: I understand the confusion now and will amend the summary to clarify. Thanks for pointing that out.
Could you point to the “valid opinions” you mention? I can’t really find them…
Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
I’m not anti vegan
taken care of thank you for telling me
ptb
issthty
Why don’t vegans eat eggs, are they anti-abortion?
/jk
It’s clear your very passionate. But your coming across as combative and looking for a fight.
Oh no why won’t the corpsemunchers like me 😢
REALLY looking for a fight.
As someone who has often dipped my toes into this very debate - most people are not looking for a actual discussion - they just want to win. I think this includes you too
No source is ever good enough, no proof ever strict enough etc.
If only there were people who had standards for the evidence they will consider… https://hackertalks.com/post/15439661
well look who it is
don’t engage with this notorious “carnivore diet” promoter.
Oh this person is a known as well? Thanks for the heads up.
They aren’t merely an unconscious carnist, they are extremely psychologically invested in practicing cruelty and violence with intent. They are fucked in the head real real bad. They will take a “reasonable tone” and pretend to be the mature party, but everything they say is twisted into bad faith, and I can’t even tell if they know they do it.
extremely psychologically invested in practicing cruelty and violence with intent.
Assuming intent.
They are fucked in the head real real bad
Bad Faith, Ad hominem
They will take a “reasonable tone” and pretend to be the mature party
Because I am, I love to read and discuss. Our attempts at mutual discussion end up with you just going into this name calling.
everything they say is twisted into bad faith, and I can’t even tell if they know they do it.
Nothing I do is in bad faith. I have opinions and I admit they may be wrong. I’m open to evidence and discussion to find a better optimal approach to health.
Honestly all these personal attacks are wearisome and its easy to see why moderators start painting with a broad brush
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.
So insulting a entire demographic of people is fine so long as one of them offended you first? That is why your coming off as combative.
As someone who wants to talk about the benefits of a zero carb diet (carnivore), I’ve been called many nasty things along these lines… they are rhetorical tools used in anger when argument arent available (either due to emotion or attempting to “win”)
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.
Great, I invite you to make a post in !carnivore@discuss.online to educate us on our propaganda problems (as long as you can engage in polite productive discussions suitable for a work environment)
What about insulting an entire demographic without even being prompted? That’s the double standard I am talking about here. That somehow always goes unmentioned, unchallenged unless a vegan responds in kind.
Thats the point to these “insults”, to push back against this language in a way that won’t have us limited by “rational, civilized” discourse while the antivegans are allowed to run roughshod with insults and jokes about us. It is an uneven playfield and the rules work against us, so I won’t play by them. An added bonus is of course that the “shocked and appalled” reactions give great opportunity to show the inherent antivegan bias in standard discourse like I am doing now or you can witness in the comment chain directly below said comment.
There is a reason to the madness and it’s not just for self-gratification 😄
What about insulting an entire demographic without even being prompted?
Eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
limited by “rational, civilized” discourse while the antivegans are allowed to run roughshod with insults and jokes about us.
There are 75, SEVENTY FIVE, vegan communities on lemmy last I checked, there is no lack of representation.
It is an uneven playfield and the rules work against us, so I won’t play by them.
Right, so you just want to fight, and break community rules and that is why the ban is YDI.
Look at the standard lemmy feed or comment section and tell me that there is vegan overpresentation. There is much higher vegan representation on lemmy than usual which is probably why it seems like there is, but the standard jokes and insults still get played out to a regular degree.
Right, so you just want to fight, and break community rules and that is why the ban is YDI.
Not what I said. I want to (among other things) point out the inherent antivegan bias in standard discourse and one tool to demonstrate it is returning some of the language directed at us. I am not looking for a fight for the sake of fighting (edit: and would say I’m not the one instigating it) and I have no intention of breaking community rules. Furthermore none of this adds up to stalker behavior, the main allegation against me.
There is much higher vegan representation on lemmy than usual which is probably why it seems like there is, but the standard jokes and insults still get played out to a regular degree.
I would like to point out you have been joking and insulting me in your other comments(not responding to me directly), yet I don’t reciprocate.
inherent antivegan bias in standard discourse
Honestly, I feel this. Zero Carb gets the SAD people, the Omnivores, and the pbf people taking shots at you… So i understand what its like to have a niche opinion that gets immediately criticized.
wrong acc again
By “ani vegan troll” you mean a person who disagrees with you?
Edit:
Vegan (…) someone becoming less of a monster by not denying others the right to life. (…) vegans are not good people because they’re vegans, veganism is only about not committing evil
By which you are implying people enjoying a good steak are evil monsters. Fuck you.
By anti-vegan troll I mean someone who will turn up in any discussion about veganism of reasonable size with bad faith engagement bait masked as “rational and logical debate”, also known as debate pervertry, sealioning, JAQing off etc.
Please have a look at their past posts for yourself, this isn’t someone merely disagreeing, this is a pattern of intentionally disruptive behaviour.
edit: By which you are implying people enjoying a good steak are evil monsters. Fuck you.
They are, they have a loving and likely beloved creature murdered and feast on its corpse, I won’t apologize for facts.
I looked at yours. You are one of the vegan fanatics implying other people are somehow “less moral” than yourself because they don’t share your dietary choices.
have a loving and likely beloved creature murdered and feast on its corpse, I won’t apologize for facts.
You are actually worse than trolls as you appear to genuinely hold warped, distorted, bizarre belief in your own moral supremacy.
based on your modlog you seem like exactly the person being described. I’m sorry you’re so emotionally attached to eating the murder treats
Oh, another fanatical vegan? 😂
I don’t know about fanatical. While I am vegan in my daily life, I’d eat a human if given a chance.
I don’t know about fanatical
eating the murder treats
🤦
did the animals consent to being imprisoned until getting chopped up?
even if we drop that it still holds up:
You seem emotionally attached to treats.
I don’t think that’s a particularly rare view to hold. The fact that animals are sentient and it is therefore wrong to kill them is the core of veganism. Everything else (including the sentiment that nonvegans are “less moral” than vegans) follows from that.
Everything else (including the sentiment that nonvegans are “less moral” than vegans) follows from that.
“Christians belive in real God. Everything else <other religions being wrong and less moral> follows from that.”
🙄
Nope, wrong, it doesn’t.
t. a christian.
There you go, good boy. Now apply the same to your beliefs 😂
Logical consistency? Already done. Lets check the results:
- A person believing in another religion is not more or less wrong than me.
- A person having a sentient creature killed and butchered is.
Seems ok to me. In fact I think most people would be horrified if someone took a momma cats kittens, killed them and kept the momma confined to a tiny cage only to milk her dry. And I should think they would you look down on such a person. I merely looked at why and then looked if that reason would apply anywhere else.
