1. I called a corpse a corpse (post contains multiple pictures of chests of multiple animals)
  2. Get called loud, obnoxious and ridiculous
  3. User types 380+ words on why my view is ridiculous (see linked post for more of their comments, my only two comments are in the image)
  4. I replied in an annoyed tone but did not use insults
  5. I am banned for “rule 1, be kind”

Post (TW: animal corpses): https://lemmy.world/post/45494863/23173926

Note: “the rules of this site” in my comment refer to rule 6 of lemmy.world which states:

No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse.

  • Ricky Rigatoni@piefed.zipEnglish
    52·
    7 hours ago

    Bro. Attempting to denormalize something people have been doing for millions of years is going to make you look weird and obnoxious every day of the week. If you can’t handle watching people enjoy food you don’t like just set up a blocklist and filters like an adult and stop harassing random people.

    BPT.

      • Mystic Mushroom [Ze/Zir]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2·
        49 minutes ago

        See, it’s interesting that people in the Vegan community feel that any criticism of their atrocious behavior, means the people criticizing them must be their opposition, a very common false dillema which people in the community use to shield themselves from criticism of their behavior. I’m assuming that’s what you’re trying to do here.

        • ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          11·
          28 minutes ago

          You have absolutely no concept that someone else might have a different perspective than you, do you? Or what that would really functionally mean? No concept that an image may mean a different thing to a person with different values and experiences? I do not believe you have a specifically vegan blind spot. I suspect you’re a generally myopic person who always sees themselves as the good guy in every situation.

      • OzzyOsborne88@futurology.todayEnglish
        12·
        5 hours ago

        He’s an AI whore. He’s as dumb as they come. He’s probably your typical carnist redneck who loves his steak as much as his guns!

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    161·
    1 day ago

    This is YDI.

    Not for calling a dead thing a corpse, but because of your second comment.

    When a community has a kindness/civility rule, we’re all expected to follow it, no matter how strong our beliefs.

    And, tbh, even if a community doesn’t have a listed rule for civility, it really should be the default behavior anyway. Not that I can claim to always err on the side of niceness, gods know I’m an asshole. But when I’m an asshole and I get banned, I deserved it.

    Civility isn’t just not insulting someone. It’s about trying to remember the human.

    However! Had I been the mod in question, I’d also have banned the other user for being an asshole to you in the first place.

  • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    112·
    1 day ago

    like you’re the one who’s being oppressed.

    Who is oppressing you, exactly? Who’s forcing you to eat meat, and denying you the choice of what foods you want to eat? Please tell us where the sausage gulag is that you’re being held in so we can liberate you!

    Edit to add: Those ribs look fucking amazing, if I do say so myself.

  • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
    62·
    1 day ago

    They were banned for saying “ah yes a rotting corpse”?

    Thats a bit precious to ban someone for a snide coment like that. Applied equally there must be many snide comments in other topics, such as the US GOP or to Marxist Leninists, that should be banned on Lemmyworld.

    I’m surprised at the way the votes have gone on this one.

    Edit: Why not just remove the offending comment? Was the rest of their behaviour so atrocious?

  • turdas@suppo.fi
    452·
    2 days ago

    I mean they were right.

    Just a tip for the future, if you want to sell veganism to people, soapboxing under a FoodPorn post of some barbecued ribs trying to argue that the picture is gore is not an effective way of doing it.

  • HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip
    2·
    24 hours ago

    Not the friendliest comment given the general assumption of the community that people are largely posting things they have cooked, but not ban worthy.

  • Wren@lemmy.todayEnglish
    131·
    2 days ago

    You knew where you were posting. Their reply sucked by so did your comment, which wasn’t kind.

    In my experience, the best way to get people to think about their diets is to show them good vegan food because the hungry mind has no rationality. You’re trying to slap a steak away from someone who’s salivating. Show them a blackbean burger or quinoa shepherd’s pie or tempeh breakfast wrap instead.

      • Wren@lemmy.todayEnglish
        5·
        1 day ago

        I don’t have an image, but I can tell you the recipe. Note: I rarely measure anything.

        Base: Cook 1 cup of quinoa in 2 cups of vegetable stock. Once cooked, mix in minced garlic, onion, red pepper and parsley, a few drops of liquid smoke, a sprinkle of cumin and a squeeze of lemon juice.

        Middle: Corn niblets, peas and carrots diced small.

        Top: Potatoes and/or yams cooked and mashed with salt, pepper and your choice of vegan butter or oil and/or coconut cream (if you don’t mind coconut taste.)

        Bake all this in an 8" pan for 30min at 350F. Vegan cheese on top is optional but encouraged.

        Mushroom Sauce: Simmer a 1.5cups of water in a small saucepan, whisk in a spoonful or two of arrowroot powder (cornstarch works too.) When the sauce starts to thicken, add in salt, pepper, chopped mushrooms (chanterelles are GREAT if you can get them,) minced garlic, cumin and Italian seasoning. Let simmer a few minutes, then let the flavors mingle on low while your pie bakes.

        When ready, cut a slice, drizzle with sauce, enjoy.

  • Redjard@reddthat.com
    181·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think you’re making much sense in the reply there, but it shouldn’t be a kindness issue, yeah.
    The other person also was not banned.
    I have to assume it was not about that reply at all but rather the initial comment.

    Which yes, given the context, is quite inappropriate you got to realize.
    Going to someones stuff they care about and calling it a technically correct but off-putting/controversial description is not nice. Either you are trying to ruin it for everyone there, or trying to bring an unwanted discussion into the post.

    1. BE KIND
      Food should bring people together, not tear them apart. Think of the human on the other side of the screen, and don’t troll, harass, engage in bigotry, or otherwise make others uncomfortable with your words.

    You should have easily been able to predict you would make people feel uncomfortable, writing “Ah yes, a corpse, how apetizing” on stuff clearly viewed and intended by the poster as food not gore.

    • lookingforanALFpolycule@lemmy.worldOP
      322·
      2 days ago

      Going to someones stuff they care about and calling it a technically correct but off-putting/controversial description is not nice. Either you are trying to ruin it for everyone there, or trying to bring an unwanted discussion into the post.

      I feel like calling it “their stuff” when I was also a Foodporn user and posted there before is not fair. I did not go over to c/meat or whatever.

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        192·
        2 days ago

        And they didn’t go to c/vegan. Just because you personally don’t eat it doesn’t make it not food.

      • Redjard@reddthat.com
        14·
        2 days ago

        their

        Specifically the op of that post. “Their” in the singular sense. “Going to that persons stuff”.

        I did not go over to c/meat or whatever.

        That one post should tell you that was not a vegan space. And what you wrote was not kind either way. You put it as a generic statement (op clearly didn’t share), not say as a criticism of the sub. For example

        “This sub is nice but it’s a shame there are meat posts strewn in between, which are really off-putting to me (no offense to <op>)”

        What you wrote was clearly provocatory to op specifically, who did nothing wrong posting allowed food in the food com.

        Edit: To put it more bluntly, your comment is “people shouldn’t post meat” not “I don’t want to see meat anymore”.

  • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
    213·
    1 day ago

    PTB obviously but the carnists will never see it that way because they don’t think about the animals at all. They only see someone making themselves food and you calling them out on it, which isn’t nice. And so they ban you, the person who interrupted brunch to point out the cruelty necessary for it, and not the people that are responsible for that cruelty.

    edit: and the carnist comments itt really are a stellar example. All “these are your personal opinions” and “have you considered the feelings of the person feasting on the charred remains of a thinking and feeling creature” and never “what about the animal that had it’s life taken from it for this?”

    fuck the tone police

  • toomanypancakes@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
    57·
    1 day ago

    You didn’t say anything untrue, which was the problem. People don’t want to challenge their cognitive dissonance and just want to share things they think look tasty on that sub. Society at large has agreed murder is fine if the victim is tasty, so other animals’ corpses are exempt from most animal abuse rules.

    • turdas@suppo.fi
      51·
      1 day ago

      Society at large has agreed murder is fine if the victim is tasty

      Unless you’re a fruitarian you, too, have agreed that murder is fine as long as the victim is different enough from you. If you are a fruitarian you’re probably still fine with slavery and eugenics, given that most cultivated fruiting plants are farmed and selectively bred by humans.

      Nature is an endless system of predation and consumption and humanity is not yet technically developed enough to transcend it. You physically cannot live without other living, sensing, feeling things dying.

        • turdas@suppo.fi
          9·
          1 day ago

          That page is factually untrue and grossly uninformed of the fascinating things plants are capable of. Honestly expected better of vegans.

          Most plants evidently feel pain given that they have a stress response to being damaged. Many of them, like the famous venus flytrap, can feel much more than that. Many plants are capable of sensing their surroundings and responding to stimulus – rice can sense the sound of rain and pea plants can see their surroundings to grow towards a nearby support (and yes, they are actually sensing photons, not just blindly reaching). Plants also communicate with one another; they can for example release defensive embittering or toxic chemicals as a response to nearby plants being predated on. They are even capable of learning.

          Plants are capable of so much more active behaviour than we previously realized. On many of the metrics used by contemporary animal rights activists to define sentience, such as whether an animal is capable of sensing pain or learning, plants also qualify as sentient. The most complex plants are vastly more complex organisms than the simplest animals. Just because they’re alien to us and exist on a different timescale does not mean they aren’t sentient.

          • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
            23·
            14 hours ago

            All of those are reactive. Lets say you cut yourself with a knife. That your blood clots and the wound heals is a reactive response. You don’t choose it, it just happens. That you then probably choose a less risky approach the next time you cut is you learning. I don’t have the time to watch the video unfortunately, but I read this article (do not plug that link into sci-hub.ee that would be pirating) which delves into the topic of plant’s having sensory membranes, conditional experiments etc.

            Regardless, even if we assume that

            a. Plants have consciousness
            b. Killing consciousness is immoral/unethical/bad or whatever

            then being vegan is still the more moral option since the amount of plants that need to be “murdered” to feed an animal until it’s ready for slaughter is orders of magnitude higher than the nutritional value we get out of the animal when we murder it.

            I also think the notion that harvesting peas is the same as ramming a bolt through a pigs head is not really something people actually believe, but rather antivegan cope. But that’s subjective of course.

            • turdas@suppo.fi
              4·
              17 hours ago

              We don’t know what consciousness requires to manifest (nor really even what it is), so ruling out plants having any level of consciousness just because they don’t have animal neurons is an opinion, not a fact. There are electrochemical signals happening within them, so it is entirely possible they perform similar functions to an animal nervous system without having any neurons.

              Many animal behaviours could also be argued to be reactive. Particularly, if we reduce learning behaviours in plants to mere reactions, then by the same logic it could be argued that learning behaviours in simple animals (like, say, lobsters, which have 1/10th the number of neurons a cockroach does) are also just complex reactions.

              I’m not saying this because I really believe plants are conscious or sentient (i.e. capable of sensing in a way analogous to humans or complex animals like, say, dogs or cows). I’m saying it to illustrate how with our present-day knowledge any moral line we draw is going to ultimately be arbitrary. Excluding complex mammals like cows or pigs from our diets for being too sentient is easy, but the simpler the animal becomes the harder it gets to create objective criteria that excludes, say, bugs, but doesn’t exclude any plants.

              then being vegan is still the more moral option since the amount of plants that need to be “murdered” to feed an animal until it’s ready for slaughter is orders of magnitude higher than the nutritional value we get out of the animal when we murder it.

              Correct, and this argument is the one you want to use with the average Lemmy user. Not because of the moral cost of killing plants or animals, but because of the environmental cost. Most Lemmy users already agree that climate change is a problem, so this argument is an easier sell to them. It is what made me reduce my consumption of meat.

              • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
                22·
                14 hours ago

                Particularly, if we reduce learning behaviours in plants to mere reactions, then by the same logic it could be argued that learning behaviours in simple animals (like, say, lobsters, which have 1/10th the number of neurons a cockroach does) are also just complex reactions.

                Evidence for learning behaviors in plants is to my knowledge very scarce. And like the article I linked you states about that subject “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Additionally we know that cockroaches and lobsters sense pain and have an aversion to it. That the screams of a lobster is not just “air escaping”. There still is a lot more complexity to the learned behavior and reaction to stimuli that cockroaches or lobsters exhibit than a sunflower who’s stem grows on the shadier side and reset during the night in order to “track the sun”.

                I’m not saying this because I really believe plants are conscious or sentient (i.e. capable of sensing in a way analogous to humans or complex animals like, say, dogs or cows). I’m saying it to illustrate how with our present-day knowledge any moral line we draw is going to ultimately be arbitrary.

                It is somewhat arbitrary very the exact line is, but I don’t think there is much debate to be had that killing animals is unethical. There are very few people who wouldn’t react with horror at the idea of killing kittens and milking the mom dry but somehow for cows this is acceptable?

                Correct, and this argument is the one you want to use with the average Lemmy user. Not because of the moral cost of killing plants or animals, but because of the environmental cost. Most Lemmy users already agree that climate change is a problem, so this argument is an easier sell to them. It is what made me reduce my consumption of meat.

                and that last part is exactly why do not want to make this argument. I don’t want people to go vegan for veganisms sake, this is not some conversion cult where we celebrate and congratulate every little step to indoctrinate them further and further into veganism. We want the focus to be on the oppressed. And to murder less is still to murder.

                I wrote at length somewhere else about babystepping but this comment is getting long enough as it is. The core of the argument is that if the oppressor is looking at what they are “giving up” and not at what they are taking from someone else then they are much more susceptible to have holdouts in their habits that still require murder or to “treating themselves” once in a while or to not extend these habits beyond their diet etc. I want the focus to be on the oppressed, this conversation is about them.

                • turdas@suppo.fi
                  4·
                  12 hours ago

                  Evidence for learning behaviors in plants is to my knowledge very scarce. […] a sunflower who’s stem grows on the shadier side and reset during the night in order to “track the sun”.

                  The learning behaviour is actually much more nuanced than that. This is one of the main papers on it (the Youtube video I linked earlier puts it in a more digestable format, plus provides some extra context from the main researcher’s talks and other papers).

                  Basically they took a plant which has a reaction to close its leaves when disturbed and repeatedly dropped its container a small distance, which caused the plant to close its leaves. After only a small number of repeated drops, the plants started reopening their leaves more quickly, and eventually stopped closing them entirely. However, the plants would still close their leaves as normal when a different stimulus of gently shaking their container was presented. They were also capable of remembering the learned behaviour of not closing when dropped for months at a time, and their capacity for learning depended on environmental conditions – when the plants were grown with less light, they learned more quickly.

                  In other words, it’s much more than a reflex. I would like to note that the “it’s just a reflex” argument doesn’t have a very good track record in general!

                  The same researcher, Stefano Mancuso, has many other fascinating plant intelligence experiments and is one of the pioneers of the field of plant neurobiology. The pea plant sensing experiment I mentioned earlier is also his work. It is still an emerging field, but the evidence is quite impressive. It also just makes sense when you think about it – there has been so much evolutionary benefit for sensing and learning behaviours in all other life down to the microscopic level that it would in fact be more surprising if similar behaviour didn’t exist in plants.

                  I don’t think anyone, including the authors, is honestly claiming it as incontrovertible evidence of plant sentience. Personally I think the main takeaway from it should be that learning, sensing etc. aren’t nearly as complicated of a behaviour as we used to think they are, and can likely occur without consciousness or sentience as we humans experience them.

                  It is somewhat arbitrary very the exact line is, but I don’t think there is much debate to be had that killing animals is unethical. There are very few people who wouldn’t react with horror at the idea of killing kittens and milking the mom dry but somehow for cows this is acceptable?

                  Yeah like I said, the ethical argument is easy for complex mammals. It’s simple animals where it’s hard. I think basically no one, including most vegans, would find any ethical issues with killing a parasitic worm, for example.

                  I don’t think it is possible to create a clear and objective definition of intelligence or sentience that excludes all plants (and mushrooms!) without excluding e.g. tardigrades, honeybees, silkworms, mealworms, snails, or indeed lobsters. We simply lack the metrics on which to base it. And I believe if we did have those metrics, we’d find that on them many plants indeed “outrank” many animals.

                  Even beyond the purely philosophical argument of defining a stronger foundation for veganism besides “is it in the kingdom Animalia”, this has actual practical relevance. Certain micronutrients that cannot be gained (or easily gained) from plants would be available in simple animals, which could make them a valuable food source in a world that doesn’t eat chickens, pigs or cows. Simple animals can also be valuable for bioengineering. Conventional non-food uses like silk production are also pretty nice.

        • turdas@suppo.fi
          7·
          1 day ago

          You’re the one who has choices to justify. Me, I’m a full mask off evil unapologetic human supremacist.