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.

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

Agreed.

Consensus isn't science

But there can be consensus in science, with the underlying belief that any consensus can and should be challenged according to new evidence.

Social organizations need some source of truth in order to govern their operations. Scientific consensus is the best tool we have for that, so long as the governance also follows the science should the prevailing consensus be scientifically dismantled.

communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways

How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?

How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?

I'm not an expert on the latest research surrounding zero-carb diets and if any research has been done with vegan diets in particular.

But if you wanted to make a new post on the community you mod/admin, I would be interested in learning the facts and willing to do my own research to contribute to the conversation.

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.

I would not ban you or your carnivore community. I may be wrong (and honestly don't feel like scrutinizing your history rn), but you don't troll. We will never agree on veganism and your advocation of eating mostly meat, I am a moral/ethical vegan first and the rest of it is a bonus. While there were some seriously questionable things that got c/carnivore banned from .world, the problematic mod is gone afaik and I already have your communities blocked (as a user). We would be able to ban people who intentionally antagonize and troll vegans, and that would be a bonus for anyone tired of the hostility. Do you go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here. If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.