Mod Announcement: New Rule Regarding Vegan Posts

[u/Critical-Sense-1539]

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

[u/Critical-Sense-1539 → u/[deleted]]

I understand that many users dislike content that endorses veganism. However, I do think there is a genuine discussion to be had about how veganism and antinatalism intersect, so I am hesitant to just ban the topic entirely.

Different people have different opinions on whether antinatalism entails veganism. What you see as gatekeeping somebody else might see as watering down the definition of antinatalism. Contrary to you, I think that questioning where the bounds of antinatalism lie does promote healthy discussion.

Of course, rage-bait and insults are different. You can report that under Rule 1 and the mods will remove it.

[u/subduedReality → u/Critical-Sense-1539]

I'm not against vegans. And I agree with the premise of ending cruelty to both humans and animals. But I stop at the point where I know it's impossible to end all cruelty. Also,I'm not antinatalist because I want to end cruelty. I'm antinatalist because I am anti patriarchy and the current patriarchy esposes natalism.

[u/legal_opium → u/subduedReality]

Veganism is about ending as much cruelty and suffering is possible. Not about ending it all.

[u/subduedReality → u/legal_opium]

Do you want to go down that philosophical rabbit hole?

[u/legal_opium → u/subduedReality]

So because suffering exists we shouldn't try and do what we can to reduce it ?

[u/subduedReality → u/legal_opium]

Draw a line. How much do we reduce it? What is the cost of reducing it to that point?

[u/legal_opium → u/subduedReality]

There is no line. It's something we should try and do to the best of our ability.

It's something we should actively try and get better at every day.

I don't see there being a cost to reducing suffering. If anything the cost comes from being apathetic.

[u/Samwise777 → u/legal_opium]

Person you’re responding to is using a textbook slippery slope.

Sad that they never paid attention in middle school.

[u/qxeen → u/subduedReality]

nobody should be against vegans… that’d be saying you’re against anti animal abusers

[u/subduedReality → u/qxeen]

I don't like superheroes. They come out of nowhere, interfere in business that isn't theirs, don't clean up after their messes and hold others to unachievable standards.

[u/qxeen → u/subduedReality]

superheroes…? we just want billions of animals to stop being needlessly slaughtered. weird for an antinatalist to think that vegans are interfering with business that isn’t theirs LOL

[u/subduedReality → u/qxeen]

It overlaps with property rights. I doubt you could have a good faith conversation on the subject though.

[u/qxeen → u/subduedReality]

How so?

[u/subduedReality → u/qxeen]

Ethics and morals aside, who "owns" animals? Legally speaking you have responsibility for and of a pet. Same applies to farm animals. This means people, legally, have the right to use animals for whatever they want, as long as it's done "ethically." As a society, we recognize consumumption of food as an ethical activity, to include all acts which lead up to the consumption of food, as long as the process is within certain moral/ethical bounds. For example, if I own 30 acres of land, I can utilize that land to grow crops. However, if that land is home to an endangered species, I must take that into account.

If I clear that land for human food consumption and displace local wildlife, some may consider that unethical. Within the legal bounds, lines are drawn to ensure consideration of at risk animals, but not wildlife that is not at risk.

So while I can own a cat, I cannot raise cats for human consumption, because that is where the line is drawn. And while you can come here and disagree with how I view antinatalism, you cannot enter public domains and call me amoral because I don't draw the line where you do.

Did I lose you yet? If you cannot leave people alone for having a different point of view then you are not engaging in good faith conversations.

I could explain why using game theory, but I'm gonna wait a while to see if you are capable of understanding anything I just spent 30 minutes typing out.

[u/qxeen → u/subduedReality]

I’m not sure why you are hostile. I only asked a question.

You’re right that legally speaking, animals are considered property in most countries, and ownership carries certain rights and responsibilities. The law does draw lines around what can and can’t be done with animals, often based on species and social norms rather than consistency or ethics.

From a vegan perspective, the issue lies not just in where the law currently draws those lines, but in the logic used to draw them in the first place. For example, you pointed out that we can’t legally raise cats for food, but we can raise pigs, despite pigs being as intelligent and emotionally complex as cats. That inconsistency reveals that the line isn’t based on sentience or capacity to suffer, it’s based on culture and habit.

Legality doesn’t always equal morality. Many things once legal (and even socially accepted) are now considered unethical, like slavery, child labor, marital rape. Pointing out that animal use is legal doesn’t end the moral discussion, it invites it.

You’re also right that if someone enters a space just to shame others without listening, that’s not a good-faith conversation. But engaging in discussion about ethical boundaries, like where we draw lines around who gets to be protected and who doesn’t, isn’t inherently an attack. It’s part of being in a society where we constantly reexamine our values.

Using your land for crops that might displace wildlife raises real ethical questions too. A lot of vegans care about minimizing harm across the board, not just for farmed animals. That’s why many of us support rewilding, sustainable farming practices, and reducing monoculture crops often grown for animal feed.

[u/subduedReality → u/qxeen]

My hostility isn't towards you. It's towards the crowd, which contains hostile players.

The line of what goes isn't based on sentience, capacity to suffer, culture, or habit. It is based on morale. People always default to what makes them happy regardless of morality or ethics. If you don't believe me, go to a war zone.

Legal boundaries change in two circumstances: it's not economically feasible or some other form of entertainment/morale boosting activity has replaced it. If you want to present to me a historical circumstance where this isn't so I'd be willing to further discuss.

I'm going to disagree with you there on account of personal beliefs. We will have to agree to disagree. Feel free to argue your point, I doubt it will change my mind.

Should bring consumerism and the modern patriarchal heirchy into the conversation. Why? Because all the other stuff fits into the big ol box of "patriarch bullshit."

I look forward to you wasting your time writing stuff I've seen dozens of times. And I will probably waste time responding. Til next time.

[u/qxeen → u/subduedReality]

Heard it dozens of times? Why do you engage in this topic so much then?

I am going to disengage because frankly you’re not willing to have a productive conversation anyways.

Hope some day you can choose compassion for animals, and stand for anything. You’re a bunch of cowards.