I think one of the big attractions of solarpunk in general is the sense of tempered optimism it offers in the face of darker narratives (cyberpunk, doomer) – ie. there is hope out there but it is going to take a lot of hard work to get there

About the /c/collapse sub, I like the idea that Robert Evans uses, of not referring to "collapse" but instead "the crumbles" - podcast link. The point is it's not going to be a single moment and it's not going to be absolute, so the idea of it being a thing that either will happen or won't happen is a false dichotomy.

It's a slow, inexorable process of change and that implies that rather than a landslide that will just fall on us all without any hope for remedy, it's a process whose path we can influence and change. Maybe you could close /c/collapse and create /c/the_crumbles or something like it? Maybe explain the purpose of the rename and put some resources in the sidebar to ideas about radical hope and practical ways people can help. I also think directing people's despair in that direction can only be a good thing.

I wish I could volunteer to moderate something like that but I'm afraid I can't really give the time or consistent energy to it. It's just an idea :)

Regarding doomers: Big agree in general. My understanding of a "doomer" is someone who thinks all hope is lost and there's no use doing anything. That extreme pessimism doesn't add anything tbh, especially in a hope-oriented instance.

Regarding civil disobedience, I also strongly agree.

Re: absolutist veganism... while I agree it can be as much of a hindrance to discussion as doomerism, I'm not sure we should have something codified specifically about vegans. The thing is, anyone can be so fervently for ANYTHING that they're not able to have an open-minded discussion assuming good faith. Heck, that includes the "I don't eat greens I'm not a rabbit" folks. I think it'd be a better step to have a rule against... I don't know what to call it, dogmatic arguments? Absolutism, ad hominem attacks, etc, the stuff we see with a lot of online Veganism but that certainly isn't only vegans. For sure we could use the example of veganism, but also of religion vs. atheism (not as relevant here, but I feel prone to the same behaviour, at least from my experience in online Atheism), maybe it could even tie in with the doomerism rule.

Either way, I want to echo what others have said and say this is already a lovely, inspiring community, and I'd love to see that wonderful community codified in some way.

These are very good and useful talking points.

After all, what attracts me to solarpunk in general is that it is positive in the face of a negative situation. Yes, vegan and collapse-concerned viewpoints are very welcome on my feed.

My personal rubric that I try to adhere to when posting is: Hopeful and Helpful.

Collapse topics and promotion of veganism can certainly be expressed in hopeful and helpful ways.

My attraction to the banner of solarpunk is that I hope it will also attract others who still want to try. These are the people I want on my team as the slow disaster unfolds.

As for the talk of direct action, this is definitely not the forum for safe planning. I personally would welcome discussions about what makes for effective activism in various contexts, but that discussion would also include awareness of when and where to talk specifics.

Thanks for showing the leadership to make this community healthier and better. May your solar array always operate at peak efficiency.

For the civil disobedience bit in the CoC, it might not hurt to link to Kolektiva's recent snafu, as a reminder for caution.

I feel like these discussions should be separate posts, since a lot of the comment threads are kind of unwieldy.

Doomers: I would make part of our code of conduct an agreement to avoid non-constructive negativity.

Civil disobedience: I think the code of conduct should include a requirement not to speak in a way that could incriminate anyone or inspire harm against specific people. I think this is broad enough to take care of the worst concerns while still allowing people to debate the merits of industrial sabotage philosophically.

Vegans: I would make a rule against community gatekeeping. This should be sufficient to address anyone who tells someone that their diet or lifestyle disqualifies them from participating in this community, without singling out any specific diet or lifestyle choice.

we can’t really allow planning discussions (RE: disobedience)

You can't. We can't also be spouting off and calling for people's heads on a stick either, as permitting that kind of talk emboldens the one guy out there that's unhinged enough to do something because he's got 'online backing' even though it's mostly people just venting. I get the punk part. I don't always agree with it, though. I think there's a lot of peaceful ways to make meaningful changes without blowing up a pipeline (Ludwig style) or chaining yourself to a tree.

as an aside, I'm kind of a doomer? maybe? I'm certainly disillusioned with our state of inaction and the way things are headed. It may well be way too late to do much other than brace for impact, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You'll see me over in /c/reclamation shilling restoration strategies and talk. I think encouraging research and industry to work together is a good way to make changes and more responsibly source our minerals and resources.

Idk, man. shit's fucked, but in the meantime, I'll be chewing gum and trying to stick it in the leaking dam.

I didn't know where to ask this so I'll ask it here: where can I donate money to the instance?

Thank you for the amazing job, guys

Hey there. New member, freshly registered.

I would say that the biggest threat to a solarpunk community like this one is greenwashing. More specifically, I'm thinking about techno-solutionism - a devious form of magical thinking that lets us think that tech is going to solve everything.

It is okay to share news about the latest technological advancement, to marvel at the ever lowering price of solar energy. But if it leads people to think that we can just replace fossil with another energy source and keep our societies and economic structures as is, this is toxic.

And I get that if you get enthusiastic about some tech and post it here, but then someone starts raining on your parade in the comment section, that person could easily be disqualified as a doomer.

How can we foster a sane debate about technology in this community ? Honestly I don't know, but I'm eager to try!

All the best,

I've only been here for a month, and I haven't posted a tremendous amount in the Slrpnk.net communities, but I've been actively reading a lot of the stuff posted here.

First, I just want to say that this community is, in my opinion, superb. I've found myself in total agreement with @poVoq@slrpnk.net's decisions and thought process regarding the direction this instance is going. It seems to have resulted in a vibe and an atmosphere that I find compelling, to the point that I feel this one of the nicest little corners of the internet I've seen in quite some time.

Regarding Doomers:

I think I would qualify as a 'recovering' or 'recovered' doomer, having previously been a prepper and then transitioning to a somewhat all-hope-is-lost mentality regarding the climate and the future in general. Having been in that world, I can safely say that worldview is simply harmful to the mind, and seems to entice a certain type of toxicity. In general, a lot of the people involved in those circles seem to actually wish for a collapse to occur, as it would result in an end to their current predicaments (Crippling debt, lack of meaning, an end to the rat race, etc).

While in some ways understandable, it does unfortunately result in the behavior you described. With not only a tendency toward complete apathy, but also the active discouragement of others attempting to make things better as well, resulting in a spiral of depression and angst for many.

(at least, that's what I saw of r/collapse on reddit, I haven't investigated the collapse community here).

I'm not entirely sure how that community should be handled. I can't say I'd miss them it if that community was removed, and I like the idea of replacing it with a more hopeful version, like the crumbles (as someone else mentioned) or maybe AvoidCollapse instead, which could focus more on exactly that, collapse situations and what we can do to avoid it as best we can with the means available (Though I guesss that's kinda the point of Solarpunk to begin with).

I would be more against completely removing the community if the situation really was hopeless, but after days and weeks and months of research into this area, I think practically there is much that can be done to mitigate a significant amount of the coming problems the world will face. Ultimately, I do feel that giving a space for a despairing doomerist viewpoint would, IMHO, only diminish genuinely useful efforts to make the world better.

Regarding Discussing civil disobedience:

Fully agree with your assessment here, lemmy just isn't an appropriate place for such things, and this community should not go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system. I don't think allowing more extreme sorts of discussion would really further anything useful dramatically, and would radically increase the danger of 'the system' coming down on the server, its owner, and possibly its users. It's not worth the risk!

Absolute Vegans

Again, I'm in agreement here. As someone who is trying to cut out industrial meat from my diet because of the extreme ethical violations in the meat industry, I do still believe that meat can be sourced fairly ethically on a small scale (at least for some species). My reasoning for such is based on my own unscientific opinion, but one which I'm satisfied is in the ballpark of being good enough. (I can go into detail for those interested, but for now will leave it to myself, as I don't know if it would contribute to the discussion at hand).

I'm in favor of allowing animal husbandry related posts and meat-based recipes in the food communities. Coming down on that aspect harshly I think would do more harm than good, and may turn people away from the rest of the movement.

That's just my two cents.

I started drafting some ideas for the code of conduct here: https://wiki.f-hub.org/books/slrpnknet/page/code-of-conduct

Feedback appreciated.

So it seems you're automatically defensive about wanting to moderate vegan speech (preempting with "don't feel personally attacked) and deep down I think you know why.

I understand you're just trying to make a space where everyone feels welcome. But harrassment policy and other conduct policy should cover people getting out of bounds and requires no vegan specific clause. Making a vegan specific clause is a little hostile.

Unless you are truly aiming to ban people for having the opinion that it's not ok to not be vegan. That would be tone policey and censorious, in my opinion. If a vegan is actually harassing someone that calls for moderation, but its already a rule to refrain from harassing. If you want to make a rule on harassment and include several examples, and one of them is a vegan example, that would be fine.

It just reminds me of other contentious issues like racial justice or gender issues. Sometimes people didn't like getting called racist, but do you censor a racial minority because their message is intense and makes someone a little uncomfortable? People have the right to decline interactions that arent going well but they shouldnt expect to always be perfectly comfortable when writing in the public square.

Here's my take: I think this sort minute rule making in a code of conduct is harmful. The purpose of permanent bans is to remove trolls and other bad faith actors, but no one you've described is bad faith. We shouldn't be against diversity of opinion here. If anything, I think a time out or temporary (24h) ban is more appropriate to stop people from raging or behaving badly, but all opinions should be welcome.

With regard to direct action, I don't think general discussions of, or even encouragement of, illegal or violent activity should be discouraged. It's when you get to talking about specific acts, specific targets, and actual planning that it should be disallowed (and people should know better than to discuss that shit online anyway). Like, encouraging people to shoplift, generally? To defend their communities? To engage in anti-fascist action? Why not?

I think some folks here are going way too far with suggestions like "[don't] go beyond recommending safe/legal ways to resist the system" (@ProdigalFrog). If we're stuck in that liberal mudpit, IMO there's no point in having radical spaces (like I hope this is/can be) at all.

With regards to the doomers, do we think there is enough hopepunk content out there to sustain a dedicated community that may act as a counterbalance to something like !collapse@slrpnk.net

In terms of civil disobedience: the kind of actions we let people vent about (even though they're not likely to be taking them) are the kinds of actions we'll see people taking. Boundaries ought to be set based on what's likely to be good for the movement as a whole, not just on what keeps the server from getting raided.

We should probably set boundaries carefully and be really clear about what kinds of encrypted platforms offer adequate protection for planning nonviolent civil disobedience. eg: signal + disappearing messages + small group is reasonably likely to succeed in keeping a secret prior to an action, but larger groups and platforms which allow traffic analysis (eg: telegram) less likely to.

What is a doomer exactly to you / others in the community? Do I fall into that category because i dont believe the climate catastrophe will be stopped or are there specific talking points and behaviors that are more specifically associated with being a doomer?

(I dont want to start a discussion, just wanting to find a common understanding about the term doomer.)

The discussion should be about how to handle content that's fine with enslaving and slaughtering of other species instead of how to restrict the ones that oppose animal abuse very strictly.