I was shocked to see this log as it is the largest public health forum. No wonder why people are falling for pseudoscience and misinformation these days as problematic individuals are entrusted in important roles. I suppose it’s time for another migration.
This community has been locked, please see the discussion here. The original sidebar contents can be found below:
***
# Rules
1. Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
2. When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
3. The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
***
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse
Partners:
* [midwest.social/c/Fediverse](https://midwest.social/c/fediverse)
* [Sub promo](https://lemmy.ca/c/communitypromo)
* [Fedizens](https://lemmy.ca/c/fedizens)
The original community icon is here
This isn't an user simply stating the benefits of eating meat but an individual pushing for an extremely restrictive diet that only allows meat, eggs, butter, dairy and water that has numerous issues such increased risks of all cause mortality, heart disease, cancers, constipations, muscle cramps, impaired kidneys.
https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/nutrition-fitness/a-meat-only-diet-is-not-the-answer-examining-the-carnivore-and-lion-diets/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-carnivore-diet
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/11/the-carnivore-diet-all-meat-health-benefits-dangers
Following that same logic I suppose it's okay for anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists to also join the team if they dedicate enough effort towards it. The user should be a commentator not a moderator, backgrounds are important to consider in predicting how they will shape the community. Health care professionals will avoid !publichealth@mander.xyz if they knew one of the moderators was regularly pushing misinformation. A science-based instance should prioritize proper information.
This is a disappointing response that will cause a schism in the community as I don't want people like RFK Jr. anywhere near positions of power when it comes to health.
I do take your feedback and other's seriously. I have looked into it and I also have my concerns about the fit, so I will talk to them.
If there is an example of mod abuse, a user report can lead to me taking direct action without contacting anyone. But a bad fit is not an emergency, we can talk and resolve it that way.
If they have positive/valuable interactions with members of the community, enforce the rules fairly, follow the rules, etc... Yes, I don't mind.
In this case, the moderator thinking that eating exclusively meat is healthy is not the reason why I think they might not be a good fit to mod that community.
I think so too
I do not disagree with you on this. When I said:
I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.
I am not saying that the background is not important. I am talking about delegation. The people who create communities and moderate them own them, not me. I (admin level) am not micro-managing the decisions of the community builders and running background checks on users. I respond to reports. In this case, I was responding to the user that tagged me, letting them know that I am alert and ready to respond to reports of mod abuse.
Why would it be disappointing? This is the drama community! Schism in the community is what we live for!!
No, but, really. Sorry to disappoint you, and I do appreciate you being attentive to the community and bringing this up.
I have only ever seen jet say it worked for them, and they are working with their doctor, and everyone's body is different. unlike "anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists" jet encourages people to talk with their doctor, read peer reviewed studies, and understand research methodologies.
VERY SELECTIVE peer reviewed papers, by necessity. He is using motivated reasoning. He would not be able to reach his intended conclusions if he used the best available research.
he encourages people to understand the methodology and it's limits. I think he's an honest broker.
Okay, I see what it is now, you're a vegan and he's all about keto. But for someone kicking up a fuss, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous when you have more posts complaining about him here than you do in the actual community itself. Can we not all live in harmony, regardless of our opinions on how we source protein?
How does that relate to disingenuous? It’s important that people know the health effects of what they’re pushing. It’s crucial to regularly rebuke misinformation online.
You say I’m only criticizing them. That’s misrepresenting the situation since I have criticized other unsavoury characters here.
That is a false equivalence as we share the same healthcare system that doesn’t need the extra strain because some people are choosing to eat fad diets such as the atkins one or the carnivore one.
You're kicking up a fuss about a community you don't contribute to. Find something better to do with your time please. 🙏🏾
Another ad hominem. You're refusing to engage with the arguments and instead attacking the person presenting them. Fucking shameful. How can you stand the humiliation.
What arguments, it's like someone complaining about roads when they live on a boat and haven't ever touched land. As the admin of the instance has said, should Jet fall short, they'll remove him. Until then, either be an active member of the community or ignore it.
So you make ad hominem attacks? That's not a rational response. That's something a manipulator does. While accusing others of being disingenuous. Clean up your shit.
I'm gonna leave it at this. An ad hominem attack isn't the same as providing context. I'm not a moderator of the community nor am I an admin of the instance. But I use the community a lot and as such I want a vibrant functioning community. For me personally, your opposition to Jet would hold more weight if you posted. But it's akin to people wanting to ban gay sex and yet they identify as straight and live in a town which is 100% straight. It doesn't remotely affect you. If you do decide to become active, I will happily make you feel welcome as that's what a community is about.
I'm about to briefly engage with your distraction tactic but don't for a moment believe I accept it. I also don't think that any successful refutation of anything you say will change your mind, because I think you are merely dissembling. This is truly shameful behaviour.
People who post in a community are not the only stakeholders. There is a huge portion of users in every community who never post, and yet who are informed on the workings of the community, and get value from the community. There are even people who do not directly participate in the community at all who are none the less stakeholders. And finally, there are observers who are not involved in thee situation, and yet have relevant experience to bring to bear and merely want to help.
You are trying to draw arbitrary lines so that you don't have to deal with criticism. It's shockingly transparent. "Your opinion doesn't matter because you are vegan." "Your opinion doesn't matter because you don't post enough." Sir, YOUR opinion doesn't matter, because you're a sophist.
Not vegan and the concerns raised in this thread are legitimate. Embarrassing takes and reeks of trying to dismiss and distract from an obviously bad appointment.
I think it's fine. he's not banning any on topic discussion. what's the issue
Bait used to be believable
if you don't care to support your position, I have no reason to believe it.
shameful ad hominem. just shameful.