1
[email protected] mod suppresses criticisms of fediverse spam campaign, using mass ban technique to silence opposing viewpoints
(lemmy.sdf.org)
Will it be effective?
EDIT: The banning event continues. Please consult the modlog to observe.
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&modId=7121342
If you scroll down to about a day ago, you might be able to observe an emerging behavior from this mod.
EDIT 2: The mod in question moderates a total of 108 Lemmy communities. How deep does this conspiracy run? Is this mod a lost Redditor? More to come!
EDIT 3: The mod has now removed my comment all together, one might assume because it was still receiving upvotes in the 2 hours following my ban. Are there similarities here to Watergate? You be the judge!
Most people aren't vegan, so vegans are a minority. That's not difficult to understand, so we have to assume you're reading in bad faith. Stop it please.
Edit: veganism isn't a diet either. Quite easy to find this out if you even stick the word into a search engine.
To put the shoe on the other foot, how would it sound to you if someone on the Carnivore diet, or on the Atkins diet called themselves a minority?
It just doesn't make sense, because dietary choices, are just that, choices. While actual minorities, like POCs and LGBTQ people, are born the way they are. They don't have any choices in the matter.
Don't get me wrong, dietary choices can be a super serious matter, and I am not saying that people aren't discriminated against for them. I just think its wrong to call someone a minority based on any sort of dietary choice, at least in the same context that minority is usually used.
Religion is a choice, does that make religious minorities not minorities? It's a strongly held ethical belief system.
Religion, by itself, is normally not a qualifier when we refer to minorites, as that word normally implies an ethnic or racial minority. However, there are some religions with ethnicities tied to them, e.g. Jewish people, and Muslims, so the line can definitely become a bit blurred.
Jewish people are a minority in most places because of their ethnicity, not their religion. Muslims are often referred to as minorities in most places, because most Muslims are ethnically related, at least as far as the Western world is concerned.
Some also reuse the word minority interchangably to refer to religious minorities, political minorities, etc, which further blurs the line, but the most common use of the word is in reference to race or ethnicity.
Again, veganism isn't a diet (this is painfully easy to find out if you just quickly look it up!) and if you interpret minority in a literal sense, it's true and relevant because it's easy to be overwhelmed by the majority if you're in the minority, which is what the person posting seems to be worried about.
I understand that Veganism is more than just a diet. Its a lifestyle, culture, pledge to a certain set of morals, etc. It can be as important as religion is to a devout religious person.
A person on the Carnivore diet can make the same point. A person that subscribes to a political identity could also make your same point. This slippery slope leads to Nazis being able to call themselves minorities, because technically, Naziism is a culture, too, albeit a terrible one, and they are very thankfully in the minority of political beliefs.
The difference being that nazis actually should be overwhelmed by the majority.
It's still a CHOICE. No one is born vegan; it's a position that someone arrives at.
So is religion, theoretically at least.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, the law does not. The law privileges religion as though it was inherent and immutable.
There are certainly vegan diets. People who still eat animal produce may still be interested in vegan alternatives without becoming vegan or vegetarian. And I don't think being part of a small community of a certain life choice isn't really making you a minority in the political sense (I assume that's what the minority part is trying to imply here, that there's some sort of entitlement for a minority protection).
Also, promoting vegan diets for carnivorous pets is indeed animal abuse and should not be defended or promoted. That's typically a telltale sign of veganazis, which are generally a terrible thing even for actual vegans as they put the whole lifestyle into a bad light with their overly aggressive rhetoric and disinformation.
Yes, and there are Muslim diets I'm sure, but Islam isn't a diet either, for example. Just stick "veganism" into your search engine of choice and the credible sources won't call it a diet.
I'm arguing that they may not have meant that. The criticism should be "that's clumsy wording because it sounds like you mean minority in a political sense" or "surely you don't mean..." rather than "you're comparing yourself to (minorities in the political sense) and therefore vegans are bad".
Honestly, I suspect your willingness to assume the worst of what a vegan's said, and that you bring up a minority view even amongst vegans out of context, betrays a prejudgment that plays as much, if not more, of a role as how aggressively some vegans argue in how you're approaching the whole thing.
And there's surely people who are looking for traditional Muslim food without wanting to convert to Islam as well. Muslim's would probably treat people curious about their food less hostile than those vegans would.
You can suspect that I assume the worst of any sort of human, especially when they constantly argue in bad faith and with hostile rhetoric. That being said, I don't approach vegans at all. I just observe the constant self righteous shit flinging they do from the outside, or get unwillingly caught up in it because they can't help but attack people even outside of their little radicalized bubbles.
But then you're willingly admitting that you don't speak to enough vegans to have an informed idea of their ethos, which is something I wouldn't readily admit even if I did it. Not sure what your first point has to do with the matter at hand though.
Not speaking to veganazis isn't the same as not speaking to vegans. Normal vegans I have no issues talking to.
My first point is about the community that's about vegan food shunning those interested in vegan food because they're unwilling to talk to people who eat animal produce.
I think you're going on a bit of a tangent I'm not interested in, sorry, but otherwise I'm not really following, and if you say things like "veganazis" it just reminds me of when people used to write "feminazis".
If you cannot differentiate between feminists and feminazis either, then we have indeed nothing to talk about as you've sufficiently outed yourself as an extremist who does not aim for equality.
This might be a language barrier thing, but in most english-speaking countries when you use the term "minority" to refer to a group of people, that typically refers to a group who is a minority based on race, sex, ethnicity, gender or some other inherent trait. You might say, "a small community" to refer to a group within a group, but you wouldn't say, "a minority community" for that unless you were trying to imply that the community in question was a racial, ethnic, gender, or other form of minority.
No, English is my first language, and all I'm saying is that you could've interpreted it the other way, which is plausible at the end of the day, and it'd be true, which is what it means to read something charitably/in good faith.
What about "vocal minority"?
While you have a point, my immediate reaction was, "oh cool, now they're trying to do it too" (I've seen tankies claim the same shit). When I probe my brain to try and figure out why that was a response, the result is my brain telling me that I'm hearing some kind of dog whistle but it won't go into more detail about what makes that statement sound like a dog whistle.
Tbh, considering how unhinged they're behaving (though at this point I think they're doing it for shits and giggles), I wouldn't be surprised if they truly meant it that way; it honestly wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone on here try to claim something like that. I suppose that doesn't mean they intended to mean it that way, now I'm curious if anyone else had a similar interpretation. I'm used to hearing people referring to racial, or gender, or ethnic minorities when they say something like, "I'm part of a misunderstood minority group"; and I know I've heard people from other english-speaking countries (other than the US) do it as well.
I have seen the word used in both ways, though I think that in this case the user was intending to use it to imply oppression, rather than simply meaning that they do not have a lot of users.