this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
226 points (99.1% liked)
chapotraphouse
13473 readers
1 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That blows up on Hexbear whenever someone gets mad at vegans for talking about the actual cost and harm done by the meat industry.
People were mad at the vegan comm because they were aggressive and confrontational dicks to everyone on the site while using the patina of veganism as an excuse.
Its why most of those very same vegans are all mostly banned off the website for their behaviors.
Its one thing to advocate for veganism, its another thing to for example call someone a “r*pe enjoyer” to a sexual assault victim for drinking milk in a thread completely unrelated to veganism.
Hexbear, pondering how it is perceived on other instances:
yeah, the defederation drama is probably a good opportunity for self-crit
Ngl I kinda miss the chaos vegans
They certainly made the website spicier
Thus of olde: get that slave labor out of my face, bloodmouth!
Thus now: uwu wat a nice looking honey biscut, no thanks, I don’t want one…
I may have missed the worst of that; I wouldn't have said that myself.
I had not seen any recent examples of that, but the "vegan spoke up, how uncivil" thing percolates from time to time without anything near the insult you mentioned.
It was pretty much the only other experience with meeting other vegans on this site tbh, I was legit excited about more vegans being on the site…up until they started posting lol.
Some hilariously unhinged statements did come from them like:
and
I'm kind of glad I either tuned it out or was just not in those subsections. I believe you when you say that happened and I remember some vegans talking about the mass bans and not liking those, but the context of what got them banned was lost.
I appreciate the quoted bits of Hexbear history. Maybe some of the site's cultural reactions toward vegans are more than lingering
cliches. Unfortunately.
I remember that last bit haha
Everyone should be vegan
None of the problems I've seen with vegans has been about the harm of the industry. We're all aware of exploitation. The issue arises around some posters making it a very personal, individual attack on others rather that seeing that diet is also a place where capitalism has wielded its force. Calling someone that is on your side politically on many of the issues of the day a blood mouth doesn't win allies
I'm not so sure when all of the concern against caring too much gets brought up anyway.
Neither does smug "dae le vegans annoying scolds"
statements against vegans that generally aren't even wrong about their takes at a material level.
I'm just saying, you can be right about something but do it in a way where you alienate everyone.
If only they had more @Civility@hexbear.net they'd stop getting raged at for daring to exist in a visible way on the internet.
Let's set aside the people that were going to rage at you for daring to exist, because they're not really who matter and you're not going to change their minds.
I mean yeah, maybe the bit account @Civility@hexbear.net does have some kernel of truth where being civil builds solidarity and wins people over and gets people to change instead of just screaming at them and then getting ignored.
looks at a clock. The numbers 1-12 are replaced with the words "STRUGGLE SESSION"
Good heavens, just look at the time
Even bringing up the tendency for struggle sessions summoned someone very concerned about uncivil veganism.
It really is incredible how they always out themselves as liberals as soon as this particular topic comes up. Suddenly they're all about civility and appealing to the masses and anti-"extremism"
"The joke account made to mock the liberal pretenses of civility actually has a kernel of truth to it because vegans need to sit quietly and wait to be addressed by the dae le epic bacon treat consumers."
🥰
you brought up veganism in your original post you goofus jfc lol
Yes, because the discussion was liberals reacting to others "being good" in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and enrages them. "You goofus jfc lol."
EDIT: Also, according to you, apparently bringing up veganism in the first place is the "goofus" thing to do. That isn't quite the own you apparently think it is.
I may regret asking this, but what
CW: Struggle session, Rape, Holocaust,
spoiler
This is obviously contentious, but common Vegan arguments appeal to current treatment of animals as tantamount to the aforementioned things. The mass murder of animals, they say, is equivalent or worse than the holocaust given the sheer quantity and industrialized brutality of factory farming. They say that exploiting animals for labor or production is the equivalent of chattel slavery of people. They say that production of milk/cheese or other dairy products and the reproduction of animals for consumption in general depends upon forced fertilization, and is thus equivalent of rape.All of these arguments depend on believing animals are or at least should be treated as equivalent in moral standing to human beings. This is not a universal position, and one that can be incredibly offensive to people who are victims themselves or descended from victims of the aforementioned crimes. Jews don't like having their systematic extermination likened to the killing of animals because comparing us to animals to begin with was one of the justifications for our mass murder. Rape victims frequently feel that part of what makes their experience so uniquely awful is the disregard for their humanity and the complete objectification of their body for which they are synonymous with. Slavery is much the same, though with some importantly different factors that are beyond the conversation at hand.
Again, Vegans genuinely believe in good faith that animals ontologically have, or at least legally deserve, personhood. They don't make these comparisons maliciously, but I think they are missing their audience because they're not engaging at the level where disagreement actually occurs (whether both or either party is aware of it or not). People take offense to the arguments because they come off as minimalization of crimes against humans, they do not evoke the same level of outrage or sympathy as occurs in the mind of vegans. It's sad to watch unfold tbh.
For what it's worth, I do not think all animals deserve personhood. It may be circumstantially the right thing to do to be vegan given the myriad of factors (mass murder/torture of sentient creatures, persons or not; environmental cost; human toll on workers in the industry) but I do not share vegans ontological commitment to personhood for animals. This makes me more offended and less convinced by the above arguments, but I hope I've at least presented them charitably.
None of what you just said really applied to the reply chain here. According to one user here, in this reply chain, just bringing up vegans when discussing what sets off liberals who want to feel like they have a moral monopoly is against @Civility@hexbear.net which implies the only civil way to talk about vegans is to not talk about them.
I am deeply disappointed to report that hexbear is not free from liberalism.
Who decides where the line of civility is and who prevents that line from mysteriously drifting toward favoring the status quo and its default positions?
That line I just mentioned being arbitrarily drawn? It's already being drawn, by you, here.
🥰
😤
civility for thee:
civility for me:
we can't tell the libs not to expect civility from us and then flip the script when the shoe is on the other foot. same as we tell the libs: look past the aesthetics to the actual content.
😤
Yeah it's a bad argument here when applied to libs and it's a bad argument then as well. This notion that they're mad at us because secretly know we're right is pure self-aggrandizing puffery.
ya, it seems much more likely that federated "libs" despise OP/us because OP is/ we are incredibly rude to them, and in OP's case, have a really uncharitable psychological theory about how they are secretly mad at us, rather than just concluding that such libs simply have different (and wrong) appraisals of facts and values.
I've always thought that the dirtbag left should be incredibly tactical about it's dirtbagness. The fact that we didn't entirely remove incivility from our toolbox was fantastic and certainly set us apart and up for a rollicking good time, but it did become a bit one note.
Anyway thanks for coming to my TED talk rip www.reddit.com/r/TweeLeft
I'm generally on the same page, but then I look at how other instances are treating Lemmygrad, how reddit snuffs out even the most respectful leftist comments, how cops respond to peaceful protests, etc.
The buttoned up approach has value, but so does what we're doing.
Oh yeah, the real power in the dirtbag approach was it refused to give deference to mores of politeness that those in power insisted were due to them (despite being entirely unearned and used to run interference for absolutely abhorrent decision-making).
I don't see it nearly as useful when applied to randos online though.
I think you make a good point.
struggle session also happened a week before federalification with the question of whether or not troops or veterans should be ostracized. a.k.a, ATAB.
Yes, poor people are coerced into military service because they are systemically pressured into having few other options.
No, that doesn't mean "shoot and cry" in any way makes the shooting more justified.