St. Francis Preaching to the Birds, 1297 - 1299 - Giotto - WikiArt.org

‘St. Francis Preaching to the Birds’ was created in 1299 by Giotto in Proto Renaissance style. Find more prominent pieces of religious painting at Wikiart.org – best visual art database.

www.wikiart.org (www.wikiart.org)

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:

1. https://anarchist.nexus/c/vegan(!vegan@anarchist.nexus)
2. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@slrpnk.net (!vegan@slrpnk.net)
3. 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

As someone who runs various metabolic, ketogenic, and even a carnivore community - I don't think I have a anti-vegan viewpoint, however - reading this proposal it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes?

Isn't the legislation of outcomes and allowed topics of discussion anti-scentific by its vary nature? It sounds like it is codifying dogma. Very reminiscent to the Catholic church forbidding any discussion of settled matters and banning heliocentrism

:::spoiler The scientific method itself requires open questioning!

:::

If it's forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on "settled topics" - that is anti-science.

You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed.
While the idea is that certain patterns of reasoning and engagement are disallowed.

This is also why it isnt proposed as a user facing rule but as an internal alignment principle.

Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically.

straight from the post, this was actively smth i was thinking about.

There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.

Also, open inquiry is necessary for challenging systems of domination. But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo.
That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.

St. Francis Preaching to the Birds, 1297 - 1299 - Giotto - WikiArt.org

‘St. Francis Preaching to the Birds’ was created in 1299 by Giotto in Proto Renaissance style. Find more prominent pieces of religious painting at Wikiart.org – best visual art database.

www.wikiart.org (www.wikiart.org)

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:

1. https://anarchist.nexus/c/vegan(!vegan@anarchist.nexus)
2. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/vegan@slrpnk.net (!vegan@slrpnk.net)
3. 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

As someone who runs various metabolic, ketogenic, and even a carnivore community - I don't think I have a anti-vegan viewpoint, however - reading this proposal it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes?

Isn't the legislation of outcomes and allowed topics of discussion anti-scentific by its vary nature? It sounds like it is codifying dogma. Very reminiscent to the Catholic church forbidding any discussion of settled matters and banning heliocentrism

:::spoiler The scientific method itself requires open questioning!

:::

If it's forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on "settled topics" - that is anti-science.

What kind of child calls themselves a carnivore?

The type that doesn't insult others for mild differences in diet. Call it zero-carb if you find the other label disagreeable.

I'll call it childish thanks.

As childish as opening my profile and downvoting the last 14 posts and comments I made?

I'd do worse if I could carnist.

The worst thing you can do to me is prove your lifestyle is better, and if you do that, I will happily change my behavior. I'm open to any constructive non-slapfight discussion, I actually read papers - so we can do a book club if you like. I don't take low hazard ratio, low absolute value, epidemiology as anything other then hypothesis generating, so lets restrict ourselves to papers that can speak to cause and effect.

I’m not going to debatebro a carnist.

As someone who runs various metabolic, ketogenic, and even a carnivore community - I don't think I have a anti-vegan viewpoint, however - reading this proposal it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes?

Isn't the legislation of outcomes and allowed topics of discussion anti-scentific by its vary nature? It sounds like it is codifying dogma. Very reminiscent to the Catholic church forbidding any discussion of settled matters and banning heliocentrism

:::spoiler The scientific method itself requires open questioning!

:::

If it's forbidden to question, hypothesize, and report conclusions on "settled topics" - that is anti-science.

it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes

A distinction needs to be made between good faith discussions of peer-reviewed, published research, and bad faith discussions of anecdotal evidence.

If you're carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don't think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.

Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies. This same thinking is why FAF mods have taken proactive and reactive stances against Zionists in the recent weeks and months. Zionism is a racist ideology that mythologizes Jewish supremacy over Native Arabian peoples, and results in real-world harm in the form of open air prisons, land stealing, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, among other harms.

Zionism, however, is an INTRA species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans. Carnivorism is an INTER species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans and all other wildlife on Earth. The hierarchical principle is the same.

Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.

Fundamentally opposed to both the philosophy that non-human chattel deserve to be considered victims within human hierarchies, and to the whole vegan framework on agriculture and animal husbandry. It's not anti-science to point out that ecosystems REQUIRE trophic energy transfer to persist, which REQUIRES humanity to offset our destruction of natual habitat for our own purposes, both conservationist and extractionist. It's also not anti-science to point out vegan sophistry with respect to industrialized agriculture and the ecological damage that it does to all systems. Luckily, animal husbandry is concerned with the maintenance of livestock which are fed grains and hay which are regenerative and don't require mountains and mountains of pesticides which cause cancer and deplete insect biomass.

I don't care to point all of this out every time I interact with a vegan because frankly it's not my job to discuss agriculture and veganism on a philosophical and scientific level. I personally do what pleases me: I avoid vegan spaces and scroll past vegan posts and comments. Stop trying to impose ideological conformity with your minority view and let us meat-eaters exist in peace.

ecosystems REQUIRE trophic energy transfer to persist

And what a lot of vegans try to argue is that heterotrophic energy transfer is unnecessary. We can go straight to autotrophic energy transfer while reducing harm as much as practically possible.

But more broadly, this post isn't about forcing one ideal on others.

This post is about combatting anti-science rhetoric and bad faith arguing specifically applied to the vegan discourse just as FAF mods would want to apply the same principles to climate change, vaccination, other conspiracy-led beliefs, etc., and equalizing moderator responses to FAF users that engage these ways. Evidence in the form of scientific consensus is at the forefront of moderator action here, only applied to a vegan context.

If you’re carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don’t think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.

I think carnist is used as a insult in the vegan space? Other then that, I agree with this statement. However, that isn't the policy as written in the post.

Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies.

I agree with this, I'm putting my human health above that of animals. I admit it.

Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.

Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?

However, that isn't the policy as written in the post.

OP please correct the post if I'm right, or let me know if I'm misunderstanding if I'm wrong.

Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?

If the goal of a specific community is to improve the health of its constituents, then that's fine. If that can be accomplished in ketogenic and zero-carb ways without unnecessary harm of others via animal consumption, then that's fine.

As a vegan myself, I would appreciate a safe space that I think OP is trying to advocate for where the topic of health with regards to ketogenic and zero-carb diets is discussed, and the possibility of doing those things in vegan ways is broached, considered, and allowed to stand on its own.

But if health is the ultimate concern for any of these communities, I would want leaders in these communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways, and for there to be respectful discussion (where vegans don't automatically shove our views down other's throats) between vegans and members of those communities should they be curious to exchange ketogenic or zero-carb methods in favor of vegan methods.

Let's not forget the core tenants of veganism: reduction of animal suffering as much as possible. Vegans recognize that there are other people that exist who cannot get all their nutritional needs in vegan ways. What vegans argue is that there is a distinction between what is nutritionally necessary and unnecessary. If people have the means and knowledge to achieve their goals in vegan ways, whether health related or other, then they should be encouraged to do so..

just as FAF mods would want to apply the same principles to climate change, vaccination, other conspiracy-led beliefs, etc.

Then the policy should be about standards for evidence and how to participate in good faith.

Evidence in the form of scientific consensus is at the forefront of moderator action here, only applied to a vegan context.

Consensus isn't science, if it were so then we would be still be based on geocentrism. Science is a model that makes falsifiable predictions. If a better model comes along that predicts better you leave the old model behind. A policy that moderates anything against consensus is anti-science by its very nature.