Is FWR like a vegetarian restaurant that meat eaters keep going into and say it is an echo chamber to stick to saying they dont serve meat

[IwantToRetire]

Most people would think if someone wants to set up a vegetarian restaurant and some people want to eat there, that’s up to them.

But somehow women wanting to have a forum where they can discuss, organise and publicise different groups of women doing the same in different parts of the country (world) is not acceptable and so don’t have the right to do just be allowed to do this

Not only do they not have the right, they should be scolded and endlessly interrupted and have their forum bogged down in repetitious whatabouterry.

Does this only happen to women?

Do right wingers endlessly invade meetings and forums where Marxists meet and discuss Marxism? Do atheists barge into meetings held by people of a shared faith?

Or is it just the default assumption that women do not have the right to think for themselves, let alone think they aren’t obliged to have to respond to demands made on them to justify themselves?

What's funny is that despite the constant shrieks of echo chamber, this is one of the few platforms which isn't an echo chamber.

Reddit downvotes posts, deletes sub Reddits and moderation is Challoner-esque.

On Twitter, you can mute or block other posters, hide replies and limit who can see or interact with your tweets.

On Facebook, group's admins can delete posts or remove you from a group, for having broken their arcane rules.

Here? There's moderation, certainly (and is more on the side of the reporting happy to be honest) but you can't block other posters and can't mute them. There may be disagreement but that doesn't equate to an echo chamber.

I don’t think most meat eaters care enough to go and troll vegetarian restaurants, so not the best analogy. The invaders, abusively protesting against other people’s eating choices are more likely to be vegan.

I know some very reasonable vegans, but the online warrior type vegans seem very similar to transactivists in their desperate attempts to shame those of us who eat meat.

i actually don't think it's the same.

A vegetarian restaurant exists to serve food that is vegetarian, in particular to vegetarians. A meat eater that comes to a vegetarian restaurant should expect to eat vegetarian food, not meat..

i don't think it's accurate to say that FWR exists to support people with the approved GC views. It's an open discussion forum for anyone who is interested in the topic.

It's cute not to mention misogynistic how you assume women are an ideological monolith AND demand they conform or be excluded. #You.Don't.Speak.For.All.Women….as much as you think you do.

You aren't the boss of MN nor do they require particular beliefs for entry.

The number of fascistic impulses in one post is breathtaking.

As someone who went vegan at a similar time to discovering the GC world, the parallels have been stark.

I think the problem is that it’s both a debate board but also functions as a support board. Where else are we supposed to find mutual support ?
perhaps it’s a bit like the Philosophy and Religion board which used to have general discussions and ding-dong debates but also specific support threads. That evidently didn’t work out too well - there’s now separate boards for at least a couple of the major religions

Yanbu op, it's clearly not an echo chamber. The people who say it is an echo chamber, don't have much sensible to say. They are the ones scraping for their weird loopy masters dissertations and so on. Just don't give it a second thought

Yes, the most militant vegans I know adhere to the 'Omnicause' and are also TRAs, etc.

TRAs do not realise that every time they post on here that MN is an echo chamber, they are proving it's not an echo chamber.

One has proved that already on this board.

Great work guys!

Yes, if they're asked to specify one viewpoint that everyone would agree on 100%, they either can't do it or come up with something laughably vague.

We can't even agree on which Tunnocks products are the best!

Anyway, I think a more apt analogy is a group of veggies want to set up a vegetarian restaurant, but you get a few people demanding chicken because if chicken is prepared in a certain way it's almost indistinguishable from tofu, and anyway you can get plant-based chicken so that proves it's a vegetable really, and there are thousands of ways for a food to be a vegetable, and you shouldn't be eating vegetables anyway as they're living things, and my veggie cousin had chicken by mistake and didn't notice, and defining "vegetarian" as "doesn't eat meat" is far too binary and exclusive and we should queer the meaning of vegetarian, and don't you care about the meat-eaters that don't want to harm anyone, they just need to eat protein?

What TRAs mean by “echo chamber” is they don’t win anyone over with their nonsensical logic. They seem to assume, based on their experiences elsewhere, that people will not see it for what it is, an illogical mess of ideas. So when no one falls for it and doesn’t join the cult, they think everyone here refuses to consider opinions outside of the “echoes”.

No mate, we hear you loud and clear, but it’s all bullshit.

I don’t deny there are online vegan warriors pissing meat eaters off, but it definitely works both ways online. I am on a vegan online group for info and support —there are plenty of pro meat trollers on there. I don’t understand—if they aren’t interested in veganism, why can’t they just let us be? I don’t try and push my views onto meat eaters, but they will insist on aggressively asking me where do I get my protein, or going on and on about how much they love meat in a supposedly vegan space.
So in online spaces, rather than IRL spaces, the analogy is valid.

I nearly started a thread the other day, ostensibly about the apparent demise of the vegetarian pies from Lidl, which were just about my only recourse to 'junk food' (relatively speaking), but also to make the broader point that vegetarian options are being increasingly pushed out in favour of vegan ones, thanks to a noisier and younger demographic, and how that was a metaphor for something or other, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.

It's a similar sort of energy to Sarah in Brighton not being allowed a single sex support group even though there are plenty of options already for those who would prefer things organised by gender identity. Or the only remaining single sex rape support in Vancouver getting targeted. Or the three young women setting up a women's society at Cambridge University receiving multiple complaints and threats for doing so. It's not enough to have nearly everything. Women must be left with nothing and nowhere that doesn't centre the demands of men .

Excellent analogy @IwantToRetire

Or is it just the default assumption that women do not have the right to think for themselves,

I don't think it's so much the right to think but more likely we shouldn't have the time to think. We should be putting the needs of others first which would mean zero time for ourselves and our own needs or wants. You see that stance often in the Relationships forum from the abusive men in those poor women's lives. How dare we have a second to ourselves.

Yes, exactly. There have been some great analogies of this over the years.

There are valid, evidenced arguments in favour of eating meat. I'll listen to those.

There are valid, evidenced arguments in favour of being vegetarian. I'll listen to those.

As for valid, evidenced arguments for why men are women, I'd like to listen to those. But there aren't any.

The worst is what already happens, you go to a restaurant and order a vegetarian meal, and it comes with bits of fish in, because “vegetarians eat fish”. Just like lesbians are attracted to “trans women”, aren’t they, and women don’t mind undressing in the presence of “trans women”.

And some posters openly admit to not liking any of them.

They would be banished if I was Justine.

ETA Caramel Wafers are the best by the way!

Or like serving bacon to vegetarians and telling them that its vegetarian bacon because they've died it green and then telling the vegetarian that they're a bigoted baconphobic for not agreeing to pretend that its vegetarian.

Thanks for many intersting and clever and funny remarks.

Was so busy reading I forgot to use the "react" option, so please imagine an etheral agree / thanks.

Not sure why I used the vegetarian analogy, but might be because years ago when I became a vegetarian it would always be men immediately assuming the right to tell I shouldn't be a vegetarian.

Was never sure if they were against not eating meat, or just assumed that as a female I wasn't able to make that choice.

Or might have been (which I had forgotten) this headline

Meat Is a Masculine Issue https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/nudging-nutrition/202511/meat-is-a-masculine-issue

Have hidden article picture!