For months people has been abusing definitions, has been slandering, has been bullying, and promoting more abuse against 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt, since the Internet just lets pure garbage rise and the truth more hidden, it's time to help spread the truth again.
If you can't read the quotes, I suggest going to the links.
Spreading links and quoting the main parts from 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt:
MYTHS GENERAL AND FACTS
http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/The-Right-to-Self-Defence-The-Truth-546045888≈═■▪■═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═■▪■═≈
NEW: "You created this drama yourself" (7/16/2015)
No. Did I choose to make that video about me, choose to make that article, choose to make so much bigoted, untrue and slander about me, etc?
No I didn't. Those sick people are trying to blame the victim again, in a "You made me do this too you!" fashion.
"You're a bully/cyberbully."Now how am I a bully?
I been called a "bully" for standing up for myself, and standing up for others. I also been called one for simply bringing out there rude behavior over people not them.
I brought a person out for trying to humiliate others for having a 'fetish' over random things. But that's called constructive criticism, and for defending purposes
I been attacked and humiliated for having a different opinion about imaginary things.
I do not (or at least try a lot to not):
- Make ED articles over random individuals
- Mock, shame, etc. people for any part of their sexuality (This counts to 'fetishes' too)
- Tell people what to think about themselves just because I said so
- Bash furries
- Slut-shame
- Upload things like this, this, this, or even this for example. (btw, at least one of those contain defamatory.)
- Mock, defame, humilate, expose secrets, insult, or some others about individuals publicly (All is not a requirement) for what they do, what they like, etc.
- Depend on the majority about other people in a negative way
- Force my personal opinions about a movie on others
- More
"You're a wolfaboo!"Now while Humanaboo is the mirror side of Wolfaboo, I apparently did defend 'Wolfaboo' at least until I heard that 'Wolfaboo' is meant to be about speciesism (just like Humanaboo), and that you must be OVER-obsessed with wolves and other requirements.
Though some say it's about treating wolves as equal (WTF?! Why is that "bad"?)?, but heard it's really about treating wolves as superior. I'm NOT so sure about this one: Official Wolfaboo Definition
Though, this does have some superior claim and of course, OVER-obsessed things. Like simply being 'obsessed' =/= wolfaboo. It's much more. Even Bean said something like that to me (Correct me if wrong of course).
Besides, me falling in love with 'imaginary' anthropomorphic talking wolves from a 'wolf movie' and personality like them as 'Gods' it's self, doesn't make me a wolfaboo.
I even acknowledge that RL wolves here is very different maybe. Though I DO believe that yes, not all wolves are dangerous (And I think it's stereotype to say they are too, just as much as the opposite) and they CAN learn from humans, and may have 'secret spirits' like you know, that cool 'animal spiritually' thing?
btw, I know a bully who denies news (which reports actual science research too) and continue to cause more bigoted views.
"You attack people who don't like this Alpha and Omega movie!"Now when the flying f*** did I actually ATTACK anyone for not liking this movie? Oh wait, because I wanted to disagree with some reviewers? Because I wanted to simply argue them, and give my opinion back? Since when is giving actual disagreement an "attack"? And considering, I am allowed to do that, especially to unfair criticism.
"But you attacked an anti-Alpha-and-Omega group!"Well maybe it's because the group allowed to give an opinion on it? And that it was more of a 'disapproval' opinion and criticism? And considering the one who made the group went to actual fan groups and attacked them, and forcing the hatred opinion on others who liked it? And tried to get people who were not forcing anyone 'there thing' to read that hate message about fans, while fans on the other hand, DON'T make others like it. Or for that one harmless side.
I'll admit, I might of reacted a bit 'too much' about that group, like when I said 'Go boycott it' during an upload or something. I think I deleted that. But remember, the guy who made the group pretty much was not behaving about it either. And called all fans 'autistic wolfaboos', yes, an offensive anti-disability message and offensive directly to fans. While at least some fans didn't do that to those who simply disliked it.
And besides, during that time and outside of the time, I never once MADE ANYONE actually LIKE it. I was completely fine for those who disliked it I think, but there is a difference of 'disliking' vs 'going out and acting on that'. And take a guess of what I was focusing on. Go on, take a guess...
"You are a bad person for defending furries and fetishes!"
How am I a bad person for defending Freedom of Expression?
Simply being a furry and/or having a 'fetish' as one or not, doesn't hurt anyone, but trying to shame people for being either one (or both) does hurt, and according to a lot of psychology research, 'Emotional Abuse' is linked to 'actual pain'.
I'm sorry, but if people are allowed to talk crap about people with a harmless 'fetish', then I'm sure those people are allowed to talk bad about you back, or stand up for themselves. (or both).
Note: The only reason why they call them "sick" is because it's not their fetish, and that maybe they depend on the majority, which btw, is all just biases, which is clearly no different than a anti-gay/hetero person going out and calling 'Homosexuality and Heterosexual' sick.
I see no different as they are both based off the same 'personality'.
If having (for example) a 'furry fatty' fetish is disgusting, then it's clearly fair for me to say that "Two humans kissing is far worse than scat" then. They are both valid as they are all based off personality traits then. And no, 'popularity' =/= good argument. Who said it is?
"But you defend ALL fetishes, and that includes pedophile!"Let's preach again: Having a fetish is fine, as long if you don't go out and bloody hurt ANYONE. And that includes the so-called 'common' stuff.
The only pedophiles I would defend are: Those who don't go out and hurt, and/or those who regret. And I accept based off some criticism out there that arresting someone for doing something completely 'fictional' is f***ed up. Because nobody should be arrested for something so bloody victimless! It's wrong! It's just arresting someone for only thought-crime.
Seriously, and hell, I'm not the only one who has this idea as a careful thinker. (Well sometimes I'm not careful on everything)
"Fetishes are risky, so therefor, it's bad to have any one; bad to defend it"In the common heterosexual and homosexual world, there is so much more rape reports than those having a 'foot fetish', I'm sure.
But I'm sure it's about control in all. If I had to blame something you can control, then you might as well ban kids (so they don't get raped), ban traffic to avoid accidencts, ban ALL sexualities including Homosexuality and Heterosexuality, etc.
"You're not perfect"That's obvious due to some actual mistakes, but neither are you. (Yes, this myth is true)
"Defending fetishes, recolors, etc. violate my speech"
Now how on earth does using Freedom of Speech to defend something you hate violate yours? Are you bloody serious?!
"You're a bigot!"
For trying my best to argue? If that's true anyway, then everybody is a bigot!
"You're obese because your diabetic!"
I found this in a so-called "fact" list on that non-joke page about me. Apparently the OP creates the stereotype that all diabetics are 'fat'.
I am Type 1. Type 1 doesn't have a known cause, and this can happen to even skinny people. Though because of Type 1, I do suffer some weight issues now. But I'm still not what you think an obese person looks like...
"You're Selfish, Egoist, and 'Self-Centered'"
More bullcrap about me.
I don't really understand why someone thinks I'm those things for defending myself, disagreeing with people, and defending my friends.
"Yeah, I'm a really horrible person for doing that." *sarcasm*
"You don't back up any arguments!"
Umm, remember the time I linked to news side that actually had USEFUL information, news of actual science reports, definitions, etc?
"You are just like yourself on Fanpop"
Perhaps I cannot change my fights for Freedom and such.
But I never went back on there and did the same thing. The only thing I defend is idea of bypassing your ban just for the sake of your life, but only at the same time, regretting what you did and trying to start over yourself, even though Fanpop doesn't like ban evaders. But morally, I find nothing wrong with that.
As for here, I am allowed to make journals and stand up for myself, to avoid bullcrap about me, etc. It's within my rights, I have the Free Speech to speak up for myself, and etc.
For doing that, I am considered the "same person". Wow.
"You're delusional!"
How am I delusional? Anyone who said that to me, just wants to say it because they can't stand it when someone makes a good point about them.
Considering too, I was also called "delusional" for believing in the right to suicide.
NEW: "You support bestiality because you define four legged creatures as anthropomorphic!" (Somewhere between 7/16/2015 and 7/14/2015 I think)
K, first of all, there actually is evidence of consent after doing research as a person who questions taboos, (and apparently the other way around is real, should that guy really be considered a rapist?)
But apparently, bestiality is actually a means to a creature who is 100% NOT human. If a four legged creature happens to talk, (especially show other human characteristics), then guess what? It doesn't count as bestiality. The feel and relationship seems to lean toward a creature who's really more different than a "dumb" animal (RL non-human animals) that has the same feelings as a human or beyond. Regardless of that, if they can talk like a human, then that should obviously be accepted by consent.
It does NOT MATTER if they 'Look' like a very different shape, what matters is the consent, and that's it. Otherwise, why the fuck should you judge an 'intelligent' looking creature that crosses species? It's still just a "human" inside of another shape's body. Just like walking dogs.
AND CONSIDERING, a walking anthropomorphic has 'parts' of an animal while this is kinda the same thing.
NEW: "__________John was right about wwwarea" (7/17/2015 - night)
He could never figure out how to make his claim "right".
Please don't ever listen to him (And I have the right to say that as he is involving me/my business)., he also accepted slanderous things about me, including a murder desire slander (Truth, I do not want to), made horrid harassing encouragement comments about me: comments.deviantart.com/1/5467…, (May report in ticket soon), and the fact that he keeps pretending his opinion is "right" over me, and etc.
He cannot argue, but he keeps dictating people about me just because, he thinks his opinion is "fact" over me when it can be argued that it's not, but he refuse to accept any debating; so in all, he's bigoted; look up "bigoted meaning" on Google.
He thinks I'm a "bad person" for making stamps, standing up against rude behavior against me (Standing up for myself), pretends I'm the same person from 'Fanpop', etc, etc. And his only possible argument is "Because he depends on 'who' and 'why'; he doesn't like it when I give my word.
BTW, if he says anything about me, then I am allowed to say anything about him back.
And sorry but I had to post this.
NEW: "I want to kill humans" (7/17/2015 - night)
Now when the hell did I say that? Because I am a misanthropic? Being a misanthropic =/= want to kill.
NEW: "You're not a victim" (7/17/2015 - night)
I didn't start it with the ED article, the video, etc. And sure, I made a mistake about the death thing, but I'm still one as I'm not the one who upload journals, articles, snapshots, etc, etc. about others in negative opinion ways.
EXAMPLE: I am a victim in THIS.
NEW: "You're a loony for what you believe in!" (9/13/2015 - night)
Apparently I been considered a "loony" by horrible people online (Including those who promote cyberbullying articles that advocate harassment, stalking, bigotry, etc).
All because I was being more open minded and more of a possible free thinker in spirituality, science, and maybe religion (sort of? idk).
Anyway, since when is it "loony" for having beliefs based off evidence, spiritual possibilities, and maybe more? It's natural and normal to reach this far out, and it's not delusional to be open minded by having faith based off evidence.
Clearly nobody clearly knows (maybe) about the spiritual world, souls, etc. Anyone callings someone "loony" for having "new" ideas makes that 'someone' who claims that, a huge selfish rabid brat as he/she are claiming he/she know everything about it when he/she doesn't and considering the way this spirituality free thinking goes, is no different than how other spiritual theories get formed. - Something almost off: We have the traditional way of meditating, but new ideas came and suggest that you can meditate by laying down in bed.
WOLFABOO MYTHS
http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Self-Defense-The-Truth-on-Wolfaboo-565280545MYTH Other 1"Being defensive involving wolves is wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly Explanation:Umm no. Defending an obvious 'normal' part of a human. Considering though, it's not really respectful to be interfering with other stuff from your own opinion.
MYTH Other 2"Having a cool creative wolf fursona makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationUmm no it doesn't. Yet, while it's not exactly like a "real" wolf, this is more of an aesthetic style involving the animal.
People are allowed to do that with any animal. And people always did. It's an excuse to be creative. I would rather have that than a boring, generic four legged plain colored, and fully non-anthropomorphic wolf. What's the point of having that personally?
If that's "wolfaboo", then the 'aboo' term should apply to all animals, including humans. Or hell.. anything.. Proud scienceaboo.MYTH Other 3"Having only wolf drawings makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationOh yeah? So it's "wolfaboo" to have that, but not "humanaboo" to have only humans?
MYTH Other 4"Wolf media fanbases are wolfaboos!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationHow? Being a fan of some wolf media stuff doesn't make you a wolfaboo. Not even if you liked something because of wolves.
Having a personal reason counts. Just like liking something just for the story, the graphics, etc.
MYTHS ABOUT A MOVIE AND WWWAREA
http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Facts-and-Explaining-About-me-and-Alpha-and-Omega-572862211╠═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═╣---
Myth 1:
"You attack others for disliking Alpha and Omega!"As much as the trolls and other cyberbullies (and maybe other) wants to believe that, that's not true.
I never cared whenever someone disliked the film it's self.
What I got upset about is not because someone simply dislikes the film it's self, I got upset about the claims around the dislike.
So for example. Even if someone LOVED the film, but made the same claims, I would still be upset.
I wouldn't be so damn upset about critics if it was proven to not be an effect into the industry who likes to spread it, and other effects.
Critics can be biased, they are not always right.
As for attacking in general. Disagreeing with them and arguing for the sake of the healthy environment isn't attacking.
If it was, then isn't judging someone for an intentional creative work (I.e. Art styles, story themes, etc.) the same thing?
Some people even attack fans for disagreeing and simply defend what they like, and cyberbully, and call them "wolfaboos" or another stupid term such as "butthurt". <That doesn't deserve much respect.
Myth 2:
"You force people to like the film!"I do not know where this claim came from and I don't fully remember if someone ever said that (but I'm just being safe).
Offering and sharing the film =/= force.
Me arguing someone's arguable opinion =/= force.
I do not force people to personally like what I personally like, nor do I make people personally hate what I hate.
Myth 3:
You treat this as the best movie in the world.Well, what is a 'best movie' in the world then? Isn't that all subjective?
Critique wise, there can probably be a perfect critique (legit critique) thing, but that can probably apply to 10 second films too..
Just because Frozen is more popular doesn't mean it's better to everyone else. And so on. Everyone will like a movie more than the other.
So Alpha and Omega IS the best... for some. And the same can be said for EVERY movie on some other individuals too.
I am allowed to treat this movie as a spiritual thing whatever I want. And that's a fact.
I'm more about the characters and less than the story anyway.Myth 4:
"You attack others for not liking the art style!"Not only this is untrue, but I don't even know any fan who did that (also little bit of a reaction to a certain post by a super major egoist bigot somewhere).
Anyway before I explain, isn't claiming an intention art style as a "flaw" against an artist intending to do it, attacking? Isn't it treating personal opinion as "fact" whenever you do that?
For me, I do not attack people for personally dislike what I personally like. I do argue that an intention purpose is not a flaw, for the sake of defending against something that already interferes.I believe it's completely unfair to dictate that a creative choice from someone not you is somehow a "flaw".
But while I defend, I do not attack someone for simply disliking.. As I always say.
Myth 5:
"You personally insult people who gives out a negative review!"I don't do that. Sure I sometimes said 'bigot' and a few other things, but only under what I believe fits with the term. (I do not say "bigot" on the first time I see something like a review I disagree with, not that I remember.)
So for example, if I said "biased", that's most likely not name calling as it's based off an argument to argue what is fair or not.
Another, if someone claims something that makes no sense, then it's also fair to say something like this: "Isn't that pretty stupid though?"
I do not go like: "WHATZ!! You are a coc suczkerz, ass face, stupid boo boo head!!!".
Nor do I say words that I use out of nowhere for no connecting reason (Which can then be personal insulting?).
So for example, if I said "bigot" to one of those reviews I hate, out of nowhere, that would probably be personally insulting.
NOTE: This could sort of apply to a couple other myths, but I probably am not perfect at this either.
Myth 6:
"You are a wolfaboo for being very defensive over this movie!"Pretty sure I explained why I am not a wolfaboo.
I am not a wolfaboo for being defensive over this movie. The right to Freedom of Speech such as defending and disagreeing should not be labeled as "problem".
The term 'wolfaboo' (while it's a stupid immature term too) has been abused many, many times.
I feared it would apply to defenders, loving, and some other stuff, and my fears came true since a lot of people has been using that stupid term against me.
I been called a wolfaboo for promoting animal rights, defending wolves, loving wolves, defending wolf media, anthropomorphic wolf media and some more maybe.
In reality, a real wolfaboo is someone who is OVER obsessed, and treats (as arguments) wolves as "superior" over other animals (including humans).
That's the 'at least' part to me I think.
Myth 7:
"You only like this movie because it has wolves in it."Well, wolves could be one reason why I like it, and the personal characters in it are the main reason. I like the movie for some of the characters.
So I don't know if this myth is true, but even if it was, doesn't everyone have a personal value opinion to like something?
The only problem I see in this part is judging someone on how they like something.
It's no different than liking a movie for it's story and less on characters.
Edit 11/18/2015 - 12:00 AM - I forgot to add this one:
Myth 8:
"You make the A&O look bad!"This claim is based off blaming someone for doing something some bigot hates and frowns against the fandom for having it.
Most likely the things that so-called is belief to look "bad" are not even bad: Such as fetishes, defending, etc.
Can you believe it, someone claim I make the fandom look "bad" because I express 'fetishes' (A unfair label to random people of being different in sexuality) involving the characters I like. Not only there isn't anything wrong with doing that, I don't even remember expressing a very personal thing I like with the characters..
But if I did, it's NO MORE extreme than expressing boobs with some characters. Yet, it's not even wrong to. And no, a tamed down fetish (e.g. tamed down vore) doesn't make it anymore extreme than showing boobs without showing that part of the boobs. Or more extreme than kissing...
Anyway, I don't make it look bad. Even if I did a real 'bad thing', don't blame the whole fandom for it.
Edit done
http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Wolfaboo-is-VERY-Abused-557139612
-----------
Against ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity
