So there are a few topics that came up lately that I think would be nice to discuss with members of this community.
Basically this is part of writing a Code of Conduct for our instance and I think we need to talk about some specific type of posts:
Doomers
Naturally the themes discussed in our communities are attracting a lot of climate doomer comments and I would say we also have a significant number of “recovering doomers” here as community members.
Earlier this week I considered closing the /c/collapse community on SRLPNK, because it is not actively moderated and attracts a lot of these types, even though ex_06 (who asked me to have their account re-activated, but not as an admin) originally intended it to be more of a psychological self-help group for people trying to get to terms with the likely loss of many things that defined their life so far.
While the typical doomer could probably need some psychological support, they are usually still in a stage of grief that makes them lash out and not engage in a constructive exchange how to make the best of the current difficult situation we sadly find ourselves in.
Mostly I have been doing temporary bans for such doomers to cool down and not spread their doom and gloom endlessly in our communities, but I think we need to come up with a common idea how to deal with this better.
Discussing civil disobedience
aka Direct Action or the other man’s “Eco Terrorist” (yeah right…).
Obviously this is a topic many climate activists find themselves more and more confronted with and you might already be involved with a group engaged in such actions of civil disobedience. And lets not forget about the punk in Solarpunk either :)
However, obviously this is a public web-site and thus easily monitored by law-enforcement and other people that might be interested in reporting such discussions to the local authorities. Thus to protect this service and also our users from themselves we can’t really allow planning discussions with specific targets or generally calls for action against specific persons to happen here out in the open (or in the semi-public direct messages).
Obviously, we can never condone violence against persons, but aside from that please be careful with discussing climate activism on the clear-web and rather use fully end to end encrypted means with people you can trust!
However this has obviously a large grey area and people might have stronger views on what should and should not be discussed here.
Absolute Vegans
Vegans are obviously welcome on SLRPNK and I think we can all agree that strongly reducing the consumption of animal products is a worthy goal.
However, there are some very opinionated (online) Vegans / animal rights activists that (intentionally or not) are indistinguishable from trolls and generally very toxic to deal with. Please don’t feel personally attacked by this, but I think we need to come up with something regarding this in our code of conduct.
So these were the three topics I had in my mind lately, but feel free to discuss others as well.
I am looking forward to your thoughts on this!
The discussion should be about how to handle content that’s fine with enslaving and slaughtering of other species instead of how to restrict the ones that oppose animal abuse very strictly.
Thanks for providing a practical example 😅
I never said anything about restricting anyone, but maybe you can see how your reply here is not very conducive to a discussion with someone who doesn’t share your strong convictions in this regard?
After a short perusing, It’s clear there’s a significant amount of tankies on Hexbear, much like Lemmygrad. A tankie may technically be a leftist, but ultimately they are entirely incompatible with left-libertarian/anarchist groups such as us. Their community looks to be quite toxic, and personally I’m glad that we won’t be federating with them.
The vegan mods created !debateavegan@slrpnk.net awhile back, apparently to have a containment chamber where they can send people who come into their other threads and try to have an off-topic debate. It’s not as likely to come up in the communities I mod, but I think if it does, I’ll try to redirect the participants to have their arguments there.
So it seems you’re automatically defensive about wanting to moderate vegan speech (preempting with "don’t feel personally attacked) and deep down I think you know why.
I understand you’re just trying to make a space where everyone feels welcome. But harrassment policy and other conduct policy should cover people getting out of bounds and requires no vegan specific clause. Making a vegan specific clause is a little hostile.
Unless you are truly aiming to ban people for having the opinion that it’s not ok to not be vegan. That would be tone policey and censorious, in my opinion. If a vegan is actually harassing someone that calls for moderation, but its already a rule to refrain from harassing. If you want to make a rule on harassment and include several examples, and one of them is a vegan example, that would be fine.
It just reminds me of other contentious issues like racial justice or gender issues. Sometimes people didn’t like getting called racist, but do you censor a racial minority because their message is intense and makes someone a little uncomfortable? People have the right to decline interactions that arent going well but they shouldnt expect to always be perfectly comfortable when writing in the public square.
Ok fair enough, but I think calling animal husbandry “slavery” is intentionally going for the shock value of it and just deeply offends people that otherwise strive for the same values and are usually very much aware of the of how badly animals are treated in industrial farming.
I also get your examples with racial and gender issues, and while you are right that there are some parallels, I think it is not right to attack people who very much have similar concerns about animal rights, but just came to somewhat different conclusions what to do about that.
And while I agree that it should in theory just fall under the general no-harrassement etc. rules, I am near certain that if I would actually start moderating such posts I would have to explain why anyway, so I would rather pre-empt such discussions now and not do them in the heat of the moment when someone likely feels wronged about a moderation decision.
Forbidding the comparison of animal captivity, forced reproduction and child stealing, and economic exploitation to slavery would be a clear example of indulging a censorious impulse.
I rarely use this comparison personally because it’s subject to this kind of confusion (thinking comparison to human slavery is equating to human slavery). Nevertheless it’s my personal opinion that when you account for the massive scale of the suffering, billions of animals yearly, a comparison of severity can still be drawn, even with any inspecies prejudices about the richness of human lives and experience potential compared to animals.
Context matters… if you say “slavery” in the context of massive industrial animal farming people are unlikely to be offended.
Using it in the context of someone having some backyard chicken or a video about a small scale sheep herder that produces wool (both actual examples from the last couple of weeks) is IMHO a different matter.
I understand you’re just trying to make a space where everyone feels welcome. But harrassment policy and other conduct policy should cover people getting out of bounds and requires no vegan specific clause. Making a vegan specific clause is a little hostile.
This. I don’t think it needs anything vegan-specific, but general rules that cover harassment and/or obviously trolling.
As an outsider of sorts to this, my general rule is, it’s okay to be upset and maybe abrasive or even annoying, up to the point where it becomes personal. That kinda goes for all of these 3 matters.
It is just a fact of life that both doomers and vegans can be very strongly opinionated and not accepting of different views. That’s just how it is, there are things two people may fundamentally never agree on, and even someone in the middle may be perceived as an enemy by either side.
That’s why, as a mod at other places, I adhere to a no politics rule. (And religion etc.) With these themes tho… I don’t know if you can really avoid it, as many of these issues are political or philosophical in nature.
So you either need mods who are willing to actually step in and moderate discussions, or you’ll need some way too weirdly specific rules nobody will read, or it’s gonna be a wild west.
It is just a fact of life that both doomers and vegans can be very strongly opinionated and not accepting of different views. That’s just how it is, there are things two people may fundamentally never agree on, and even someone in the middle may be perceived as an enemy by either side.
But the problem as I understand it isn’t people being strongly opinionated or having different starting points, it’s comments and posts that serve no other purpose than to glorify themselves with no place for any discussion. Online vegans are a great example. I have absolutely nothing against vegans, and I can understand their position, that the meat industry is very cruel and polluting, and that the act of killing is not deemed immoral when done to animals. These are all points we can talk about, dissagree on, explain our positions and ideally reach some conclusion. But what happens so often is that you get someone who comes and says veganism will save the planet by reducing emissions, if you’re not a vegan you’re directly responsible for it and you’re literally okay with slavery and murder, I’m very cool and noble. That’s not asking for a discussion nor is it arguing for a cause, it serves absolutely no other purpose than to stoke the fire and make some people feel superior, or feed their addiction for arguments. And, as I see it, that’s what it boils down to: do your words have any other point than to make yourself feel superior and invoke frustration. Because words that were made to do only that were better left unsaid. Now I’m not too sure about removing and banning them, but I am sure that we shouldn’t contribute to encouraging them.
Yea that’s why I’m saying for me it’s ok if someone is abrasive, as long as it doesn’t get personal. Calling someone a murderer for not being vegan falls under that umbrella.
Ed: or even more broadly, just saying and doing things that clearly indicated there’s no discussion to be had. For me that also includes stuff like calling out someone’s post history or making fun of grammar. I tend to just ignore and quit, but others can be baited into a flame war.
Regardless, spelling out 50 rules won’t help - if someone wants to be an ass, rules won’t stop them. The only thing that can help are moderators that can step in and moderate. A short-time ban like 1 day can help if someone can’t listen. But I can imagine it being a lot of work moderating a sub like that.
Slrpnk.net was my first real exposure to the kind of vegans I’ve seen people complain about for years.
I’m a vegetarian and became one basically as soon as I’d realized it was an option after moving out on my own.
I genuinely can’t tell if some of these folks are for real. They read like trolls to me, like agressively-written parodies intended to drive fence-sitters away from the movement. It’s how I’d imagine that guy at the cookout who gets mad when you don’t need a burger imagines vegans talk online. I honestly have no idea if it’s sincere. I haven’t seen it before but I’ve not spent too much time on Twitter or similar spaces.
As for what to do, I think we’ve got an opportunity in that this is one of the larger, more-established, and well-organized instances.
As Lemmy grows, it will be a lot of people’s first exposure to solarpunk. If what they learn from that first glance is that solarpunk is I’m-better-than-you vegans having Twitter arguments I’m worried they’ll leave or get pulled into drama rather than listen to the rest of the message, and that they’ll take that impression with them, tell their friends, and become less receptive to environmental justice in general. There’s so many other ways to help.
Solarpunk is so new - we’re still shaping the genre, the movement, and the wider, cultural understanding of what it is. These folks can poison the vegan well all they want but I’d really rather they not become the face of solarpunk.
I’m happy to share this space and movement with vegans as long as they can tolerate the rest of us existing, trying to help the world in our own ways. To me, that means they’re going to have to tolerate the entire instance not being mandatorially vegan and if they can’t do that without descending from on high to call people murderers and enslavers, they’ll have to block the communities that offend them or start a pure vegan instance elsewhere. I get that from where they’re standing, they’re morally correct, but it’s an absolutely terrible way to recruit people.
I’ve only been here for a month, and I haven’t posted a tremendous amount in the Slrpnk.net communities, but I’ve been actively reading a lot of the stuff posted here.
First, I just want to say that this community is, in my opinion, superb. I’ve found myself in total agreement with @poVoq@slrpnk.net’s decisions and thought process regarding the direction this instance is going. It seems to have resulted in a vibe and an atmosphere that I find compelling, to the point that I feel this one of the nicest little corners of the internet I’ve seen in quite some time.
Regarding Doomers:
I think I would qualify as a ‘recovering’ or ‘recovered’ doomer, having previously been a prepper and then transitioning to a somewhat all-hope-is-lost mentality regarding the climate and the future in general. Having been in that world, I can safely say that worldview is simply harmful to the mind, and seems to entice a certain type of toxicity. In general, a lot of the people involved in those circles seem to actually wish for a collapse to occur, as it would result in an end to their current predicaments (Crippling debt, lack of meaning, an end to the rat race, etc).
While in some ways understandable, it does unfortunately result in the behavior you described. With not only a tendency toward complete apathy, but also the active discouragement of others attempting to make things better as well, resulting in a spiral of depression and angst for many.
(at least, that’s what I saw of r/collapse on reddit, I haven’t investigated the collapse community here).
I’m not entirely sure how that community should be handled. I can’t say I’d miss them it if that community was removed, and I like the idea of replacing it with a more hopeful version, like the crumbles (as someone else mentioned) or maybe AvoidCollapse instead, which could focus more on exactly that, collapse situations and what we can do to avoid it as best we can with the means available (Though I guesss that’s kinda the point of Solarpunk to begin with).
I would be more against completely removing the community if the situation really was hopeless, but after days and weeks and months of research into this area, I think practically there is much that can be done to mitigate a significant amount of the coming problems the world will face. Ultimately, I do feel that giving a space for a despairing doomerist viewpoint would, IMHO, only diminish genuinely useful efforts to make the world better.
Regarding Discussing civil disobedience:
Fully agree with your assessment here, lemmy just isn’t an appropriate place for such things, and this community should not go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system. I don’t think allowing more extreme sorts of discussion would really further anything useful dramatically, and would radically increase the danger of ‘the system’ coming down on the server, its owner, and possibly its users. It’s not worth the risk!
Absolute Vegans
Again, I’m in agreement here. As someone who is trying to cut out industrial meat from my diet because of the extreme ethical violations in the meat industry, I do still believe that meat can be sourced fairly ethically on a small scale (at least for some species). My reasoning for such is based on my own unscientific opinion, but one which I’m satisfied is in the ballpark of being good enough. (I can go into detail for those interested, but for now will leave it to myself, as I don’t know if it would contribute to the discussion at hand).
I’m in favor of allowing animal husbandry related posts and meat-based recipes in the food communities. Coming down on that aspect harshly I think would do more harm than good, and may turn people away from the rest of the movement.
That’s just my two cents.
First, I just want to say that this community is, in my opinion, superb. I’ve found myself in total agreement with @poVoq@slrpnk.net’s decisions and thought process regarding the direction this instance is going. It seems to have resulted in a vibe and an atmosphere that I find compelling, to the point that I feel this one of the nicest little corners of the internet I’ve seen in quite some time.
Seconding this - I really dig this community and @poVoq 's doing a great job guiding it. It’s quickly become my favorite place to hang out.
I’ve posted my comments on the community elsewhere but realized I hadn’t said anything about the overall quality of the place
With regard to direct action, I don’t think general discussions of, or even encouragement of, illegal or violent activity should be discouraged. It’s when you get to talking about specific acts, specific targets, and actual planning that it should be disallowed (and people should know better than to discuss that shit online anyway). Like, encouraging people to shoplift, generally? To defend their communities? To engage in anti-fascist action? Why not?
I think some folks here are going way too far with suggestions like “[don’t] go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system” (@ProdigalFrog). If we’re stuck in that liberal mudpit, IMO there’s no point in having radical spaces (like I hope this is/can be) at all.
I think some folks here are going way too far with suggestions like “[don’t] go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system” (@ProdigalFrog).
To be clear, I agree with your intent. I am perhaps overly cautious after reading about Kolektiva.social being raided, and figured caution was warranted, as I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything to get our admin in deep shit. However looking into Kolektiva more, it appears the server wasn’t even their target, so I may in fact be overreacting.
I’m honestly not sure what level of talk would tempt Sauron’s eye towards this place. If encouragement generally flies under the radar, then I’m all for it.
I am not overly concerned. I am well into my fourties and not (anymore for quite some time) into activist stuff that would attract legal attention like in the Kolektiva’s case. The local police here also seems to be not overly interested in anything but illegal marijuana plantations and real-world child sexual abuse (going by the local newspaper).
However, I would caution our French friends especially, as their police has been over-zealous in using antiterrorism laws against activists and is known to abuse the Europol system for it as well.
But I think it is good to uphold operational security in any case and I agree that we could work together on some secure online communication for environmental activists guide or so.
