Tightening Rule 7 (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-06-29 22:54:58 by AmoreBestia Pro-zoophile, non-zoophile.
Ok, so, the toxicity has kind of reached a critical point. From here on out, ban escalation on rule 7 is doubled, and we'll be tightening the criteria and removals a bit. The average user still will never be impacted by it. Additionally, while the first few infractions still wont require removal, if the mod team deems a post to be too great a violation, they can perform removals independent of your infraction tier. If you think you're one of the people that will be affected by this, I highly recommend reviewing rule 7 here.
EDIT: To clarify, posts(and edits) made prior to this announcement won't be affected.
Call it fuzzed all you want, but I am convinced that they're not fond of this change.
I'm quite confused, first I see humans whining about how toxic this place is, but they don't seem happy with this post.
This place is a mess just like any other place, but I'm starting to enjoy how random and stupid this community can be.
I'm pretty sure it only has one downvote.
Really? Well Reddit is
worthworse in math than me in that case.57% seems like a real weird percentage or I'm being a retard.
Well hey you can't blame
upme, I can't remember the last time I DIDN'T pull an all-nighter. I've had trouble typing this comment, funny right?Have I ever told you about the time when I actually liked it when it was 4:10 AM? I never did cuz it ain't true.
Yeah well... whispers
Nownow I still don't. Did you know that?EDIT: What the fuck did I just do last night?
57% is a wierd and arbitrary percentage, yes. Reddit's scoring is pretty terrible in the 1-4 karma range, but if you know how reddt behaves and can track the number of upvotes you have, it's easy to predict the true ratio.
Remember, this is international community. Write down your timezone.
reddit sometimes fuzzies several aspects of the like counter. its never truly accurate, but sometimes you can get a good hint.
I'm fond of this change. It seems like some users are more interested in getting into weird slapfights than actually talking about what they disagree on, and I wouldn't mind harsher punishments for when those start getting out of hand.
Yes I agree with you, we've got wusses here and there crying because of baddie words, but now longer no more.
Now cuz sweary swearys aren't allowed any more no kiddies will be offended any more. Great jobbies everyony.
No, it's just us enforcing the expectation that users won't be dicks. You can talk like a sailor if you want so long as you aren't using it to make colorful descriptions of others.
But you actually just gave me a great example to use for rule 7 infractions, so thank you. I'll be sure to give you credit for it, of course.
[removed]
im pretty fond of it. I dont want us to be a cuddle bunch, but ive noticed this place becoming more and more elitist.
I don't doubt what you're saying but can you provide a few examples (not posts, but of your meaning) of what is elitist?
[removed]
[removed]
While I like the spirit of enforcing a level of respectfulness, I think it might be good to cut through the bureaucracy, plus be more clear with some examples of what constitutes a "personal attack" or "disrespect."
[removed]
The toxicity never differed, it was always the same, but subdued by the groupthink that is clearly visible in any "zoo forum". "Obey our tolerance agenda"...and the sheeple followed...
The amount of disrespect for anyone who is not singing the same song in here is just too damn high for some to bear it anymore. Does it really catch you by surprise when "exclusive zoophile" is redefined as "has occasionally also sex with humans"? Especially when you knwo how much exclusive zoos despise this? Saying this is the aequivalent to the "all gays are also into little boys" argument from the 70s and the 80s...and you call it toxicity when exclusives get mad? I guess the non pedo gays were all just "toxic" when they fought hard against that, huh?
Hint: even BF is saying you´re only zoo if you don´t have sex with humans. Doesn´t that make all of you think? So don´t blame it on us, on our "toxicity" when we´re just trying to prevent going further down the slippery slope, into sex lib agenda oblivion. When you´re sitting on a train that is headed to an abyss, trying to hit the emergency brakes is not toxic, but not doing is...How much should we exclusives (who already have adapted to this BS agenda by accepting the stupid exclusive addendum) be forced to withstand before we explode? Why are we and our points of view worth less than the majority´s? How much bullshit are we supposed to take before lashing out at the bullshitters isn´t considered toxicity anymore, but justified self defense?
I've always said this but it's always worth reiterating that it's the how rather than the what. There's some where in that equation too.
Also, don't think that this is something we're doing because of a recent event or anything like that. This is a decision from cumulative turns of events, and certain people here have demonstrated that they'd rather sidestep our relaxed policy on rule 7 instead of honoring it.
If us enforcing an already lax rule on respect a bit more is too much for you, the door is to your right. Don't let one of your monologues get stuck in the door on your way out. c;
Fine then. I perfectly know who and what I´m dealing with here now...
You've said that about four times to me now.
[deleted]
It's not a matter of a tolerance agenda, it's a matter of not deliberately alienating people who have every right to be here, as they are, by any standard definition (even the bad definitions), still zoophiles.
I don't remember anyone redefining "exclusive zoophile" but maybe I missed it since there were a few recent threads I gave up on reading. The words seem pretty self-evident to me.
Please don't drag the respectful exclusive zoophiles into your camp, or attempt to turn it into some kind of oppression narrative. The problem isn't "you" or "your" message, but rather it's with people who can't say a word without insulting others, which I agree is becoming a problem.
this. a million times this. Im an exclusive and dont see my self as any sort of "true zoo" or whatever bullshit he's spitting out. Loving humans along with animals doesnt suddenly make you a bad zoophile.
It's sad that both of your comments are upvoted, this shows that anyone agrees with this is quite delusional.
This has nothing to do with being a ''bad'' zoophile. You don't understand the situation at all.
It's that the definition should be fixed already. You may accept that the definition is not what it's actually supposed to be, but we DO. Just because it's not a problem to you doesn't mean you should be against it or act like this.
Again, what's the point of this definition if it implies there's a chance that exclusive zoophiles will have sex / have a relationship with humans anyways? This needs to be changed immediately before this BS gets spread.
I use the definition ''true/real zoo'' because no one else is making a definition. Funny enough I was told to try to make my own definition, and that is exactly this yet the humans who did whine about it themselves.
I also use it because non-exclusives don't really face the same problems as exclusives. They still have a chance to live a more normal life with humans, and also the fact that exclusives only have an attraction to animals, so exclusives look at things differently.
quick question. Do you love more than one kind of animal?
Oh, what are you gonna do? Call me a fake zoophile if I'm attracted to different species? And yes I am attracted to different kinds of animals. Mainly it's foxes, wolves and dogs. Also zebras and horses. And extremely small attractions to some other animals such a hyenas, sheep, otters and probably some others. If any of that matters at least, because I'm not sure what you're pulling.
[removed]
I'd argue it's dillusional to ever try to define zoophile as anything more than it's dictionary definition of "attracted to animals" and I'd have much zoo-community history to back up that point, I think you'll find.
This "gatekeeper" attitude is much more of a problem to this particular community than whatever you think this definition issue is, I assure you.
As I already said ''real zoo'' is nothing but my definition. I don't know what else to call it.
It makes sense in a way though, because non-exclusives live different lives than exclusives. They can have relationships with humans and they also have a different mind because they have an attraction to humans too. But that's just some examples.
Oh, you're judging me again for the same thing: Trying to stand up for myself and some other zoos.
First it was because I told the truth about Aluzky, now it's because I want to defend my position as an exclusive zoophile. Or rather, the image and definition of exclusive zoophiles.
And ''I assure you.'' does not hold much value to me, so okay. Good for you that you hold an opinion.
Y'know, I'd explain all this to you and try to give my reasons, but you already replied to the comment that holds such information.
I guess there's no use in arguing with you or the others if these points are just straight up ignored.
If you want to argue, go read my other comments. Or do you want me to ctrl+v every comment I made in the past few days?
I don't disagree with the use of the term "true zoo" as long as it isn't used to shame others who don't fit that mold.
I refuse to acknowledge any form of pushing another group down as a legitimate way to "stand up for oneself" if that's what you are getting at.
I'm an exclusive zoo too by the way and I hardly feel persecuted or misrepresented by people who aren't using the "zoophile" moniker, and you know, I really have some harsh reasons I SHOULD feel persecuted by society to be frank, but... I just don't have time for that. Life is too short to sweat that kind of stuff. To each their own, I guess.
I'm not looking to argue either. I'm simply looking to tone down the intensity of the gatekeeping nature that's been applied here. From what I've seen, I don't even think we should be shooing Aluzky away (though I certainly would discourage aspects of his behaviors). That's the fundemental disagreement you don't seem to get: Not everyone wants the same people gone you do, so why are you being so judgemental? You don't speak for everyone. I'd appreciate it if you tried to realize that more.
It sounds very insulting, but I really did not know what else to call it.
When I think of a zoophile exclusive such as me or 30-30, I think of a person who is more zoo than others, and I have explained in the past why I think so.
I'd change the word, but nobody wants to cooperate.
Real exclusive zoos feel the same, or at least I do.
I feel ''pushed away'' when there's no term to really define me and nobody wants to work on it, and of course that this definition seems changed. So this is an eye for an eye.
But how exactly is this pushing them down anyways?
That's indeed right.
But hey, you're the first zoo I've seen say something like this. Are you really the first zoo I've met that knows that different humans care about different things? I've had this ''But xxxxx isn't important, so stop caring.'' bullshit used against me for months now. I'm absolutely sick of getting judged for caring about something more than the usual human.
How many times do I have to repeat what Aluzky does and what he's causing?
I'm pretty sure he's the most popular...
...ahem... wait a sec...
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''zoophile''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
out there, next to the fucktard who got his ass blasted by that one stallion.
He caught the attention of so many humans.
He's the zoo stereotype we are trying to fight against.
We are constantly trying to improve our image yet he's the worst possible example of a zoophile, minus the fact that he may not be an actual rapist.
I just find it extremely stupid and idiotic when a zoophile tries to support zoophilia, yet is not against Aluzky. That just makes zero sense, because he is preventing so much.
We've had anti-zoos sympathize with us. ANTI-ZOOS. You know, the humans who are AGAINST us?
Do you know how lucky we are because of that? Because other anti-zoos won't see the difference between us. I've seen it myself, I saw an argument about zoophilia once and Aluzky was used as a weapon against zoophilia.
You realize he ADMITTED to saying that animal exploitation is right? Ask him and he won't even deny it. You know the whole ''animal lover'' thing is thrown out of the window if you aren't against that.
If you think I have an attitude, you should look at him. He constantly argues even if the comments are like 4 months old, he constantly says he's smarter than everyone because of his faked IQ, he constantly abused the word fallacy.
As you can see he not only gives us a bad name but is also dangerous to animals.
He has fencehopped so much it's abnormal. We as zoophiles should have norms and values too. Just wave any victory of zoophilia goodbye if we can't shut him up.
By the way:
You just told me ''To each their own, I guess.'' implying you at least understand I hold different opinions and care about different things. But keep this in mind: You also understand why exclusive zoos such as me care about the image of exclusive zoophiles.
Yet Aluzky is even worse than the humans who claim: ''Exclusive zoophiles may still have sex / have a relationship with humans for many different reasons.''
Why? He claims to be an exclusive zoophile, yet he has sex with humans. If others see this they will believe this absolute bullshit.
One last fucking time: I. Do. NOT. Want. That. To. Happen.
Man, I'd even take ''furry'' or ''rapist'' these days than this shit.
And one last question: Why do you not want to get rid of him after all of this? Why even keep him at all?
Funny thing is, he's done more than that. This is just a small part of his (wrong)doings.
I don't really disagree on the "true zoo" bit, I guess I just misunderstood your intent.
There's a saying, man. You may have heard it: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." It's how I treat this. Aluzky is someone I'd rather have here where I can see him and perhaps influence his actions, than far far away doing god knows what.
I've seen a lot of people like Aluzky in my good 15+ years online. This isn't some novel, new thing. They are a dime a dozen. I'd still emphasize that chasing them away seldom does any good.
Then why do you judge me for being so against him?
I just don't try to influence his actions because I KNOW that he is narrow-minded, opinionated and stubborn.
No matter what he will use that IQ excuse and say that everything he says is 99.99% based on facts. This proves he is not to be convinced since he is 99.99% sure he is always right. Why should I even bother to change his mind?
Hell, even AB tried reasoning with him once and it didn't work.
This is why I choose to warn others instead and influence their actions before Aluzky does.
I also choose to argue with him so the others know that we're not like him. I'd almost agree with you that he should stay here, but unfortunately this is a very public zoo space so all non-zoos who come here will see. And sadly, even if he stays here it doesn't mean he isn't hanging out on other sites, because he is. Have a look at his Youtube.
And I'm pretty sure you didn't like this place because it's toxic. Why am I more toxic than him, even if I'm only trying to do good for this community by getting rid of the real toxic one? (Or at least being against his actions and arguments?)
Erm... Last I spoke to Aluzky I completely shut down his semantics argument and he stayed quiet.
Staying quiet is not a loss.
Also, no matter how right you are you always lose in his eyes. That is the problem here.
The point of arguing is changing the opponent's opinion or actions. I doubt he can accept the fact that he's wrong.
And yeah, he started ignoring my arguments too. He sometimes goes silent and then bursts back again.
In this context, it was for him. He went on an extreme defensive but proceeded to say nothing when I challenged his strongest argument.
The point of arguing is catharsis. Debate is where opinions and actions change.
Enjoy another argument in a few months. He goes silent for a while and then comes back.
You know, I have a feeling he might not understand you with your way of typing.
Well, ''debating'' then.
I noticed. The real test is what he says from here on out, though. I never pushed for him to leave.
Don't want to reply to an older comment, but he still uses ''fencehopping/fencejumping'' his way, so you haven't at least convinced him on that part.
I'm pretty sure it's one of the things you tried to learn him?
I just told him that arguing against a word someone uses, with a definition that doesn't mean what his personal definition means, is frivolous.
[removed]
[removed]
I like to use logic against my foes. If they fail to use it in reply, all the better to truly defeat them. To answer your question, the Aluzky thing was not that big of a deal, it was more "the straw that broke the camels back."
There are some issues I have with how you conduct yourself, but it was more frustration with the prevailing attitudes here than anything from you. I may have snapped on you a bit out of that frustration, so for that accept my genuine appologies.
I could list all the things that bother me, but honestly, lets cut it here. Too much drama kills my mood, and you aren't really the issue of my primary concern anyhow.
Why not practicing zoo exclusive? It connotes that you behave according to your exclusive zoophilia.
I'm willing to accept almost any new definiton, but...
This one seems also a bit confusing since it doesn't apply to exclusive zoophiles who don't have sex / have a ''relationship'' with an animal. (yet?) It's also a problem that a practicing ''exclusive zoophile'' (As in, the community's definition. NOT mine.) can still have sex / have a relationship with humans.
I want a definition that means that they will not have sex / have a relationship with a human, but are attracted to animals. This doesn't mean they have to act on their urges.
The 'community's definition' by and large is just the attraction to nonhuman animals, so practicing zoo exclusive would work fine. it denotes that you stick to your attraction to nonhumans only.
But I just told you, practising exclusive zoophiles (the community's definition of exclusive zoophile) can still choose to have sex / have a relationship with a human.
It's easy logic: Fucks both humans and animals from time to time.
Doesn't seem like ''sticking to your attraction to animals only'' to me. It holds the same problems as my definition (''Real/True zoophile'') and that's that practising is already a common word. If you say I'm a ''practising exclusive zoophile'' they'll assume you have sex with animals, but this doesn't mean you don't do it with humans, and that problem must be prevented.
Also again, this leaves exclusives zoos out who don't have an animal, even if they wouldn't have sex / have a relationship with humans, but would do it with an animal if they could. My definition also includes these humans, so they must not be left out.
the possibility only exists because attraction doesnt dictate actions with exclusive zoophile.The practicing addition does dictate actions. Why not ask the community what they think it means?
How so?
Why is an ''exclusive zoophile'' magically not being able to have sex with a human if they already have sex with an animal?
I just keep repeating the same thing.
Hell no.
I've always been too afraid of this community in some ways.
With the recent and current arguments I've had or still have, the humans here seem to have a little grudge towards me and my opinions.
For them it's unnecessary and being whiny. I just want to have a say in this, that is all. I don't want to be the one to announce this in my own thread and come forth myself.
If I wasn't like that, I'd have made some threads asking about ethics and things like this, but no: Never again.
Oh, and it'll result in a war for sure. I guess that'd fit my original username, and that's actually why I used that one before.
Also, I need to vent this shit.
Fuck Reddit for this cooldown. I need to wait minutes and minutes... This is the only time I genuinely care about others downvoting me. Nice system, Reddit. If others don't like you or you have unpopular opinions you need to be silenced.
Do I seriously need to go to a subreddit where they give free karma so I can actually post like a normal individual? I bet they'd even downvote me because of my post history.
This community really doesn't hold grudges. People take issue with your tone alot, but you had reasonable karma on your original account for a reason, though even that is starting to decline. Maybe it's not a change in the people around you, but a change in yourself.
And how sure are you about that and why? I don't believe it, zoophiles aren't immune to such things because we're all still humans.
Sometimes when I talk to others here they might bring up things I said earlier on purpose, judging me for past things or anything like that.
I am still afraid of this community in a way and always have been.
I only dare to speak up now is because of my bitterness, have embarrassed myself with the whole thing about me wanting to have sex so bad and that I only realized new things just recently.
Thing is, I know that I hold opinions the community will downvote for sure. This actually bothers me, but I also know that they won't agree with me.
As for my karma going down on my main account, I guess that's what happens if I dare to speak about my unpopular opinions. I mean, if you're stalking my main account you know that most of those downvotes come from sheeple. Especially AskReddit, it's a very public place with many humans. It's to be expected.
But just because I had quite the karma on my main account doesn't mean anything. It's just like anything with points: Eventually you'll reach a high number no matter what. Not because you're getting better, but because of how long you've been there.
I've had like 780~ comment karma for this subreddit and have been on this sub for 9 months (with that account), it's not even that much.
Oh, and I have a feeling it's not only JUST me. When I used to fight against Aluzky I definitely had more zoos on my side and could see his problems. Everything changes.
Because 30-30 and Aluzky still get upvoted on occasion when they make good points. People aren't immune to it, but some people don't need to be. Not everyone holds malice for the people they disagree with or dislike.
Pointing out inconsistencies using past discussions happens rather frequently. Even I do it sometimes, and you know I basically never get upset with people. It is sometimes helpful to establish context for others as well as oneself in the discussion.
Nobody holds that against you. It's an afterthought for the people that even remember it.
It's your tone, same as I've told 30-30. The way you articulate yourself doesn't inspire people to upvote it as a meaningful and substantial contribution. Make sure, too, that you aren't trying to interject that discussion forcefully where it doesnt fit. There is a time and place for talk of words and definitions, but I see it pop up even where it is barely relevant if at all to the topic at hand, for instance.
I've got a little over 1k karma from 7ish months on here. 780 is a respectable sum compared to alot of the users here which avg 100-400.
Unlike post karma, you can lose comment karma. You have to be consistently upvoted in some capacity more than you are downvoted to have positive karma, and you were historically. It wasn't all gotten from slamming Aluzky.
I've seen different, but okay.
Anyways, do I need to remind you who you're talking to? I trust no human.
You can tell me I'm not annoying or weird and I won't believe you at all.
That isn't a problem on it's own, everyone does that.
But sometimes doing it has a different meaning. The ''tone'' can show this.
Afterthought? I was judged when it began. Even then, the point is that I am judged for it.
All the ones that tried to give advice showed signs of aggression. Well, except you, I guess it was the opposite because you started to annoy me.
Y'know, the first one who gave me advice deleted his comments. Kind of pisses me of tbh, because I needed it...
I actually am still judged for it. Apparently I'm ''ungrateful'' according to the ones who aren't exactly the smart type.
It really isn't my tone, I know I have opinions that they won't like or won't agree with.
I know because these subjects aren't really discussed, and in the case it's mentioned nobody seems to be against it in any way. Not to mention any practising zoo participates in the act. But that's just an example.
My opinion that there's no romance with animals possible is one of those unpopular opinions, if you didn't know yet.
Either luck, because I posted so much or just because I was more afraid than now to name my unpopular opinions.
My point still stands.
If you participate long enough you will end up with a high score.
Unless you really suck like Shepp. But c'mon, those comments: Racism and just random bullshit.
Well, many people are unassuming and don't have an agenda. Even if you wouldn't, it's reasonable to trust at least some people.
Also you're not annoying when you're being reasonable, and you're still quite normal. Everyone thinks they're weird at one point or another, and even if they are in actuality, peoples' quirks are what make them that much more interesting and likable.
I'm aware of that possibility, but it seems comparatively rare to the more constructive side of it.
I don't judge you for it, and I guarantee you 90% of the community doesn't judge you for it either.
Well, often when someone keeps trying to do something to no perceived effect, they either lose motivation to do it or get frustrated. The latter lends itself to an investment in your well being. Not as much, perhaps, as patience, but still. It means people care.
It wasn't to spite you if they did.
I'd say that has something to do with your tone.
I take on unpopular positions too, sometimes. I do have a habit of playing the devil's advocate when I can, after all. so... I speak from experience. I don't think anyone would cut me any slack either, given that I'm still just the mysterious outsider. I've never taken a hit to my karma for it, and I'm more than ready to attribute it to how I present those positions.
I don't think you've dropped anything too surprising. It looks more like you've kind of been escalating things more over time though.
You'd be surprised. Upvotes aren't something you get from rolling some dice. There are things that people will upvote more than others. Things they agree with are one of those things, sure, but if I'm acting uncouth in the process of voicing even a popular pov, there's still a good chance that I'll lose karma over it.
To add on to the topic of tone, context is important to consider too. If I reply to the average 30-30 post aggressively, I'm probably going to have better odds of keeping my karma. If I reply to the average 30-30 post civilly and respectfully, I'd be more likely to gain karma than usual, while making him more liable to lose karma.
Off topic but I agree with you here, for what it's worth. I think animals can definitely have close and unique bonds with us but from their end I highly doubt they experience romantic feelings like we do. I hesitated for a long time to call my partner that since on her side, her relationship with me isn't processed any differently than any other close pet/owner relationship would be, I'm the only one feeling anything different. But it helped me come to terms with my orientation better by being able to call her that so I went with it, and to me the word "partner" helps imply that I'm dedicated to her and in it for the long haul. I'm definitely in love with her but I understand that she's not with me, and that's okay. It really bothers me when I see people, especially zoos, projecting emotions/thought processes onto animals that they aren't actually (to our knowledge) capable of having. My cat's viewpoint of me isn't romantic, but that doesn't make the bond we have any less special.
This is what irks me about zoophilia.
For me it's not the sex part that's so gray, but the romantic part is. And it's never brought up.
I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone but it's just the sad reality. Because of this, I actually feel extremely lonely.
My mind somehow is searching for real love, yet there isn't any because animals aren't capable of knowing what romance is.
I do think it's a little wrong to call them your partners, they have never consented to it in any way.
I guess you can still call it a relationship in a way because you still love eachother, but I keep getting reminded of just everyday normal owners who love their animals...
I actually denied this for a long time. Weren't there studies that animals do feel such a thing as romance in some way? What if they feel the same for humans...?
I want to believe that so bad that I actually do a little, secretly.
I just realized how I'm barely even a zoophile. No sex, no romance. What was I even thinking...?
I think it was like, two years ago-ish, that I started calling her my partner on the regular. When I was struggling with that I felt lonely too like you're describing. I suppose the way I reassure myself is that it is true that the relationship I have with my cat is unique from her end. She doesn't interact with or treat other people the same way she treats me. I'm apparently special to her, we know that animals can definitely have a preference for/different relationships with certain people. It is an odd feeling knowing that the creature you're in love with isn't capable of feeling that same type of romantic love back, and tbh still upsets me sometimes. But what matters to me I think is that she obviously does care about me a lot in her own way, and we still have a great relationship that she doesn't have with anyone else. I've always thought that just because animal emotions or relationship aren't the same type as human ones, doesn't mean they're inferior or less important or intense. Her bond with me is still enjoyable for her, makes her happy, she misses me when I'm gone, and she cares about me in all the ways a cat can. But it's taken me a long time to process all that and get to the point now where I'm okay with how she views the relationship with me.
That said though it wouldn't surprise me if eventually we're able to look at this in a study setting, and it's revealed that animals can feel romantic. Especially animals that are very "in tune" to humans like dogs and horses. We're studying animal emotion and cognition a lot more in scientific studies lately so if it's going to happen, maybe it will soon.
I don't have sex either, I suppose the "romance" aspect of being a zoophile is just on the person's end. If you feel romantic feelings towards animals that's zoophilia imo.
You dont speak for all of us.
If you're fine with being pushed around in this community then that's your choice, but I still do it for every exclusive zoos and especially the ones that care about this, even if there aren't many of them.
I still am confused that you'd rather have their definition than mine. Does this hint you're going to have sex / have a relationship with humans in the future? Because there's no reason to keep it like it is now.
stop trying to make me into a victim. Im not being "pushed around "
We didnt ask for your "help" with this.
how does this in any way hint that?
I don't care.
You prefer their definition instead of mine.
Mine implies we'll never have sex / have a relationship with any humans, their definition does imply we do.
Not sure if you're referring to me, but my comment to you was to create a new word, not to add yet another definition to a word that confuses people already.
People said the same thing about bisexuals, too. If you're attracted to animals but also a small degree to humans, wouldn't that make you caught more in-between, where you need to find humans that are okay with your animal interests, for example? I'm not clear on how that would be easier than living by yourself with an animal and being fully satisfied.
''Real zoo'' is already a definition?
But if it's confusing than that's their problem. I also think their current definition of exclusive zoophile is confusing.
That's because it's true.
Even then, there's a HUGE difference between bisexuality and zoophilia.
One crosses the gender barrier, the other crosses the species barrier.
I don't know, should it?
I'm not even sure how that's relevant anyways.
I think we're talking in circles. "Zoo" itself is not defined (apart from either someone suffering from a paraphilia, or the roughly 1000 different informal definitions floating around online), therefore being a real one or a true one is meaningless, because it begs the question, real/true what?
With the same logic, inclusive/exclusive zoo is not defined either and is meaningless.
Technically yes, though "true" implies there's only one of something, whereas "exclusive" can be a qualifier on a whole category of things.
But of course I agree that better words would help clarify communication.
Says "Why you´re so upset about the z-word and its misusage? Make up another term instead of complaining!" True zoos make another term...."...any sort of "true zoo" or whatever bullshit..."...it´s so funny when people lead their own nonsense ad absurdum in basically two sentences. Nice reveal of what you´re thinking of us and our name..."bullshit", rrrrright? Let´s talk about mutual respect, shall we? ;)
The ugly shines through, u/thelongestusernameee, our "Resident shitposter"....
[removed]
slinging a "shitposter" insult in a thread laden with toxic community warnings probably isn't going to be your best and brightest idea, 30-30.
Besides, speak for yourself frankly. This attitude is the exact gatekeeping shit I'm going on about. I for one appreciate his input, so you can quit trying to make him feel unwelcome on our behalf anytime, thanks. Reported.
If you didn't realize, that's in her flair. Hover over that blue hoof next to her name and see for yourself.
I might as well report you because you just said the word itself, or even her because she called our arguments bullshit. Not very respectful, huh?
The mods aren't here to babysit. They're here to keep everything intact and well. I see nothing wrong with 30-30's post, I only see someone targeting the fuck out of certain users.
And hey, guess what? It's not me this time, it's you.
Now come on, you know that's ridicules or you simply don't understand how reports work. Besides, I never called anyone a resident shitposter, I used the word. There's no rule against swearing. Big difference you'd do well to educate yourself on.
Go for it. Here, I'll start it for you. This crap needs to stop. I only read half of it because it's fucking painful, admitedly.
EDIT: Nope, just read that post and he's calling the idea bullshit, not the person. Big difference no one here seems to get. Read the rules guys, m'kay?
and I swear that flair is new, but I'll accept I could've just missed it. If so I retract my report.
Same thing at this point, frankly.
I'm going to report anyone who's disrespectful to a individual or individuals identity. If that's "targeting" one individual frequently then maybe that person needs to do an evaluation on his or her behavior.
Yeah and calling someone a shitposter can barely be seen as an insult.
Just because it has ''shit'' in it's suddenly an insult or what? Because I've seen her make some joke posts before here, and that can easily be seen as a shitpost.
No.
It's pretty suspicious when someone is very obedient of the rules.
Because y'know, with logic someone can also be offended if their arguments are called BS, just like how they can get offended when called a shitposter.
All I know it's been there for at least a week.
Mmmmmnhm.
Disrespectful to an individuals identity huh...? Sounds familiar!
But it seemed like you were targeting. Nothing personal, I just don't expect anything positive from humans.
I'm going to be completely honest and say that I have little idea what you are arguing, so I'm just going to stop here. My beef with certain individuals on this site has nothing to do with their reputation, and everything to do with the content of their present posts.
ding ding ding. Multiple people in the zoo community have that idea, and it would be stupid to only call out one person.
Its a joke. if i actual shit posted here id have been banned years (months?) ago. I like making stupid flairs in various subs.
+1 for getting my gender right though.
I took it seriously because you posted things like ''alot alot alot alot alot'' a thousand times and also posted that cringy story about that one ''fuck'' you had.
Is it really a big deal? Hey man, I thought it didn't matter what words or definitions anyone used?
and yet you still didnt get the message. I really dont care that you think this group is being destroyed by whatever. If its really such a huge problem, why not just make your own group with your own perfect rules? You'll get to have things your way. Heck, if your right, you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
no, i dont really care what gender people think i am. i just felt like pointing it out this time. Am i even a girl?
How irrelevant, we were talking about your flair and such.
But hey, let's move on to the subject you suddenly started talking about.
Next time you disagree with this community you better leave with that attitude and such logic.
You were the one who still didn't get MY message, because if I leave this community and let it all happen their stupid definitions will get trough, and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
That ''+1'' really showed how much you didn't care.
it sure did.
next time i wont go to nearly every post by a newcomer to either drive them away or write paragraphs and tens of comments slandering other users.
Talk about being irrelevant and avoiding what I really said.
Classic one. But hey, at least I warn others about the dangerous of certain individuals who say that animal exploitation is right.
"Why not just make your own group..." Well, like the last time we did exactly this and people like you jumped in, forced their way in, stealing and destroying everything? The very moment such a group is founded, you´ll be banging at our doors, screeching "Lemme in, you intolerant fucktards!".
Have you ever considered the possibility of such a group already existing, but since we got wiser from the z-word hostage situation, we keep it secret this time? ;) No masses trying to force their way in this time and we´re the ones to handpick our allies and comrades? Why do you think I´m here and why do you think some members vanished into oblivion? Do you really think that I expect this sub to be different from all the other "zoo" forums out there? ;)
Then why dont you go that group since you hate it here so much?
Because he's lying.
Otherwise, I think he'd have invited me already, especially how personal he got in our PMs.
And not to mention he's the only one I've seen who actually cares about this, so he's probably the only member.
Private subreddits exist.
I'm actually gonna strike this, which I normally wouldn't, because you just got shitty in a thread specifically about R7. I shouldn't need to explain why.
[removed]
The anti-inclussive zoos opinions sound to me a lot like homosexuals who used to bash bisexuals because they were damaging their image.
[removed]
That still goes on sadly, and I see a TON of parallels here. It's basically the exact same thing.
''Anti''
Are you asking for trouble or something? Because we never said that, so you're just assuming.
I guess the non-exclusives really don't care because they have an actual definition that defines them, huh?
I think he means people trying to redefine the actual term "zoophile" ala 30-30. I know that's what I meant.
And dude, take a breather. Not everyone is trying to fight with you.
[removed]
The amount of toxicity in this sub recently got really really really bad and to demonstrate my support of this measure, I'm giving this sub one second chance.
I hope you acomplish something. It was rediculessly, offensively bad as of late, and by the time corrective measures were taken, more often than not the damage had been done. I pray this changes that narritive.
Same, i was getting close to leaving myself. Only time will tell now.
I feel like anything that is defined as can "Unintentionally cause offense" can be subject to a huge level of abuse, what if I say something critical of peoples actions like call in question how romantic you can really be if you 'share' which from what I have seen seems acceptable in a lot of forum but I find utterly disgusting. Personally I think we were fine, in fact I would have liked to see more disagreements, that's where the real growth and discussion is.
"anything, intentional or unintentional, that appears to be meant to offend, shame, harass, or otherwise derogate another individual " In other words, you typically have to look like you're trying to offend them. It doesn't actually change what we enforce against at all, and is more there to prevent people from using the argument that they didn't mean to offend, that people are just being sensitive, etc in cases where they'd be getting a removal anyway.
This would be protected in the clause that states "Potentially inflammatory opinions that are clarified as being opinions and are in posts clearly not intended to be inflammatory are not infractions."
I'd say the greatest growth is gleaned from civil debate and discourse. The 'disagreements', as I've seen them, are revisited over and over without anything being added, because ultimately they become screaming matches. Well, with a stronger R7, we're able to nip those screaming matches in the bud, increasing the signal to noise ratio in debates and discussions, and in some capacity helping to prevent the use of fallacies like straw men in discussions. Anger is a helluva drug, and it really doesn't help with forward moving discussions.
deep breaths everyone