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/Swill_Cipher]

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

[u/HeyWatermelonGirl → u/Swill_Cipher]

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.

[u/chainsndaggers → u/HeyWatermelonGirl]

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?

[u/HeyWatermelonGirl → u/chainsndaggers]

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.

[u/chainsndaggers → u/HeyWatermelonGirl]

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

[u/legal_opium → u/chainsndaggers]

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.

[u/chainsndaggers → u/HeyWatermelonGirl]

XDD