Hey all. Rule 7 has received two revisions. As per usual, this change won't affect most of you. The ones that are affected are of course free to speculate the end of this community, pathological inclusionism, the moderators becoming dictators, how this is pandering to emotionally fragile youth, or what have you at their leisure in this thread. The ones that aren't affected by it can do that stuff too, I guess.
Okay, so, the first revision is an addition to the definition regarding gatekeeping, which will be quoted below.
Gatekeeping is considered disrespect and will be enforced against immediately. So long as the user being discussed conforms to the basic definition of having a romantic and/or sexual attraction to animals, respecting that they identify as a zoophile is mandatory. There is one exception to this rule: Voicing one's own personal definition of zoophilia/zoophile/zoosexual is permitted, even one that excludes certain users so long as said definition is only used to exclude users that specifically allow said definition to be applied to them. Saying that someone may not be a zoophile in circumstances where there is reasonable grounds for doubt or a considerable possibility that it will change(I.E. if the attraction was recent or if the user is still adolescent) is permitted, with few exceptions.
The second revision is a removal. Due to observably insufficient reporting, the reporting clause has been removed from rule 7. That means posts that are deemed to be in violation of rule 7 can now be removed without requiring a report. I'd like to include a reminder here that users can still appeal infractions, and appeals are considered.
Hopefully the revisions speak for themselves, but I can provide any clarifications as needed.
[](#Halt, sourcerer!)
Oh, and while I have you, if you haven't already, check out our expanded rules.
I appreciate this change. It was needed. :D (Y)
Oh. Nifty. I approve. Thank you.
Thank you. I honestly don't have time to report posts and don't feel I should have to if not in a moderator role.
I appreciate this. I especially like the gate keeping clause, but that was needed for a while IMO.
Oh, the first "zoophile" Patriot Act in this sub´s history....o_O Hey, you totally inexperienced animal porn wankers just into "sick stuff", you´re a zoophile now, ´cause AB says a simple attraction suffices! Hooray, now the problem of bestiality versus zoophilia ceases to exist! We just declare it non existent....DO NOT SEE THE FNORD! How much weighs the freedom of speech in here? Oh, I know: less than those precious feelings of all those lovely people coming in here. So kawaii...The mirrors! The echoes! Tremendous echoes! The BEST ECHOES...
Oh, this rule will gonna make it lovely in here, we´re all a happy family of animal fuckers now! Unicorns will fart rainbows and poop candy cotton! This evil and grim reality out there, all those totally unjust and hateful "zoophobes"...better never train your inner strenght in here for the cruel world out there..let´s make it all puffy and fluffy in here! And hey! All you people who have no other feelings for their animal but sexal desire and lust, you´re zoophiles too now! Isn´t that fantastic! We all look like the same now, total unity and uniformity. Some nasty dude in here surely will say that we lose any right by becoming totally inseparable lookalikes, we lose any right to separate us from all the self centered fencehoppers, from all the animal porn producers (Why exclude financial interest in sex with animals? We´re such a nice bunch in here, let´s invite them, too! Nobody left behind!)...but that guy just has a nasty , nasty mind. He often says words like "Reality"...really wonder why?
All this future calmness and gentleness....so wonderfully quiet in here...so nice in here...hmmm, why´s that coffin standing in the back of this wonderful room....?!?....
I find it hilarious that you, the one advocating for the most restrictive definition of zoophilia that would necessarily encompass a smaller, more uniform subsection, is complaining that the broader definition makes everything uniform.
I don't think you thought this through.
Here's a hint: When you advocate for a restrictive definition that excludes people of different experiences, you are the one advocating for uniformity.
No. The more "restrictive" the definition , the clearer observable the differences become. One bix box just labeled "spices" and everything inside mixed to a total mush surely is more uniform than keeping all different spices in different containers with the correct labels. But hey, now you´re practically sitting in the same boat as sadists (they also have "and/or" sexual attraction towards animals), as fetishists and guys like Aluzky. Yeah, why me even worry? All those wins our community and the current dogma have netted us....we´ll all be sooo tired of winning. Basically, this whole thing is a lost cause and half of the blame is on us because in situations like this, you guys always prefer the comfyness of silencing certain people instead of sorting out the shit that our community has developed into. But hey, having a virtual safe room with mutual assurement of each others´ "zoophilia" and back patting surely will make zoophilia legal in an instant...
"If you don´t turn on politics by time, politics inevitably will turn on you!"
But enjoy your little purge in here..."Zoo Reichskristallnacht"...;)
[deleted]
I hope you enjoy your hiatus.
It was reserved for the person that was half expected to have an aneurysm burst while reading the OP. We'll still need to bill the cost to your estate, though; you understand, I'm sure.
Also, I won't remove this post for rule 7. I want people to see this, because he's proving our point for us.
I guess you are misjudging the situation...but how could you as someone who is totally unconnected to zoophilia and even bestiality.
But don´t worry, with this bullshit I´ve lost all interest in this sub and will put my account on hiatus. Enjoy being the dictator, AB? Censorship is sooo pleasant...if you´re the one who´s subduing "inappropriate" viewpoints.
And nevermind my mental health...I didn´t suffer from an aneurysm during typing my post, I was just laughing my ass off because of your shortsightedness and denial of what goes wrong in here. But hey, it´s surely easier to silence criticism than to face it and solve the issue. Enjoy your little irrelevant hug box.
Bye, bye all you "brave pro zoophilia" warriors hiding in here, mutually reassuring each other of your "zooness"...you who are constantly crying for tolerance, but can´t even endure some few people with other opinions. So much tolerance in here....;)
Frankly, it doesn't matter what I think or what you think. This is to maintain the health of the community, and gatekeeping was causing observable damage. Damage that I cannot, as a moderator, entertain. Also, if you took the time to actually conceptualize the rule, you'd find that it affords significant liberties. We wouldn't need this adition if a certain few people didn't create the need for it through their own actions, though. You, and a few others, brought this upon yourselves when you failed to realize how the politics of this subreddit worked. It makes me wonder just how much you really understand the greater issues at play for zoophiles if you don't understand the factors at play here.
And I'd be careful with saying I'm unconnected at this point. I'm knee deep in this community every hour.
Again, did you even read the rule? Also, enjoy your hiatus. See you next week.
For someone that likes to be 'sarcastic' and 'make jokes' ;) you're not very good at taking them. How ironic. This isn't even meant to stop criticism, it's just meant to make sure everyone's on a relatively similar page on this so it doesn't spur arguments every week. Nobody is going to read a psychology journal, wikipedia, and other more or less trustworthy sources on the matter and suddenly start thinking your definition is the only true definition after the fact. You have convinced scarcely anybody.
Tolerating intolerance is no better than intolerance itself. In your words, zoophiles need to present their best and acknowledge their worst. This is the best place to start doing just that.
Let's see how many accusations I accurately predicted in the OP...
It's the end of this community! ✓
Pathological inclusionism! ✓
The moderators became dictators! ✓
This is pandering to emotionally fragile youth! ✓
Oh, four for four. You're quite the predictable one.
Byotiful.
[deleted]
That's always been the definition. You may finally be beginning to realize that a small group cannot change what a larger group defines the definition as.
Or, to quote Mencuis:
“A small country cannot contend with a great; the few cannot contend with the many; the weak cannot contend with the strong.”
You have every right to hold yourself to a higher standard, but you cannot change words to redefine themselves to your small group and expect them to stick.
A small group cannot change the definition? Ridiculous...technical and philosophical definitions are always made by a small group of experts, then transferred to the public. And you already forgot how a small group (gays) has changed the definition of "normal" in the last few decades? You don´t usually think before you type, Rannoch, huh?
And how much was that on the gays specifically? LGBTQ comprises a massive chunk of the world population cumulatively. I disagree that gays made that change happen, though. It was an evolving understanding of sexuality and gender that moved society away from heteronormative, binary systems and into a more dynamic system that reflected a greater understanding of the nuances therein.
But sure, minorities can shift definitions on occasion. You won't change this one though, not the way you want it. It's worth noting that naming conventions for paraphilias are entirely unlike that of more conventional sexualities.
They can't without the support of the majority, no. Something you lack.
You can ignore this all you want. It will only cause you pain though.
Hm, this reminds me about ..... " Of course, we cannot stop the “anarcho”-capitalists using the words “anarcho”, “anarchism” and “anarchy” to describe their ideas. The democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state calling itself the People’s Republic of China. Nor could the social democrats stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves “National Socialists”. Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the fascists using the expression “National Syndicalism”. This does not mean their names reflected their content — China is a dictatorship, not a democracy; the Nazi’s were not socialists (capitalists made fortunes in Nazi Germany because it crushed the labour movement); and the Italian fascist state had nothing in common with anarcho-syndicalist ideas of decentralised, “from the bottom up” unions and the abolition of the state and capitalism.
It could be argued (and it has) that the previous use of a word does not preclude new uses. Language changes and, as such, it is possible for a new kind of “anarchism” to develop which has little, or no, similarities with what was previously known as anarchism. Equally, it could be said that new developments of anarchism have occurred in the past which were significantly different from old versions (for example, the rise of communist forms of anarchism in opposition to Proudhon’s anti-communist mutualism). Both arguments are unconvincing. The first just makes a mockery of the concept of language and breeds confusion. If people start calling black white, it does not make it so. Equally, to call an ideology with little in common with a known and long established socio-political theory and movement the same name simply results in confusion. No one takes, say, fascists seriously when they call their parties “democratic” nor would we take Trotskyists seriously if they started to call themselves “libertarians” (as some have started to do). The second argument fails to note that developments within anarchism built upon what came before and did not change its fundamental (socialistic) basis. Thus communist and collectivist anarchism are valid forms of anarchism because they built upon the key insights of mutualism rather than denying them. "
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-07-17
Interesting. I'll have to digest that for a bit, but thank you for the excellent comparison and point.
I'd argue preemptively that the majority of the world still does not use these "sublabels," only the subgroups themselves do. And also that nations are a different case as they have an inherent right to their identity in terms of title. Also, sublabels are ok. There's nothing stopping 30-30 from calling himself a "True-Zoo" but he's trying to redefine "zoophile" entirely, which just won't work.
That's all I got right now.
Right, the ambiguity in language is not a free license to use arbitrary words and expect others to adopt them in the way you mean.
Politics is a pretty nebulous area so I'll try a different example... if someone says "if you drink milk you're not a true vegetarian, why do you people keep bringing your hedonistic dairy recipes to us?" it might be seen as divisive, and might spark some debate about what a "true vegetarian" is... which might include quoting from dictionaries, academic papers, etc., to clarify, because these are widely regarded as authoritative sources.
Definitions derived from a thread on a newsgroup 25 years ago where one coined the term "vegetarian" to mean only vegans (despite the broader word already existing) and where a tight-knit community used it that way for a few years might cause people to see the point, and maybe it's not fully wrong, but nevertheless it is not at the same level of authority either, and is confusing to a large number of people who are baffled when they're accused of "appropriating" the word vegetarian.
Sorry to drag that up again, the point is that while there is some relativity, there are also some agreed standards.
https://www.reddit.com/subreddits/create
lets see how good your ideas stand on their own
I was tempted to recommend this too, incidentally.
May I suggest "/r/truezoo"
It even has a nice ring to it, at least in english.
About time. Thank you.
Thanks, clarification will be useful for sure.
frantically pops popcorn
What a confusing and dumb part of the rule.
Your attraction can change at any time and isn't the point of this rule to stop others from being, ahem, ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''harassed''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?
Because even if they're young or their attraction is recent, they may still get offended.
Even then, it's still really dumb to assume anything like that. Just no.
If you want to make such a rule, then force it.
Also, when are we going to add a rule for harassing someone else about their virginity?
Especially when calling them "young and dumb" before? It's pretty much the same thing: Making feel like one does not belong here (and emptionally hurting them) as they're different and that they can't do anything about it?
Vote results: Staying
##Voting time, then.
Regarding "Saying that someone may not be a zoophile in circumstances where there is reasonable grounds for doubt or a considerable possibility that it will change(I.E. if the attraction was recent or if the user is still adolescent) is permitted, with few exceptions."
UPVOTE my comment if it should STAY.
DOWNVOTE if it should be REMOVED.
Even if someone is called a "non zoo" or whatever, it shouldn't even matter that much. Besides, if they feel secure about their own sexuality, then such things really shouldn't bother them.
It causes arguments almost every time, is the issue.
I have looked through the rules several times and I still don't see where there is any requirement that someone be a Zoo or any other orientation to participate here. So how does it work that someone can "gatekeep" by making pronouncements on others?
I would think that it would suffice to have a "manners clause" that prohibits making factual statements about another individual without supporting evidence.
Maybe you need to learn more about this sub that´s now trying to outlaw "gatekeeping" by....gatekeeping. Have the wrong thoughts? You´re banned, get out!
I really wonder why debating on the definition of the z-word is considered gatekeeping anyway...there is NO intent to exclude anyone or making them stay outside the gates... I also don´t get why arguments are bad per se.
I there´s one thing this whole community needs more than anything else, it´s heated debates. The old construct in which this entire community comfortably resides has failed "bigly"....so, will we stay in this dilapidated mansion until the roof comes down and finally kills us ...or will we realise the corruption, get our asses up and build another house, one that stands on a more sturdy fundament and is not "endangered" by some fundamental deabates?
So why don't you do as suggested and set one up? I'd even be willing to help by contributing a counterpoint to whatever point you desire.
I liked the old dot org for the "bareknuckles debate" common there. But you should remember that some "gatekeeping" will always be necessary. At a minimum, spammers must be blocked.
Now, tell me what you would do about "he who must not be named"?
If people are solution-focused then I agree. If people are flinging mud, I disagree.
Well, that´s entirely reliant on your definition of mud flinging. Sometimes you have to dig deep in the mud to get to the solution you are searching for.
Well, if you're the dictionary, your definition of mudslinging is: "the use of insults and accusations, especially unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent."
And this is opposed to "solution-focused" so there should really be no ambiguity. "Digging deep" into a topic is relevant. Ad hominem attacks are not.
Gatekeeping is when someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity. In this case, there are a few people calling others non-zoos that by almost all common permutations of the definition are zoos. Since you can't really reconcile that kind of stuff, there's this constant arguing about what zoophile means, between the definition accepted in psychology, and the beastforum definition that 30-30 uses.
My point is that by making a special rule for him you are effectively creating a martyr. He is gaining power by being so special that he needs individual handling.
He has no ability to ban or censure. If this community does not want him to intimidate newcomers simply reply to every attempt with a statement like "The views of this individual do not represent the thinking of the management or most members here."
Think of it as "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Ignoring someone or minimizing them takes power from them and that is a more effective way to discourage a given behavior.
Well, it wasn't made specifically to work against him, mind. He contributed to the need for it, but it isn't an attack on 30-30. Through officiation, the community can be clear that differing definitions will be respected, but so will identities that may not fit certain individuals' definitions.
I understand but he does make such a perfect example of the "special" mindset. And as I have alluded to before, I have an unfortunate amount of experience dealing with special individuals. Ignoring them publicly while setting a counter example seems to work best.
If he gains traction, honestly, that's fine as long as he honors the rules. He speaks good words on occasion and we've never been inclined to outright shun him, believe it or not. He's very stuck in his ways, though, and ignoring him doesn't really slow him down.
Pretty sure you and I have dealt with the same "special" individuals over the years, I started out on the org (late days but still) and remember it well.
30-30 is a different kind of special. The usual tactics do not work.
He doesn't care if he's ignored (continues to post the same walls of divisive text time and again and scare off new guys).
He doesn't cross the line enough with the present rules to neccesitate a ban.
He won't "grow out of it" like some (he refuses to give ground on even blatantly false points).
He needs to be handled like this, unfortunately. And I see a ban or fiery "hai guys I'm leaving!!!" as the eventual outcome.