this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
611 points (96.1% liked)

memes

10664 readers
2148 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's not the comment which caused this whole issue. It seems to me you're cherry picking out of context

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Alright, since "Things the mods have said" isn't acceptable evidence for whether or not the mods are pushing ridiculous views on vegan diets for cats, and not just "The vegans stated very clearly that current science shows that the cat would need a fuckton of supplements and attention to be on a vegan diet but it’s functional", I suppose them saying the ASPCA doesn't know what they're talking about, while THEIR simple 'common sense' allows them to understand a cat's TRUE dietary needs is also kosher?

This whole thing comes down to aggressively anti-scientific mods pushing misinformation and removing information to the contrary and getting removed by an admin for their troubles. Or was removing the link to the ASPCA for being 'misinformation' also a sign of how reasonable the c/Vegan mods were?

I don't give a single solitary fuck what happens to Rooki. Whether they were too quick to remove or too uncivil or what. But defending misinformation, or defending mods pushing misinformation as just being reasonable? That gets my dander up.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The commentary you're pointing is way more reasonable than you make it sound. I implore people to read the context themselves and not to trust summaries with rage bait agendas here.

Stop doing the reddit thing. Making people angry at people more radical than them isn't helping.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The commentary you’re pointing is way more reasonable than you make it sound.

No, it's just politely worded. That's not reasonable. That's civility politics.

I implore people to read the context themselves and not to trust summaries with rage bait agendas here.

I agree. They absolutely should read the context, and the modlog.

Stop doing the reddit thing. Making people angry at people more radical than them isn’t helping.

Should people... not be angry at those who spread misinformation and suppress actual information to the contrary? Is there a 'get out of jail free' card you get once you get radical enough that permits you to spread misinformation, no moral qualms necessary? Whether they're 'more radical' or less shouldn't fucking matter, even assuming such a linear evaluation was valid.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago
  • Someone claims mods were being reasonable
  • Post quote showing they are not being reasonable
  • "Stop cherry picking"

Wut...

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

If that's what the community moderators are saying, I imagine the comment section was far worse than you're making out.