KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2015-07-06 16:40:08
I love this. It's in the same style as their other "Some number of things about a weird life" articles, and while its author doesn't really approve, they don't judge or try to make a moral point either. I especially love the jokes in the picture captions, especially "Whosh a good butterface? Yesh, you are! Yous a good widdle bwown bagger."
Whoever wrote, this, nice work. The same goes to the sources, who can feel free to identify themselves here if they feel comfortable doing it.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 4 points on 2015-07-06 19:38:43
Honestly I agree with the comment that the tone of the article seemed derogatory towards the folks he interviewed. It didn't feel the same to me as other articles like that they've done on taboo subjects. I'm very disappointed.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-07-06 21:09:38
It's still a-okay to point and laugh at zoophiles, according to the author of this article.
KynophileDog lover 5 points on 2015-07-06 23:30:53
I agree, so long as it doesn't lead to violence or further persecution. If I can't take a joke at my expense, I don't really know how I can survive in a world where most people view me as ridiculous.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-07-07 00:06:31
But people need to, at some point, come to learn and see that they shouldn't regard zoophiles in such a way. At the heart of the joke the sentiment is violence and persecution against people who are attracted to other species.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 2 points on 2015-07-06 17:11:39
Is this from the guy who asked for people in here a little while ago?
Dat clickbait headline, but it was actually a decent article, I enjoyed reading it and the comments seem a lot more accepting of it than comments from other sources. 700k views as well. I might chip in next time if we're going to have articles showing people we're not all weridos.
Also, "they both had blue balls", ...I found that hilarious.
Yearningmice 1 point on 2015-07-06 18:42:48
I don't think so.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 3 points on 2015-07-06 19:37:33
No, not the same guy.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-07-06 17:14:57
Huh, the comments section appears to be more liberal than the article (I didn't check up/down votes though). That's... unusual.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 3 points on 2015-07-07 01:28:26
As an extra shocker there's more sympathy in the top comments than the newest. I actually can talk with the people in the top comments. When I tried to make my own thread it got downvoted into oblivion.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 8 points on 2015-07-06 18:04:17
meh. it was nice that overall it gave a more realistic and indepth view of the lifestyle, but at the same time ... i'm not sure i would call it entirely unbiased. the fact that it's presented with some depth while at the same time being presented as a huge joke IMO easily gives the impression that we should nonetheless be laughed at and perceived as freaks.
are we so starved for positive press that we see anything that isn't overtly slamming us as "good"?
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2015-07-06 18:57:16
Obviously some people are thirsting for "good" articles so much, they swallow everything. This is satire,folks! It isn´t meant to present us in a positive light. The only thing remarkable here is the absence of blatant hate, nothing more, nothing less.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2015-07-06 19:08:23
I dont believe it is satire. Assuming real people were interviewed I dont see how it can be...?
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-07-06 21:07:27
[deleted]
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 4 points on 2015-07-06 19:39:12
It's definitely not satire. I know at least two of the people he interviewed.
Yearningmice 1 point on 2015-07-06 20:14:18
Know one of the zoos interviewed.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 4 points on 2015-07-06 19:45:23
I dunno man, dont confuse them including jokes with them writing the article as a huge joke at our expense.
I seem to be the only one who enjoyed this article...? English style humor perhaps?
BaaxtenThe new guy 4 points on 2015-07-07 15:33:52
It's just Cracked.com's style.
To ease the mainstream audience into an otherwise uncomfortable subject, the best way is to have them not take it so seriously - defuse the tension and knee-jerk reactions with humour. And frankly, it is a touchy subject for the mainstream audience, so I think we should take as much positive away from this as we can.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-07-06 19:44:14
A decent article. Surprised there are nearly 1700 comments. I like the picture with the "Snausages?" caption.
Lefthandedsock 5 points on 2015-07-07 03:38:17
Yeah, it's great. Don't take your interviewees seriously, just make fun of them nonstop.
"Haha, SNAUSAGES! Get it! Because they're dogfuckers, LOL."
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-07-06 21:23:02
People here really like that article? I don't think you can link to a comment, but search for the comment from Thunderous and read it with its replies, especially the one from jemidiah. It just isn't good.
Just click on "other discussions" to see how it is received...
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 5 points on 2015-07-06 21:42:01
Ah... hah, this was my doing. It's not satire, I just severely miscalculated. I'm not pleased with the tone of the final, though I'm not surprised. I expected humor, when I wrote my bits for it I wrote with humor, I wouldn't even say I expected 100% fairness, but I was hoping it would match the tone of the rest of the series.
SunTzuSaidThat 3 points on 2015-07-06 22:54:24
How did Cracked get you involved?
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 4 points on 2015-07-07 01:12:46
I actually initiated, haha. I saw the other personal experience articles and thought "sure why not" and submitted a short essay. I didn't really expect to get a response, in all honesty. When I did, well, in for the penny in for the pound, might as well see it through.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 7 points on 2015-07-07 00:19:32
I'm not really sure how to feel about the fact that the article on pedophilia seemed less condescending than this one. Seemed like 60% of the article was just "haha, look at these freaks who want to fuck animals. What weirdos, right?!" He barely even seemed to use any of the responses he got from the folks he interviewed and just did his own thing.
I wouldn't say this "is your fault," don't feel bad about it. Even from Cracked (honestly especially considering how well-done the others in the series were) I would've expected better than this.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-07-07 01:19:47
I blame myself cuz I wrote in initially. But yeah, I did expect better. Part of the reason I wrote in was because I saw how other topics were treated.
The use of responses irks me to say the least. Some of them aren't even related to the topic being discussed, like the fencehopping bit.
Also I have no idea why they linked to an animal junk Twitter saying it makes arguments of any kind.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-07-07 03:57:37
Don't beat yourself up. Your intentions were good. Sometimes it feels surprising to me some of the perspectives that non-zoos have about attraction to animals. Sometimes for me it is hard to predict how they may take it/understand it
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-07-07 04:43:33
Yeah, true, you never can predict how people will react.
reddituser444 2 points on 2015-07-07 05:05:26
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Lefthandedsock 3 points on 2015-07-07 03:34:34
"Don't understand something? Screw it! We'll just make fun of it like we do everything else."
/r/zoophilia archive
I love this. It's in the same style as their other "Some number of things about a weird life" articles, and while its author doesn't really approve, they don't judge or try to make a moral point either. I especially love the jokes in the picture captions, especially "Whosh a good butterface? Yesh, you are! Yous a good widdle bwown bagger."
Whoever wrote, this, nice work. The same goes to the sources, who can feel free to identify themselves here if they feel comfortable doing it.
Honestly I agree with the comment that the tone of the article seemed derogatory towards the folks he interviewed. It didn't feel the same to me as other articles like that they've done on taboo subjects. I'm very disappointed.
It's still a-okay to point and laugh at zoophiles, according to the author of this article.
I agree, so long as it doesn't lead to violence or further persecution. If I can't take a joke at my expense, I don't really know how I can survive in a world where most people view me as ridiculous.
But people need to, at some point, come to learn and see that they shouldn't regard zoophiles in such a way. At the heart of the joke the sentiment is violence and persecution against people who are attracted to other species.
Is this from the guy who asked for people in here a little while ago?
Dat clickbait headline, but it was actually a decent article, I enjoyed reading it and the comments seem a lot more accepting of it than comments from other sources. 700k views as well. I might chip in next time if we're going to have articles showing people we're not all weridos.
Also, "they both had blue balls", ...I found that hilarious.
I don't think so.
No, not the same guy.
Huh, the comments section appears to be more liberal than the article (I didn't check up/down votes though). That's... unusual.
As an extra shocker there's more sympathy in the top comments than the newest. I actually can talk with the people in the top comments. When I tried to make my own thread it got downvoted into oblivion.
meh. it was nice that overall it gave a more realistic and indepth view of the lifestyle, but at the same time ... i'm not sure i would call it entirely unbiased. the fact that it's presented with some depth while at the same time being presented as a huge joke IMO easily gives the impression that we should nonetheless be laughed at and perceived as freaks.
are we so starved for positive press that we see anything that isn't overtly slamming us as "good"?
Obviously some people are thirsting for "good" articles so much, they swallow everything. This is satire,folks! It isn´t meant to present us in a positive light. The only thing remarkable here is the absence of blatant hate, nothing more, nothing less.
I dont believe it is satire. Assuming real people were interviewed I dont see how it can be...?
[deleted]
It's definitely not satire. I know at least two of the people he interviewed.
Know one of the zoos interviewed.
I dunno man, dont confuse them including jokes with them writing the article as a huge joke at our expense.
I seem to be the only one who enjoyed this article...? English style humor perhaps?
It's just Cracked.com's style.
To ease the mainstream audience into an otherwise uncomfortable subject, the best way is to have them not take it so seriously - defuse the tension and knee-jerk reactions with humour. And frankly, it is a touchy subject for the mainstream audience, so I think we should take as much positive away from this as we can.
A decent article. Surprised there are nearly 1700 comments. I like the picture with the "Snausages?" caption.
Yeah, it's great. Don't take your interviewees seriously, just make fun of them nonstop.
"Haha, SNAUSAGES! Get it! Because they're dogfuckers, LOL."
People here really like that article? I don't think you can link to a comment, but search for the comment from Thunderous and read it with its replies, especially the one from jemidiah. It just isn't good.
Just click on "other discussions" to see how it is received...
Ah... hah, this was my doing. It's not satire, I just severely miscalculated. I'm not pleased with the tone of the final, though I'm not surprised. I expected humor, when I wrote my bits for it I wrote with humor, I wouldn't even say I expected 100% fairness, but I was hoping it would match the tone of the rest of the series.
How did Cracked get you involved?
I actually initiated, haha. I saw the other personal experience articles and thought "sure why not" and submitted a short essay. I didn't really expect to get a response, in all honesty. When I did, well, in for the penny in for the pound, might as well see it through.
I'm not really sure how to feel about the fact that the article on pedophilia seemed less condescending than this one. Seemed like 60% of the article was just "haha, look at these freaks who want to fuck animals. What weirdos, right?!" He barely even seemed to use any of the responses he got from the folks he interviewed and just did his own thing.
I wouldn't say this "is your fault," don't feel bad about it. Even from Cracked (honestly especially considering how well-done the others in the series were) I would've expected better than this.
I blame myself cuz I wrote in initially. But yeah, I did expect better. Part of the reason I wrote in was because I saw how other topics were treated.
The use of responses irks me to say the least. Some of them aren't even related to the topic being discussed, like the fencehopping bit.
Also I have no idea why they linked to an animal junk Twitter saying it makes arguments of any kind.
Don't beat yourself up. Your intentions were good. Sometimes it feels surprising to me some of the perspectives that non-zoos have about attraction to animals. Sometimes for me it is hard to predict how they may take it/understand it
Yeah, true, you never can predict how people will react.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
"Don't understand something? Screw it! We'll just make fun of it like we do everything else."
Because fuck us.