Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from !vegan@lemmy.world for being fake vegans.
From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.
PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don't want to insult anyone here being a 'bastard'. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.
PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they're unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
So you believe that shit BP made up about us watching our carbon footprints so they can blame us for climate change? If so then shut the fuck up, because you don't actually care about stopping or reducing climate change, if you're going to advocate for the solutions that were literally made up by the oil companies so we wouldn't protest them and/or get their business BANNED, which is how these problems are actually solved.
Yes I'm aware of that. You can go vegan AND protest oil companies, look at Greta Thunberg. Just because a bad corporation tells you to cut down on your emissions, doesn't automatically make that message bad.
I like the passion though, doesn't it feels frustrating being so anti-oil company, but defending the meat industry? They're both horrible industries destroying the planet, propagandizing the populace, and destroying our health.
I said shut the fuck up because you're blindly parroting carbon footprint rhetoric pioneered by Big oil. Learn how to read properly and quit shoving words in people's mouths that they didn't say, (like claiming I support the meat industry because I called you out on using BP's climate change consumer blame bullshit rhetoric).
This is called a strawman and a red herring and they are logical fallacies typically used by someone arguing in bad faith. Which is exactly what you are doing here in this thread, by accusing me of something I never said, based on criticism of an unrelated point, that being your use of the very incorrect, and consumer scapegoating carbon footprint rhetoric.
Billy is making marbles. Billy now has five marbles. Johnny buys all five marbles. Billy now has to make more.
One day, Johnny stops buying marbles. Question, does Billy endlessly continue making marbles forever? Or does Billy stop once he realises demand is causally linked to supply?