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.
Linking the affected users and mods: @Cypher@lemmy.world @gaael@lemmy.world @gredo@lemmy.world @iiGxC@slrpnk.net @veganpizza69@lemmy.world @veganpizza69@lemmy.vg @jerkface@lemmy.ca @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world @Sunshine@lemmy.ca @Aqua@lemmy.vg
Another day, another ~~diet~~ vegan/carnivore drama
fyi the normal diet people eat is omnivorous, not carnivorous.
Veganism isn't a diet, it is a social justice movement for animal rights.
It can be. I know a lot of the loudest vegans insist this is the only acceptable definition. But that's not how language works. A vegan is someone who abstains from all animal food products, and usually all/most other animal products. Their reason for doing so is not an essential part of the definition.
You are simply not correct and there isn't much more to discuss. There is an actual agreed on definition of veganism by vegans, created by the vegan society who created veganism and coined the term vegan to describe themselves. They created the word vegan for this specific reason, it didn't exist before and you can't redefine it because you don't like it. The reason for doing so is absolutely an essential part of the definition. If they are not doing it for this reason then they are plant based and not vegan.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Sorry, but that is just not how language works. One group does not get to define a term and insist everyone else uses it in the precise way they do. Words' meanings are defined by how they are used. And the term vegan is used in the way I described all the time.
A word's meaning can also change over time. Even if you were correct that the term was coined to be an ethical standpoint, that would not preclude it later evolving to have the broader meaning it does in today's society. That would be the etymological fallacy. But in fact you are not correct about that either. The term was coined by Donald Watson and Dorothy Morgan, because they wanted a more concise term for non-dairy vegetarians. The first time the term had caught on in the wider public enough to make it into a dictionary, the agreed meaning of vegan was "a vegetarian who eats no butter, eggs, cheese, or milk". You can thus talk about ethical veganism (which seems to be the only subtype of veganism your definition would accept), environmental veganism, or dietary veganism.
blah blah blah, I am dumber for having heard from you
Whoof, the projection is strong with this one lol.
Dude, we really don’t care. Could you please go back to vegan@lemmy.world and yell at clouds there instead?
It's both!
Edited