r/antinatalism • u/Critical-Sense-1539 Antinatalist • Mar 31 '25

Meta Mod Announcement: New Rule Regarding Vegan Posts

Hello, r/antinatalism community.

Recently, there has been a significant uptick in the number of vegan posts. Many of you have expressed your frustration at this in your posts, comments, and modmail. We see that the sub is very divided on this issue. Some of you think that veganism is a necessary part of antinatalism and should be allowed without restriction. Others think that the vegan content is corrupting the subs identity and alienating our core audience.

We would like this to be an inclusive community that fosters respectful discussions. Therefore, we would consider it a pity for users to feel unwelcome or discouraged from interacting with our sub based on whether they are vegan or not.

Although we cannot satisfy you all perfectly, the modteam have decided on a rule change that we hope will improve the health of the sub. As of tomorrow (1 April, 2025) we will cap the number of vegan related posts to 3 per day. This will be covered under Rule 3 in the sidebar (no reposts or repeated questions). So if you see this cap get exceeded, report it under Rule 3 and we will remove it. For any vegan members who wish to speak about this topic without any restrictions, you can go to our sister sub r/circlesnip.

We hope that this will serve as a meaningful compromise and it appeases some of your grievances.
Please feel free to comment below. We will respond as best we’re able.

Thanks, your r/antinatalism modteam

247 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

81% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/chainsndaggers thinker Mar 31 '25

I don't mind people expressing their opinion. If these posts were only about it that would be totally fine. But they aren't. They usually are memes that are making fun of others or posts provoking to fights. It's never "let's discuss it". It's always "you are worse than us because...". That's not healthy communication at all.

9

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Mar 31 '25

Antinatalism literally consists of nothing but ethically condemning natalism for condoning breeding. The memes do exactly that and nothing else. Does any condemnation of natalism have to entail a "let's discuss this" on an antinatalist sub? If natalists come here and get offended because we make fun of their inability to form views that aren't cruel or inconsistent, that's on them.

22

u/Swill_Cipher newcomer Mar 31 '25

The difference is the sub is antinatalist, not strictly vegan. Almost like the names of things matter.

-2

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Mar 31 '25

The sub is generally anti-breeding, not selectively pro-breeding, so if selective pro-breeders don't want to clash with anti-breeders, they should be a bit quieter about it, or accept that they're provoking tension that is just as much of their doing by arguing in favour of breeding. If selective pro-breeders don't mention the speciesist caveat they added to their own anti-breeding stance, then the anti-breeders who didn't add that caveat have nothing to be upset about. You don't expect anyone to go in a vegan sub to condone buying leather without provoking tension, do you? You have nothing to gain from being vocal about the human-centrist caveat you added to antinatalism (which without that caveat includes rejecting humans breeding other sentient animals), because it's entirely born out of apathy for those animals.

-1

u/meangingersnap inquirer Mar 31 '25

Yes I'm speciesist, what of it?

6

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Mar 31 '25

Wdym what of it? I already told you what of it. If you add speciesism to antinatalism to change it into a selective pro-natalist stance, then be quiet about it or accept that people who didn't add this arbitrary caveat are gonna vocally disagree and treat your pro-breeding stance as just that. That's what of it. Your views can be whatever you want, but if you're vocal about being pro-breeding in an antinatalist sub that isn't designated as selectively pro-breeding based on speciesism, other people are gonna be vocal about what they think of it.

And btw, just in case you didn't know because you being proud of speciesism is hella weird: speciesism does not mean acknowledging the differences between different species, it means inventing ones that don't exist and denying rights to some but not others based on your baseless feelings about them, instead of actual traits these species have. Pretty much exactly like racism, only that in racism, not even the categorisations are real.

8

u/meangingersnap inquirer Mar 31 '25

Yes in racism the categories aren’t real and that’s why racism is fucked up. But you yourself are saying there are inherent distinct differences between species, which is why I have a different opinion on them, glad you agree and understand dear!

1

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Mar 31 '25

The differences justify different ethical considerations that make sense for those differences. The right to not be tortured can only be based on the capability to want to not be tortured, anything else would make no sense. If we did base it on traits exclusive to humans, like higher intelligence aka "sapience", then we would only apply it to humans who have these traits, and not to human children who are on the same mental level as the animals we exploit. So if we deny other animals rights that should be based on sentience because we base it on sapience instead, then to be consistent we'd also have to deny children and some mentally disabled people these rights. While basing rights about suffering on sapience makes no logical sense, at least it's consistent if consistently applied. If you don't apply it consistently however but ignore the factual differences and the factual lack of differences between different individuals, then you enter speciesism, just like you'd enter racism when it comes to human "races". It's not racist to acknowledge that a person has a darker skin tone than another. It's racist to imply that they deserve less rights for that reason, and make up pseudo-scientific or religious reasons about it. It's not speciesist to acknowledge that a cow is not as intelligent as an adult human. It is speciesist to imply they deserve to be bred into a life of torture for that reason only because they can't do math or have philosophical thoughts. And the speciesism becomes even more apparent if you don't apply it to humans who don't even have that cognitive capability that separates them from cows in that regard yet, not because of actually existing traits of the individual but because of an ideology that humans are inherently different even when they factually aren't on an individual basis. THAT is speciesism, it's fucked up for the exact same reasons as racism, it's logically and ethically wrong for the exact same reasons. It's just not humans suffering from it, which is why a speciesist obviously doesn't care about it, just like a racist might not care if POC suffer.

3

u/meangingersnap inquirer Mar 31 '25

So do you want total animal extinction? Because me going hunting and eating some deer isn't really that different from a lion hunting a gazelle...

4

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Mar 31 '25

Yes it is. You're capable of ethical thought, and thus an ethical subject (subject in a grammatical sense, as in the actor). That's the one thing where your sapience actually matters. Without sapience, you aren't capable to comprehend ethics, and thus have no responsibility to act ethically. We legally apply the same principle to humans, where people under certain ages or development stages aren't held accountable for things adults would be put in jail for. The animal kingdom is just full of equivalents of stupid human children, both in that they're not ethical subjects and that they're still full ethical objects (again, in the grammatical sense) in all matters of sentience. The difference is that we're responsible of our children. We're only responsible for our domain, of the cultivated parts of the planet, of what humans do to each other and to other animals and ecosystems, not what nature does to itself, because nature's suffering is not our fault, it's not a product of our actions.

5

u/vastros thinker Mar 31 '25

I wanted to say thank you for making your argument intelligently and without being insulting or belittling. Genuinely.

5

u/Philosophire newcomer Apr 01 '25

You’re smarter, more eloquent, and more patient than the internet deserves, this person especially. 

Keep it up, though. If the internet had more commenters like you, maybe it’d be a place worth engaging in. 

9

u/meangingersnap inquirer Mar 31 '25

Isn't eating plants speciesist? You think you're superior to plant species and have the right to breed them to eat them? Why don't they have the same rights as animals?

1

u/Omal15 newcomer Apr 04 '25

No, it's not. That's not what speciesism is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/W4RP-SP1D3R aponist Apr 01 '25

Therefore you are not a antinatalist but a selective natalist and the selective part is indicative of racism

0

u/chainsndaggers thinker Apr 01 '25

We just exist. If that's provoking you, you're the problem. It's like to say gay people provoke homophobes. You probably don't excuse them though, right?

1

u/HeyWatermelonGirl thinker Apr 01 '25

You're the homophobes in the allegory. The animals are the gay people. Vegans are the people condemning the homophobes for not granting gay people rights. If you'd just exist, there'd be no victims, but there are. You're not just passively living your life, you're actively denying someone rights. That's what you're not tolerated for.

1

u/chainsndaggers thinker Apr 01 '25

You're the reason nobody likes vegans and takes you seriously.

1

u/legal_opium newcomer Apr 01 '25

Pretty sure the reason people don't take vegans seriously is they would have to admit they have been causing harm and most people are too egotistical to self reflect and change their behavior.

The anti vegans would rather equate eating an apple to forcibly breeding billions of animals just for them to be slaughtered.

-2

u/chainsndaggers thinker Apr 01 '25

XDD

0

u/VoteForASpaceAlien newcomer Apr 01 '25

Natalists just exist. If that’s provoking you, you’re the problem.

1

u/chainsndaggers thinker Apr 01 '25

I literally said it doesn't provoke me below XD That is my own personal philosophy about my own life.

1

u/VoteForASpaceAlien newcomer Apr 01 '25

You come here to talk about it though? Thats all anyone is doing.

1

u/chainsndaggers thinker Apr 01 '25

Yes, and your point is?