this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
-6 points (45.9% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1281 readers
102 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
I am pretty sure the carnivore community is just a big troll. Maybe it is some confused people, but it seems on Lemmy more likely to just be people taking the piss out of vegans.
But not like in a cheeky and fun way, more cruel and tragic
At this time and age you can expect anything to be serious. Like biden being cloned
It's not a troll, it's a earnest eating pattern. It has nothing to do with vegans, the entire world doesn't rotate around vegans. People can do things independently of what vegans do.
The Inuit didn't exist for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating only animals to spite vegans.
Their population is sparse and they had absolutely no energy to spare to expand or rise up in the world, they were too busy with the incredible energy expenditure that is hunting. They didn't choose to do this as a success option, they just have no other option because nothing will grow in their environment, so it's hunt or starve.
But they survived - With great health according to the reports of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson who observed the population pre-westernized.
According to the methodologically worthless reports of one guy who died in the 60s, "i ate this and I'm feeling fine, trust me bro"
It took me all of 30 seconds in the linked wiki article to find this
"Arctic physiologist Kåre Rodahl has written that Stefansson's diet on his arctic explorations should not be confused with the Eskimo diet as the Eskimos in addition to meat and fat also "eat considerable quantities of entrails and plant food in the form of land plants and sea algae" and during the summer, marine algae makes up 50% of their vitamin C supply.[26]"
Scientific literature isn't valid because its old?
Evaluations of pre-westernize cultures has value to us today.
There is no scientific literature related to the guy you mentioned and you know it, I already quote your own article link debunking your claims
Any type of person that survives in a harsh environment where death is an ever-present outcome will generally be strong and healthy on an individual basis. It's natural selection. If they're not hardy, they don't survive, so the ones that are left are healthy.
I'm not saying that there's no way to eat exclusively meat and have it work out. I'm just saying that (a) you're choosing an example that doesn't apply all that well to making an argument about how to eat in the modern world (b) the industrially farmed meat that's available in the modern world, definitely in the US at least, is pure poison compared to what any ancient society you're studying was eating.
Every study in the modern world that I'm aware of has drawn conclusions of severe negative health consequences from eating too much of the type of meat that's available to us now.
Would you like to see more data?
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9
That's just the first random thing I found. Again, I am sure that a lot of that has to do with the low quality of the meat available in modern factory-farm-driven societies. I'm just saying that if you're advocating for people eating meat, and they live in that type of society, they're going to be fucking themselves up by eating lots of the type of meat that is available to them in that society.
Sure, everything is about context - Can someone be perfectly healthy without Carnivore? Yes, Absolutely.
Are there any nutritional deficiencies on Carnivore itself - not that I'm aware of
Are there a group of adults who have plant sensitivities / inflammation / allergies that benefit from carnivore? Yes
Now consider a modern adult with T2D (which is a billion people right now), carnivore by virtue of having zero carbohydrates is one of the best possible interventions for them to manage or even reverse their T2D
Great, I 100% agree, to your previous post about all the science being against red meat because of cancer risk, can you point out the non-correlated (non-epidemiology) that demonstrates this risk?
Context matters - Any dietary intervention is better then the sugar heavy, processed food, standard western diet. Even low grade factory farmed meat is better then pop-tarts and cheerios, yes?
If we want to quibble about which diet has optimal health outcomes - then we are already winning! I think most people would benefit from whole food (single ingredient), non processed, sustainably produced food for their diet.
Carnivore (as per my pinned going carnivore post https://hackertalks.com/post/5730540 ) is a option for people, which confers the benefits of simple keto, especially valuable to people who have unresolved issues on other interventions - so the elmination protocol aspect of carnivore has value clinically to those people.
Reducing the amount of pure garbage that someone consumes is going to help them, yes. If you're advocating for replacing the garbage with meat, and then give credit to the meat because of the lack of garbage is helping them, I don't think that makes a ton of sense.
The study actually talks about this. They point out some correlations with BMI where the meat diet is probably not the issue, and then they point out some other health issues where they can't find an obvious correlation with anything else and so provisionally it is maybe okay to blame the meat.
I'm just pointing out that in all your studies I looked at there was an instant 2-seconds-of-thinking correlation that was more likely the cause than meat consumption, and it didn't seem like the study was addressing that. It kind of looks like someone is aiming to prove that meat is healthy, and grasping around for anything they can find that will demonstrate that, when most of the science I'm aware of (again, based on consuming the type of meat that's available in a modern first world society) says the opposite.
Absolutely agree. I actually personally suspect that almost all the bad health outcomes according to modern science from eating too much meat would evaporate if the people were consuming healthy untainted meat. But, also, I think you have to be aware of that and communicate it if you're advocating for someone to eat a lot of meat when it's likely that what they're going to be eating is tainted.
In my understanding this makes perfect sense
You have to decide if correlation is important to you or not. If not, then there is no smoking gun against meat. If correlation matters then there are opposing epidemiology to consider.
Other then having lower omega-3 levels - I'm not aware of any problems with low grade meat.
This is absolutely false. Cows eat plants, and any pesticides in the plants can bioaccumulate in the cow so that it winds up with more pesticide than you would have gotten from just eating the plant in the first place. It's one of the problems with eating meat in the modern world.
This has some links to various high-level explanation: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/how-to-shop-for-safer-healthier-meat-a1124955526/
It was actually pretty difficult for me to find a study about this that was (1) from the US and (2) not on some site that was clearly trying to promote one side of the battle or the other. But Consumer Reports is pretty trustworthy, to me.
I have explained my thought process, why I think you need to be cautious about assuming correlation is causation when there is a clearly obvious alternative explanation for the correlation, but you can accept epidemiology in general instead of throwing out any study that relies on correlation as any part of its argument.
Opposing epidemiology that to me is hilariously weak and implausible, yes. I considered it.
You really should be. It's not just an issue with "low grade" meat. If you're in the US, you should know that most of the world won't even import our meat products because they are so full of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, and all kinds of other fun stuff that they are illegal to sell in other first world societies. Do you really not know this?
I'm not in the US.
I know the data sources your referencing, I just draw different conclusions.
I've not seen bad health outcome studies based on meat itself, I've seen speculative mechanistic appeals, I don't find that compelling
As far as cost goes - Carnivore is less expensive because your just buying meat, no sides, a adult can eat maybe 1kg a day, which in the US is about $5 (bulk purchases - like costco business)... That gives many people the wiggle room to buy the higher quality grass fed meats.
The debate about which is optimal is a bit of a waste of effort. People don't do carnivore unless they have run out of all other options - usually. So that means by the time they are on the ropes enough to do it, they have already tried the farm plants and it didn't work for whatever problem they have.
Got it. Some of what I'm saying about the health risks of meat may not apply in a country with better food standards. I think it's moderately weird that for all the studies and effort that's been spent on this, this doesn't seem to be a chief area of investigation when people talk about the health impacts of eating meat.
None of these are the question. The question is, "Is it a good idea for a first-world society inhabitant to replace their diet with a largely-meat diet?"
Here's a pretty comprehensive attempt to address the issues you're talking about with epidemiological studies:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6971786/
No, not largely meat - Exclusively meat - yes. But that is just my opinion and we don't need to keep talking in circles about it. The problem with Largely is that sugar and carbs will creep in, and all the associated chronic non-communicable diseases they bring.
It's late, I have not read this metanalysis of epidemiology before, but let me just refer you to the counter factual analysis
https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-and-colon-cancer-the-evidence-remains-weak
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
This articles are very well cited (hover over the numbers for the publications)
TLDR The evidence against red meat is extremely weak, and has tremendous healthy user bias, especially since most people in epidemiology surveys have a carbohydrate metabolism. For a true comparison against carnivore eaters we would need to see a ketogenic metabolism.
I mean that's pretty easy to study. Take a big random sample of people, randomly assign half of them to try that diet, and see what happens.
All I really know is my sample size of 1 person I know who tried that, and she got all fucked up because not eating carbs will do that to a person. But that's not really all that scientific.
I read some of the cites and I'm not convinced. It seems mostly like an exercise in misleading citation, taking studies which indicate a lack of indication of one particular factor of X, and claiming that they find definitively that X does not occur, which isn't the same thing.
And what will it do to a person?
We can both be reasonable people see the same data and come to different conclusions, that is ok.
In her case, it made her physically weak, she had trouble thinking, and she became irritable and unreasonable. Basically physically, mentally, and emotionally it made her worse.
I mean it does make sense to me. Your body needs energy to function and getting it from complex carbohydrates is a standard way and it's going to struggle if it doesn't have that available. As I understand it, the no-carb diets are sort of well known to produce that kind of impact, although I can definitely believe that there could be people who are having a bad reaction to some particular substance that they're eating so that cutting out all carbs entirely will give them a good result because they're also not being exposed to that substance, I don't think that kind of thing is in general a good thing for the average healthy person to do.
Interesting weakness and brain fog.
There is no physiological need for carbohydrates. https://hackertalks.com/post/8957737 - Confronting myths: relative and absolute requirements of dietary carbohydrates and glucose as metabolic fuels. - 2024
I wonder what your friends total nutritional intake looked like. The literature, and my personal experience, show that ketogenic metabolism is sustainable without issue for both metabolically unwell people as well as athletes.
During the fat adaptation phase there is something called "keto flu" where people who don't adjust electrolytes can have low energy and headaches (insulin goes down, kidneys don't retain as many electrolytes) for a few weeks.
Here is a great textbook on the subject: - Ketogenic : The Science of Therapeutic Carbohydrate Restriction in Human Health it's on the normal pirate sites.
Anyway, going back to the start of this thread - I hope you see that the carnivore community doesn't exist to troll anybody and we are earnest with our intentions.
Your sources are all dogshit
That is just a ad hominem attack.
It's definitionally only an ad hominem if my argument consists of personal insults/attacks. The comment you're responding to is insulting the quality of your sources, not you, and the quality of your sources is verifiably dogshit. Swing and a miss lol
Please follow Lemmy.ml's rule #2 - Be respectful. https://lemmy.ml/post/1140303
At this point you are harassing me. Please disengage.
I'm accurately pointing out that you're a deliberate liar engaged in a campaign to disseminate dangerous medical misinformation, the fact that the official rules fail to prohibit such behavior means nothing to me, you deserve worse
Your opinion is scientifically unsubstantiated nonsense, the only thing you're even remotely right about is that we don't need to talk in circles about it, you can safely be disregarded as either a moron or a paid shill
Thank you for your opinion about my opinion. You have not changed my mind, but that is ok, I don't expect you to.
But why are you even here? If your not going to try to educate me, are you here for performative signaling? Nobody is watching this post anymore.
I'm here to make sure any literate person who even perfunctorily skims these comments will know that you're peddling dangerous bullshit. You're welcome for nothing, you deserve worse.
First link, study does nothing to support the idea that a primarily carnivorous diet is in any way better and doesn't claim to, simply that higher calorie and nutrient intake results in more/faster growth in children.
Second link, the study also does nothing to support a primarily carnivorous diet, from their conclusion: "Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy."
Third link, actually relevant to carnivore diet! And it's a sample size of just over 2k, a timeline of less than 2 years, and entirely self-reported data with no external verification whatsoever.
Fourth link, also makes no claims whatsoever regarding a primarily carnivorous diet. From the conclusion: "Our study found that, for relatively healthy older adults, the consumption of eggs 1–6 times per week was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality compared to those who rarely or never eat eggs. No such potential benefit was observed with daily egg consumption." So not only does it not even try to recomment a fully carnivorous dier, but it explicitly states that eating more eggs resulted in no increased health benefit
You clearly just googled "carnivore diet is healthy study" and posted the first four results that came up, you don't give a shit about what's actually true you're just here to push an agenda
You do realize each of those link to a post I made for the paper with my notes for those papers.
If your not even going to try to engage in earnest discussion without disparaging me and my motives... I don't think we are going to have a productive talk.
I directly quoted the studies you mentioned, couldn't have done that if I didn't open the links and read the studies, try harder halfwit
Please disengage.
No u
They say that about every fash. It's just a joke!