FYI @rumschlumpel@feddit.org @breadsmasher@lemmy.world @Pfeffy@lemmy.world @superkret@feddit.org @Pending_Jokester@lemmy.world and a few others
A rage bait post they just restored: https://lemmy.world/post/24282976. The initial removal was about rule 3 - no rage baiting. That rule has been removed.
Another rage bait comment against vegans: https://lemmy.world/comment/14535452
Yeah the carnivore communities suck 🤮 They kept popping in my /all feed so I blocked them. The rage bait post is particularly nauseating to me. They don’t see animals as having the same sentience as vegans view they have, it is incredibly disheartening. These communities are going to be controversial, you either think it is wrong to abuse/rape/kill an animal for consumption or you don’t.
That’s why the vegan instances are great, you won’t see this shit ever. You’re free to talk about veganism without someone coming in to troll. The carnivore diet is just a diet, one that is harmful IMO, but veganism is so much more than a plant based diet. I still come across comments making fun of instances that require content warnings for meat, dairy, and eggs. They just don’t get it and I’m tired of trying to reason with unreasonable people.
I don’t expect .world to do anything about them. I’m actually surprised people seem to be on the mod’s side here, they certainly weren’t when beaver banned people for downvoting.
everyone opposes this
No they don’t, even the linked thread had Felix (who was the mod of the carnivore community linked) making fun of vegans for being against this. You think Felix is an isolated incident? Because they are not, I’ve heard the same sentiments expressed by many people both online and IRL. If everyone supposedly opposes this, then why haven’t animal agriculture practices changed?
In that thread, someone else said:
Surely if everyone thought that abusing animals was wrong, all the companies selling animal products that resulted from said abuse would be gone. But people don’t actually care and just buy whatever from the store, directly supporting the abuse. People may “oppose” it theoretically but in practice don’t. Even the US government “solved” the problem by making it a crime to film what is actually happening in those places (ag-gag laws) since businesses were losing profit when their cruel practices were exposed.
But I know I am wasting my time with you in particular, you spout nonstop carnist apologia. You insist there is 0 suffering during animal agriculture and that veganism doesn’t help animals - not even in a supply and demand way. There isn’t a way to actually talk to you about this or veganism in general because we will go around in circles accomplishing nothing. I am vegan, you are incredibly carnist. So, please disengage so I can move on with my day.
Lemmy supports blocking users
Note to both @nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com and @YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com for the future. 1. Respect people asking you to
disengagein this instance. Just stop replying. Likewise if you want someone todisengage, don’t also write a wall of text to which they might feel they need to reply. Just reply withdisengage.Finally, this is an official warning that this discussion seems to have run its course and is devolving into a flamewar. I can’t just lock one thread, so please just stop replying to each other or I’ll have to issue a 1-day ban.
if this is an instance-wide rule, it should be stated in the main sidebar. it’s not a deal breaker for me, but I strongly feel people should be encouraged to use the block feature, rather than getting the power to decide who is allowed to participate in a discussion.
Ye I should probably add smt. Just a lot to do.
The point of the disengage is that sometimes you might not necessarily want to block a person. Blocking still allows them to talk shit about you without you seeing it for example. The disengage is a way to say “ok, let’s agree to disagree before things get (more) flamey” in a succinct and official manner. You don’t always want to block everyone you get into a heated argument with, so there’s good to have a way to disengage where neither party feels like they have to have the final word.
I hope lemmy at some point would give us a way to lock individual comment threads.
Disengage should only be enforceable if it’s invoked in good faith. Posting a wall of text and using it to get the last word forfeits any protection it provides. It’s the equivalent of calling for a fair catch in American football, then attempting a return.
Immediate edit: it doesn’t even have to be a wall of text. Any response included with the disengage request invites further discussion and suggests that there is a desire to continue the conversation, at least to the extent of having the final say.
That’s what I said already, yes
I am already aware, thanks for the reminder :) When someone says to disengage, it means they want to stop the conversation because it is not worth any more of their time.
I think animals are tortured in the industry, you do not, I think people not buying meat can cause a change, you do not. What more is there to say? Nothing. So kindly, please disengage and stop messaging me 3 times at once, 1 message is fine.
don’t tell me what to do.
supply and demand is a theory about price discovery. it has nothing to do w with whether buying beans helps animals… which it doesn’t.
I never did that