mathemachristian[he]

Banned for pointing out anti-vegan trolls past behaviour

https://lemmy.ml/post/42668945

Banned for pointing out anti-vegan trolls past behaviour - Lemmy

## In short ## I got a reply from a prolific anti-vegan troll and referred them back to an earlier conversation we had. Got banned for “harassment” and “following someone around” when in fact they replied to me and keep following vegans around when they post against anti-vegan propaganda. The 14-day ban and comment removals by @[email protected] [/u/[email protected]] [https://lemmy.world/u/aeronmelon]: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111 [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111] mod Banned mathemachristian he/him from the community Microblog [email protected] reason: If you have nothing better to do than to follow someone else around. expires: in 13 days mod Removed Comment Oh hey its you (link to https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346) by mathemachristian he/him reason: Harassment, attempted brigading. mod Removed Comment Oh hey its you (link to https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346) by mathemachristian he/him reason: Harassment, attempted brigading. [https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/3ac4e335-809d-469f-af29-dd104722483e.png] And the posts in question: * https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014218 [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014218] * https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014077 [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014077] ## With background ## @[email protected] [/u/[email protected]] [https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/commie] is a very dedicated anti-vegan troll [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/search?q=vegan&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=1907677&page=6&sort=New&titleOnly=false] whos trolling style Sartre best described for anti-semites: > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity > of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to > challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who > is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The > anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with > discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the > seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, > since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and > disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall > silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is > past. Indeed they constantly make non-sequitur claims as replies to vegans, in the hopes of roping then into a defensive position under the guise of “debate”. Should someone engage them, they will use every sealioning, debatebro tactic in the book to tire her self-declared opponent out. No source is ever good enough, no proof ever strict enough etc. But when pressed to defend a claim they made they will promptly drop the conversation. To exemplify this I engaged with them a couple months ago and got a perfect showcase [lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346] of their behaviour. I had never used this and have never replied to them since then (at least I don’t remember that I have and searching didn’t turn anything up). But then when they replied to me yesterday I did. And got promptly banned for “harassment” and “following someone around”. I messaged the mod who banned me to no reply. Their behaviour is being enabled by lemmy.world mods like @[email protected] [/u/[email protected]] [https://lemmy.world/u/aeronmelon] who will readily delete comments made by vegans should they dare step a foot outside of the norms of “civilized debate”, like e.g. in the same thread (1) [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19012827] and (2) [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/18964864]. The petulant and incessant trolling by @[email protected] [/u/[email protected]] [https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/commie] is of course never subject to such moderation actions. And by incessant I really do mean that, they will turn up in every larger discussion about veganism. To any vegan comrades, do not engage this troll, you risk getting banned and your comments deleted. It’s not worth it, this person chooses and is committed to being blind. Antiveganism is a declared mission [https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/14217056/9673328] of theirs.

Feb 4 at 10:01amWeb
Show threadremonFeb 4

Guys posts valid opinions in a threat about veganism, notably NOT in vegan community. Then you get all stalkery for now reason. If you can’t deal with opposing opinion in neutral spaces, block and move on.

YDI.

Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 4
How did I stalk them? What behaviour of mine constitutes stalking? They replied to me first. To my recollection I never initiated an interaction with them.
Show threadremonFeb 4
You literally just dug up 2 year old comments to make your point …
Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 4
Yeah while researching for this post… Meaning I dug into their past posts after I got accused of stalking in order to better showcase their behaviour to an audience that isn’t familiar with them.
Show threadremonFeb 4

Meaning I dug into their past posts after I got accused of stalking

Then what exactly did the two removed links you posted contain? They don’t work any more but it feels like they were linking to this guys post history.

Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 4
A past discussion we had that I had marked for later. I mean I did write that I engaged with them before that, so I think it’s pretty clear that I didn’t have to go out of my way to look for it, since it’s a discussion they had with me. I don’t know why they dont show up for you, they work for me: lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346
Show threadpunkisundead [they/them]Feb 4
Could you point to the “valid opinions” you mention? I can’t really find them…
Show threadpunkisundead [they/them]Feb 4
Pointing out that a person was an annoying shithead in a previous conversation about a related topic (and tries to do so again) shouldnt get you banned. But the way you worded it in the removed comment really makes it easy to misunderstand your intent. Did you try to talk about this with the mods before posting here? I think it could be genuine mistake / misunderstanding of the situation.
Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 4
I did, got no reply
Show threadWrenFeb 4
It’s only been a day. Some people have lives and work.
Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
By “ani vegan troll” you mean a person who disagrees with you?
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

By anti-vegan troll I mean someone who will turn up in any discussion about veganism of reasonable size with bad faith engagement bait masked as “rational and logical debate”, also known as debate pervertry, sealioning, JAQing off etc.

Please have a look at their past posts for yourself, this isn’t someone merely disagreeing, this is a pattern of intentionally disruptive behaviour.

Search - vegan - Blåhaj Lemmy

Lemmy

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4

I looked at yours. You are one of the vegan fanatics implying other people are somehow “less moral” than yourself because they don’t share your dietary choices.

You are actually worse than trolls as you appear to genuinely hold warped, distorted, bizarre belief in your own moral supremacy.

Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4
I don’t think that’s a particularly rare view to hold. The fact that animals are sentient and it is therefore wrong to kill them is the core of veganism. Everything else (including the sentiment that nonvegans are “less moral” than vegans) follows from that.
Show threadFelixCressFeb 4

Everything else (including the sentiment that nonvegans are “less moral” than vegans) follows from that.

"Christians belive in real God. Everything else “other religions being wrong and less moral” follows from that.

🙄

Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

Nope, wrong, it doesn’t.

t. a christian.

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
There you go, good boy. Now apply the same to your beliefs 😂
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

Logical consistency? Already done. Lets check the results:

  • A person with believing in another religion is not more or less moral than someone who believes in mine.
  • A person having a sentient creature killed and butchered is.

Seems ok to me. In fact I think most people would be horrified if someone took a momma cats kittens, killed them and kept the momma confined to a tiny cage only to milk her dry. And I should think they would you look down on such a person. I merely looked at why and then looked if that reason would apply anywhere else.

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
You are a perfect example of extreme veganism being a mental condition.
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

mentally ill people are bad and shouldn’t be taken seriously

wow ok

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
Whose quote is it from, sweetie?
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4
The person using “mental condition” as an insult.
Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
You are notki quoting. You are putting in quotes words I never said. If this place had normal moderation, you would be banned.
Show threadUnruffled [they/them]Feb 4

The reason you were moderated is because you were are the one being the asshole:

You are an excellent example of thesis that aggressive veganism and a long term vegan diet could be linked to mental disorders.

The only reasonable way to interpret this sentence is you you were calling @[email protected] a crazy fucking vegan. Just because you said it in a more pusillanimous tone doesn’t change the meaning.

You are a perfect example of extreme veganism being a mental condition.

Imo its perfectly reasonably for him (and me) to call you out for ableism here. He paraphrased you to highlight the ableism which is implicitly contained in your insult.

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
You are an excellent example of thesis that aggressive veganism is a mental disorder.
Show threadDiva (she/her)Feb 4
based on your modlog you seem like exactly the person being described. I’m sorry you’re so emotionally attached to eating the murder treats
Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
Oh, another fanatical vegan? 😂
Show threadDiva (she/her)Feb 4
I don’t know about fanatical. While I am vegan in my daily life, I’d eat a human if given a chance.
Show threadFelixCressFeb 4

I don’t know about fanatical

eating the murder treats

🤦

Show threadDiva (she/her)Feb 4

did the animals consent to being imprisoned until getting chopped up?

even if we drop that it still holds up:

You seem emotionally attached to treats.

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
Can’t hear you through the sound of me munching a ham sandwich, you may need to repeat this.
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

you seem emotionally attached to treats

can’t hear you through the sound of my treats

😙👌

perfect, don’t change a thing

Show threadFelixCressFeb 4
Sorry, can’t hear you through the sound of me munching a ham sandwich.
Show threadNot Chad McTruthFeb 4

taken care of thank you for telling me

Show threadcommieFeb 4
ptb
Show threadNot Chad McTruthFeb 4
issthty
Show threadcommieFeb 4
I’m not anti vegan
Show threadElcaineVoltaFeb 5
lol, mhmm.
Show threadcommieFeb 4
Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
Show threadUnruffled [they/them]Feb 4

Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.

FYI It’s not appropriate to use this comm to target a user who has not taken mod actions against you. Please edit your post accordingly. If you wish to report a user, you can do so using the normal channels. This comm is specifically for complaining about power tripping mods/admins.

However, if you feel mods have not taken appropriate action against a reported user, in your opinion, then you can complain about those mods here, preferably without identifying the user in question. In that case, please make sure you explain what mod actions you feel would be more appropriate, so we can have that discussion.

Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 4

This is about the comment removal and ban by @[email protected]. Well more the reason for it, I have received many ridiculous bans before, for longer times even, but accusing me of “harassment” and “following someone around” in the modlog where I can’t reply is fairly egregious.

I felt this much context was necessary to show why I remembered (and even bookmarked) a discussion I had with the person months ago. It is pretty hard to show that I am not stalking someone so I went with adding as much context as possible.

I agree that the focus very much gets pulled from the mod and to the other user, but this is at it’s core about the accusations that got put in the modlog, so that at least I have noted a defense for it while it’s still fresh. Since these modlog accusations tend to compound like for e.g. another ban I received for calling out Germany’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide citing all the other bans I had received.

It is also to call out the double standard in moderation where this user seems to never be at the receiving end of mod actions despite (rather obviously imo) engaging in bad faith behaviour.

I’ll trim it down, please have a look again in 5 minutes. I don’t think anonymizing the other party will be possible however since my comment is in direct reply to them, even references a discussion I had with them and ultimately it is an accusation that I’m “following them around”. Very hard to talk about while completely omitting who “they” are.

Modlog - Blåhaj Lemmy

Lemmy

Show threadUnruffled [they/them]Feb 4
Ok I think that’s fair enough, thanks.
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 5
Thank you
Show threadRicky RigatoniFeb 4
It seems like commie is less about anti-veganism and more about anti-poorly-formed-arguments.
Show threadcommieFeb 4
thank you.
Show threadA7thStoneFeb 4
It seems to me they are more about JAQing off to their own perceived intelligence.
Show threadcommieFeb 5
everything I said was true. I don’t think I actually asked any questions (the q in jaq).
Show threadA7thStoneFeb 5

That’s the raw high grade pedantry I miss from reddit.

Show threadKombatWombatFeb 4

In the pictured comment chain, the quote text asked OP to prove the absence of something (sentience in plants). Then Commie later admitted that it was impossible to do so. And from the start, the claim that plants are sentient is likely one that no one involved actually believes. I cannot think why you would make such an objection other than to exhaust someone and waste their time.

And even if plants were somehow sentient, it would still be less harmful to eat them directly than raising animals to eat due to the massive calorie loss from going up the food chain. Having animals be a middle man for humanity’s consumption would result in more plants being killed, not fewer. OP touched on this briefly in their replies. Meaning that even if it was intended to object to veganism, the argument only adds an additional reason to adopt it.

OP did imply an objection to the plant sentience claim disproved it, which is the wrong response, but only because they should have rejected it out of hand as something unfalsifiable. Commie chose to be pedantic that it could still be true.

There’s not enough here to judge Commie as a troll, but they did support a spurious argument much more than OP.

Show threadcommieFeb 5
my whole point was that it is unfalsifiable. I did what you are saying they should have done.
Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 5

I think you are a bit confused about proof and logic, it is possible to prove absence of a property X if the presence of X has a necessary condition Y. Should Y fail, X cannot be present. This is one of the basic tools for proving theorems in math, for example if I can prove that the derivative of a function f is never zero, I can indeed prove that f has no localized minimum or maximum. More formally, given sets A and B we want to prove that their intersection is empty by proving that the complement of A is a superset of B.

Or in more laymans terms (I don’t mean to be condescending I have no clue how well you know this stuff and want to cover my bases) If the streets are wet after it has rained, the fact that they are dry is proof of the absence of rain.

So there absolutely is a sufficient condition to prove the absence of sentience, the “ability to experience feelings and sensations”. Or rather, there is a necessary condition to having sentience, since at the bare minimum it requires an organism to be capable of collecting sensory inputs, processing them and reacting to them. That is, it needs a nervous system. A lack of such facilities therefore means a lack of sentience.

A tree has no capacity to “feel” what’s happening to it’s branches. Lopping one of will have the rest of the tree completely unaffected, only the cut will “experience” the change and heal. An animal on the other hand can anticipate (even if erroneously) damage and react to it, by processing input with it’s nervous system. A clam will close, a cat might jump, a human might scream etc.

This argument is presented in the link that sparked that comment chain just to be clear.

Now this isn’t a formal proof of course. Such a proof would require the careful dissection and experimentation of plants to show that indeed no nervous system or similarly functioning facility is present. I think this is an inappropriate amount of work to ask of someone when arguing on the internet, which is why I would consider the above argument proof enough. Most people I would think can see clearly that salad is not sentient but a pig is. To pin this on the nervous system should also make sense to most and if someone is intrigued by such a topic usually they ask follow-up questions and don’t combatively dismiss everything that’s said (this argument is wrong therefore the claim is wrong is also some-type of fallacy).

The reason I didn’t spell all of this out is because I had enough of these “that’s not a proper proof/argument” counterpoints, lazily shifting the burden for even the most trivial arguments on to vegans, which is why I made the point that it is a proof, just not a formal one. That there are different layers of formalization and depending on context being lax can be more appropriate than a formalized argument.

What then followed was a continued stream of claims with 0 arguments provided and a prompt dismissal of the conversation when pushed for even one.

Show threadKombatWombatFeb 7
Well said, and I’m sorry if I made you feel like you needed to go through that whole explanation. I can imagine objections someone intent on arguing could make, but I think it’s fair to assume that since plants don’t have nerves, they cannot suffer as animals can. Damage may impair their ability to live, but it doesn’t cause actual displeasure. There could always be some secret unmeasurable pain mechanism that was developed with no evolutionary benefit, but it is so unlikely that it is not worth considering. If someone will not grant this assumption, I would then assume they are not engaging in good faith.
Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 7
Oh not at all, I am a mathematician I actually love writing proofs lol. But not when they’re meant as a chore to waste time and then are likely to get discarded unread with some thought terminating cliche
Show threadcommieFeb 8
using four paragraphs to construct a faulty syllogism is not “well said”. there is no reason to believe that animal-like nervous systems are the only way sentience can develop.
Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 8

Now this isn’t a formal proof of course. Such a proof would require the careful dissection and experimentation of plants to show that indeed no nervous system or similarly functioning facility is present.

oh whoops looks like someone got confused about the claim I was arguing again.

My point was that lack of sentience is not unfalsifiable since there is a necessary condition for its existence. But that a formal proof would be too cumbersome to reasonably demand of someone in an internet comment section. That for most people lack of a nervous system should be reason enough to at least consider it more plausible than the alternative.

Ironically the exact argument I made six months ago lol

Show threadcommieFeb 8

lack of sentience is not unfalsifiable since there is a necessary condition for its existence

this isn’t shown

Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 9

there is a necessary condition to having sentience, since at the bare minimum it requires an organism to be capable of collecting sensory inputs, processing them and reacting to them.

Show threadcommieFeb 9

there is a necessary condition to having sentience, since at the bare minimum it requires an organism to be capable of collecting sensory inputs, processing them and reacting to them.

you can’t be sure what those are, or that plants don’t have them, unless you are defining these traits in a way that specifically requires animal physiology.

Show threadmathemachristian [he/him]Feb 9
why would I need to define these in a way that requires animal physiology?
Show threadmathemachristian[he]Feb 5
Apparently only if vegans can make poorly formed arguments however. The carnists are a bastion of logic and reason, weird