So long and thanks for all the fish (oil)


This is a thread I am creating for users who have decided to leave the soylent discourse community, to allow them the freedom to give their reasons for going.

I will be the first poster.

Basically, it was a nice ride, but I don’t have the time to read or post any more, and I have a few issues with the philosophy that silencing debate is the equivalent to settling an argument. It is not. Is fascism, pure and simple.


Hopefully I’m not the only one who has no idea what you’re talking about.


He’s upset because there’s too much PC around these parts.

There was a thread about one of those uninformed anti-privilege tumblr types who has decided Soylent is evil and will be used for force feeding poor people.
Naturally the Soylent community was being critical of this person and debating the likelihood of Soylents potentially negative socioeconomic implications, then a poster got up in arms about how being openly critical of someone is bullying (regardless of whether said person would ever see the discussion or be upset by the generally negative attitude towards their point of view), so the thread got locked by a mod.

Note: Technically I’m guilty of “bullying” the PC user with this post according to their views on criticism… We so meta


I just read that entire thread, and I didn’t see anything wrong with it. Can we seriously just stand together as “Team Soylent?”


I do agree that there is a too proactive attitude towards good manners. Soylent Corp. needs to make up its mind on whether it wants a clean, smiling plastic image or a real community with all the quirks and opinions that come with it.

I’d like to point out that none of this happened when we chased away the Herbalife salesman or when people come with bad science.

And a question: who owns the forum, Soylent Corp or Discourse? Why is Jeff Attwood enforcing these things and not @JulioMiles?

Apropos of that thread: there was indeed nothing wrong with it. People were effectively arguing labour laws.


“Treat other people you encounter on the Internet with respect. They are human beings, just like us.”

I have no idea who the hell Jeff Attwood is, but he DOES NOT speak for the Soylent community and DOES NOT deserve the right to modify threads.

If @JulioMiles did that, I could accept it. Just not some clown who shows up to throw his weight around.


That clown invented the Discourse platform.


So? I’m a mod on many EA forums that work a LOT more effectively then this forum in particular. It’s never a good idea to just pop in to throw some weight around.


@JulioMiles - So, what’s the story? Soylent Corp controls the product but Discourse Corp controls the message? Why the censorship of the previous thread?

I’d like to point out that this is the first time you guys managed to piss off a significant number of your users, and it was precisely over something that you’ve always been lauded for: openness.



Bingo. I’ve NEVER had a sour taste in my mouth. Everyone has been helpful, and no judgement towards any individual for WHY they love the conept of Soylent.

Bouncing recipe changes back and forth, our experiences, and dealing with outsiders. (It’s not always easy when you’re the only one in your inner circle on an exclusively liquid diet).

But after that thread, and how poorly it was managed. 1.) I met my first Soylent user that I severely dislike.

@web_kunoichi - I really feel like you missed the point completely.


Nope, you’re not the only one.


I think that’s the first time in the last decade that a post of mine was flagged and I was forced to edit it.


I agree with every point you made completely.


I was forced to edit mine as well. Who knew Calling out a person who is not even a member of this community for what she said was such a horrible thing? That person basically called the entire Soylent team and all of its supporters racists; and we should just keep our mouths shut with out giving it the response it deserves? I dont know about anyone else but I take being called a racist very seriously.


It’s their forum, and they get to decide what gets discussed. If you want a broader scope of discourse, forum software is trivial to install (and discourse is fun to configure.) Not saying we should split the community, but maybe a social site somewhere might be a more appropriate place for informal discussions - about anything.


The discussion was about soylent.


People like @gannas shouldn’t be treated like that. He practically made it his job to reply with something constructive to every single thread lol


I actually thought that the discourse was very civil considering that it started with the Soylent community being stereotyped as a bunch of racists/classists. I’m fairly proud of how nice everyone was in response.


Most assuredly. Defending ones self with facts and well organized opinions should not be looked at as bullying. We are Team Soylent. I am insulted that she thought giving “Worker ants” Soylent was a punishment quite frankly.

I’m sure many people in devoloping countries wouldn’t think it “Racist” or “Classist” to give them a pure nutrition shake.

Perfect Nutrition isn’t a punishment or a privilege, it’s a right.


Ok, “after sleeping on it”, maybe deciding to leave the community was a bit hasty and rash. I was hardly invested I the discussion either way, and was aggravated that, I response to a reply to a comment I made, the thread was closed. The comment I made was factual, ironically as it turns out stating that stopping people posting would be censorship.

I have seen many threads closed over my time looking at the forum, and some of them did not appear to be closed for any other reason than it was a convenient way to brush an uncomfortable subject under the carpet. And to sure it is an effective measure, if you are of the mind that it’s effective to do things like shooting protesters to stop a riot, or arresting potential political enemies in case they might gain support. It works to be sure. But is it civilised ? The discourse is managed, but is it humanely managed ? Possibly not.

Sometimes we just need to accept that humanity is ugly. People get a bit boisterous at times. But while clearing the town square with riot police and truncheons after forcing the TV news off air might be one way to deal with an angry mob, there are others. Put the riot police somewhere they can step in if it does get ugly, and let the people sort out their differences might be another. It doesn’t always end in a fist fight. Some arguments can be peacefully resolved.

The bits I read of the thread in question were more of a heated debate than whither I might characterise as a first fight. Certainly not the sort of thing that might need riot police or TV news censorship by a benevolent dictator in the hypothetical town square analogy I painted above.

My reaction was possibly also coloured by a recent experience where a large corporation pressured another to generate a smear campaign to shut down a kickstarter campaign I had launched which was irritating the corporation in question. They succeded. It’s possible they had a point. Ironically they did not need to resort to such tactics, and could have been civil. They chose instead to dig into their arsenal of tried and true damage control measures. In the end thier deception was exposed for what it was, but the end result was the same. The big guys pushed the upstart away. I am not going to elaborate on that, as I have already said more than I should in a public forum. So don’t ask me about it.