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!
Context matters here when we're talking about what speech you're going to outlaw on this platform. You can have whatever opinion you want on whether its ok to exploit a backyard chicken but if you ban someone for this, that's quite censorious. Why don't you just say to them what you said here and let the people suss it out.
There is nothing "censorious" about moderating trolls. Regardless of the actual matter, if someone writes comments with the explicit purpose of offending others that is trolling. If we leave people to "suss it out", there is going to be exactly one outcome: the nice people leave and only the trolls remain.
I don't think drawing parallels between small-scale farming and slavery equals trolling. It's certainly a position many non-vegans will disagree with, but that doesn't make the point automatically invalid.
I'm pretty new to this style of vegan - is the slavery analogy a genuine attempt at outreach or just fishing for a strong emotional reaction? Because so far I've only seen it when it's off topic and usually bundled with other insults.
My ancestors were never enslaved, my family doesn't bear scars from that atrocity (which happened within living memory in many places, especially when you count things like prisoner-lease) so I've had the luxury of moving on and staying on topic, and the slrpnk community has, I think, done a good job of not taking the bait in all the conversations I've seen.
But it doesn't exactly make for a welcoming place. Maybe I'm wrong, and misjudging what will offend people (I wouldn't be the first white guy to speak out of turn). But it just doesn't seem worthwhile to me - how many people repented their carnist ways VS bounced hard off vegans using this analogy or calling them murderers, pissbabies, etc?
These days I'm watching the world burn down around me and I want results, not people grandstanding about their moral purity and how hard it is to be surrounded by the rest of us. I've fallen in love with the slrpnk community because it's so action-oriented, because it's somehow both realistic and optimistic, because people here are making real steps, even small ones, to improve the world around them. It's inspired me to do more of the projects I had on the back burner, to prioritize planting and fixing and zerowaste-type reuse.
I think because this place had that effect on me, I've come to see it also as a recruiting tool - I want others to read the conversations and to reconsider consumer culture, the way our societies exploit natural resources and animals, the source of their electricity, and yes, their diet too. But I recognize that we'll be meeting people where they are and that insults make for bad recruiting.
There are many ways to help and at this point, if someone is willing to just plant some native flowers in their yard, or build a bat house, or they'll give something away instead of throwing it out, that's progress. Small steps are better than nothing, which is what we'll get if we drive people away by insulting them.
This thread is just becoming people arguing about what type of vegan speech is effective and failing to understand the concept of the seriousness with which vegans promote and believe in animal rights. To vegans, animals are individuals and their sentience is respected and taken very seriously.
I can't speak to "off topic" or "bundled insults" but if something is "off topic" or "bundled with insults" then it can be moderated accordingly.
A lot of vegans who have had enslaved ancestors are still ok with the analogy and a lot of vegans who ancestors in the holocaust are still ok with the holocaust analogy. Since there is a wide spread of people with this very common opinion, if you censor it, you're ok censoring vegan speech which is hostile to vegans.
I've already said - people compare animal agriculture to slavery because we captivate, force impregnate, mutilate, steal their children, and economically exploit animals. We violate their rights for mere taste pleasure because today, in most parts of the world, it isn't required to do this to them.
People compare it to the holocaust because every year billions are killed, in gas chambers and in abattoirs. They're led to their deaths packed on top of each other in trucks, breaking their legs on floors of shit, dehydrated, and terrified.
When people say this, it's not TRYING to get an emotional response, this is just WHAT happens and WHAT you contribute to if you consume animal products. And some people really wish you'd stop and sometimes emotions get in the way and ok, if someone crosses a line, moderate that shit.
It looks like what's really going to happen here is that because vegans are a minority, even here, the sensibilities of people who get offended by the animal rights point of view is going to blind them to the fact that they're being incredibly censorious. Enjoy your echo chamber if you want, I guess. Disappointing.
Someone that has for example backyard pet chicken for the occasional egg and get rid of some kitchen waste is not contributing to this. Most people that choose to do this kind of animal husbandry are doing so because they agree with you that the industrial animal farming is atrocious.
Of course anyone who participates in such small scale farming is aware that the process of owning and raising chicken has its dark sides to it, but it seems to be a trade-off they are willing to make and theses backyard pet chicken live a pretty happy life as far as I can tell.
But anyway... these are the people you are offending here by calling their backyard chicken slavery etc. And even if you are not trying to get an emotional response, this is in effect what you will get and certainly you are targeting the entirely wrong sort of people with your anger.
Personally, people with backyard chickens getting offended at vegan speech isn't something I'd concern myself with as a mod.
The above statement that I made was specifically in response to someone asking why some vegans use language like Holocaust and slavery and motivations for doing so.
This isn't the place to argue about whether its ok to have a backyard chicken, though, because the thread topic is what speech should be regulated. We can go over to debate a vegan on that if you want.
You suggest that people offending other people should be regulated and thats a different philosophy than I have about moderation. You suggest only large scale agro can be criticized. I think its overly censorious and that you will create a blindspot for this community by preventing ideas you agree with from getting challenged. But the joy of a federated platform is that people can choose where they associate and escape such echochambers whenever they want. You've at least been transparent with us. These shall be my concluding thoughts on the matter.
Yes, it is a discussion worth having and I would not moderate it as such if done in a civilized manner and in the appropriate community.
The problem is that this is not happening. Rather people intentionally barge into other communities and and intentionally try to offend people in some misguided attempt to speak the truth as they perceive it.