The Feeling of The Multiverse: Criticism Toward Dumbsville and Some of His Fans

Remember that one stamp I made? Yeah, the stamp that was totally and 100% percent only meant to be toward one person despite the stamp description making it clear enough that it wasn't. Yeah, I don't remember that, but I DO remember making a stamp that was against the type of attitude that is part of some agenda against fans of Alpha and Omega (wolf movie), and likes to make bad "critique" arguments which might of been BASED (inspired?) off some things I saw (which isn't the same thing as using every example I hate toward ONE person). Yeah, I sure remember that.

And it appears a popular critic responded to that stamp and took my criticism nearly 100% wrong with a bunch of dangerous misunderstanding (causing a lot of people to think that my stamp was falsely accusing Dumbsville) statements where standing up for myself on the horrible fanbase he has, gets generally buried, or intentionally ignored by terrible people on there.

I'm going to make my own general quotes (mainly based off that video, AND reacting more directly toward it with some maybe outside as well) and criticized some of the points. Because remember, videos like that clearly justifies the fact that it's alright to disagree with many unfair points by many critics, especially when they state misleading information toward people. Seriously, don't you dare treat me like a bad guy for this...

Also, the title for the stamp was so weirdly cut with "quality is worst", but I think that may have been due to a title size limit.

___

Let's just get this terrible video over with.

Remember, the quotes are not exact, but they are, at least by attempted behavior, based off of his video, some other people around it, and maybe more less of both.

Remember also, I am not going to pretend every info under the stamp is perfect, I am willing to accept things I said as flawed if they are.

"This stamp and it's description under it (before the updates) was all about Dumbsville, and was the sole reason!"

This is false. While it's true that some things from the stamp was partly based off the video, this was more of a "final straw" like effect that caused me to make that near-pointless stamp to help spread my general arguments toward the general hatred (not literally every single form of hate toward the film, just certain hatred toward it) in general. Though it is true that there was at least one example under the stamp (and I guess the sarcastic title) that pointed out that he called it the worst movie mainly because of the dance thing, and a couple of other complaints, that was it.

"But those specific points were jokes! You took it way too seriously"

I am aware that he was making furry jokes without using that as his reason to hate the film, however I didn't see him make clear on some of the other things... So I was naturally assuming based off some history where some people seriously argued that certain films were terrible or worse based of some good arguments, and some were seriously calling some works terrible just because it's considered "cringey" (e.g. "This lawful fatty art is terrible because I find fatty art horrible and degenerating"). If he doesn't mean that literally, well, then I guess my assumption toward him with the worst argument is false.

"this beautiful stamp"

This is meant to be a joke right? Thought we were done with jokes, but I guess not. (not saying the stamp is terrible, just feels obvious he doesn't mean that).

...Guess, maybe some of these points I am trying to criticize could be jokes. Har har... But I'm just going to go on here anyway, just in case.

"Why caps lock? That's bad writing!"

Yeah no sh**. Not everything I write here is intended to be for a college project. Sometimes I write in "caps" to express emotion, making something more noticeable, or quoting emotion. If I was writing for a physiologically page, I would probably not do that (except for certain cases of quoting).

""HATRED IS CRINGEY AND IDIOTIC" and "HATING THE MOVIE IS FINE" is two-faced!"

Remember when I was accused as taking a joke seriously? Maybe I shall accuse (but rightfully) that the title of that was not meant to be taken too literal.

I was talking about most of the hatred around hating the film. Though maybe I could of said it better though.

"First part of description gets conflicted with reason one, more hypocrisy."

"I didn't make this stamp solely because of a critic saying the movie isn't good, or something like that." is not the same as discovering some bad points from one of them, and wanting to debate those alone, especially when the stamp itself clearly gave out specific other reasons having nothing to do with that one video. But granted, it is possible that the "worst" thing may have been conflicted, but then again it was so specific. So I don't know.

"He was joking about the wolves dancing, never treated it like a flaw!"

Judging by the video reaction toward me, that's not exactly true.

"The wolves dancing wasn't my only point for calling this the worst movie ever!"

Yeah Dumbsville, I said mainly (however, I might of conflicted with that in that list, not too sure if that was intended to be part of the video, but I understand the confusion from it), and this still seems to suggest that you are using your own personal bias to justify a movie being terrible (or worst, whichever is the case) because it's not your personal liking and that's partly why I still debated, which goes to my next point.

"Saying this movie is terrible, further terrible, or the worst, because some intentional creative wolf idea of the movie can't be argued with because it's an opinion!" "Criticism of art needing to be fair is stupid, as I'm allowed to make my video and it's creativity behind it."

First, you are allowed to as long as it's lawful. Second, statements about art when attempting to criticize has to be fair. But what I mean by that is just the nature of how important critique means and what critique itself means. If you make a statement stating that someone's own intentional typical creative style is "terrible", "awful", or the similar just because it's "cringey" to you, then it's the same as saying that a furry film sucks because it's furry. Get it? What's the point of separating that with these types of wolves when both are fallacies equally? If a video game journalist bad reviews a lawful game because it's "dark souls" hard, that would very much be debatable, and a lot of people would probably agree with me on that. But why is it considered "different" when it comes to these kinds of movies? Wait, it's not. But some people seem to act as if it is.

Yes, it's a very terrible movie for you, but if you try criticizing a film then you're making arguments, which by themselves can be debatable (depends). Usually I would point out that some of your reasoning why you think the film is terrible is biased, in the same way as a non-furry hating a furry film for being furry, or a video game journalist saying that an awesome challenging game is terrible because it's "too hard" for the person. History shows things like that are debatable, as in, the arguments themselves without any personal liking/dislike needing to change, and that's what part of my stamp was trying to say.

I cannot believe I even have to explain this. It's 2021, and there are still people thinking that if something equals to being opinion, then any argument behind it and personal taste is exactly the same.

"The wolves are not anthro."

www.dictionary.com/browse/anth…

"ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity" - emphasis added

The wolves have human characteristics under expression, intelligence (which effects their choices in film too), and body movement. They are anthropomorphic, just as much as making a tea pot have a face, and hop around scaring the humans in a mansion. Having a different spine is a form of being anthropomorphic, but it's not required to be one.

"What about the people harassing people for not liking the movie! Are they exempt?"

"It seems that if you're an Alpha and Omega fan, you're automatically the innocent person according to this person."

Just because I didn't include them, doesn't mean that I'm automatically stating that they don't exist.

I never specifically stated that being an Alpha and Omega fan automatically mean that you're an innocent person.

---I don't understand his point about the delusional insults I pointed out.---

So I will give out a scenario. Saying that someone is delusional for making a statement like "This movie is better than typical shows Dumbsville likes to watch." is literally an example of treating one's personal interests as a fact, shows insult, and further justifies why some points being debatable (e.g. I disagree with that point, you're wrong because biased.) are, well, debatable.

---Part about some over year-old comment.---

I mean, it's old, but it's still a valid reason for why the stamp was made complaining about those. If someone acts like that, people are allowed to lawfully call it out. It was old, it's still kinda fits that this ridiculous hatred exists.

"I think A&O would be good if they removed all of the cringey intentional art directions, or basically, any anthropomorphic elemental design (e.g. dancing), so I accept the creator's intention because this is a movie about wolves! So you're wrong about me limiting creative works with wolves. I said I was fine with "wolf movies" in general, just not all the creative stuff I find cringe."

What if the movie's intention was SUPPOSED to be about less realistic wolves? Which is a form of creativity? What if I, or someone else, wanted to make a typical fantasy wolf movie that isn't meant to be the same generic realism wolves done a million times by adding dancing scenes, emotional love scenes, talking with humans, or something like that? And what if it was for a furry audience that prefers that with wolves?

I said "It's the people who has a major issue with creators wanting to make any make any creative film/book/game/comic with wolves lawfully.", not "It's the people who has a major issue with creators wanting make any film/book/game/comic with wolves lawfully."

"Why are you bringing the law into this?" - Being I said lawfully.

I'm just paranoid about that. Like if the film was breaking some law, I usually try to avoid it when it comes to these arguments. It's just a thing I have.

"Yeah you can make Alpha and Omega lawfully, but I'm ALSO allowed to say that it's garbage."

Oh boy, not this again. Never said you weren't allowed to.

"According to this guy (Another-Realm again), you're not even allowed to hate a movie because it's innocent and lawful."

*sigh* You know, I'm willing to admit any mistake I've had with this guy. But this guy, THIS guy, is way more guilty than me with his terrible false accusations, especially since he's a bigger YouTuber than I am at this given moment. At least he's censored my name, but I don't think this is helping that much anymore.

"What? Wolfaboos? *laughs* That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life."

For once, I agree with you, I think.

"Come on dude, nobody ever used "wolfaboo" in any sentence ever."
Oh boy, that's where you're wrong, cowboy! Oh wait, am I being a bad man for disagreeing with this opinion like this now? HAHA

"That whole list with the insults, furry, turned on thing was toward Dumbsville!"

False. This was more of a general list toward multiple people in case there are people behaving like that and because some people already did.

"So I can't criticize against a creative direction of a lawful movie anymore?"

You're allowed to, but many creators are also allowed to call such stifling creative idealistic choice of "criticism" an unfair argument though. Which is what that other stamp was partly trying to do.

"Don't bother making yourself look like an idiot on the internet."

Let's go by logic (again) - What's idiotic or a fool thing to do in this scenario? Trying to debate some debatable points of a movie, and trying to call out toxic behavior in general around that wolf movie? Or partly misunderstanding my description, making false statements toward me in public, and failing to realize the fact that people are allowed to disagree with garbage points like "Your lawful fanfiction is bad because your creative direction is cringey!" and compare it with specific statements like "Dark Souls suck because it's hard!".

"You're allowed to make any lawful Alpha and Omega content, just prepare for me to call them sh** or garbage when they come out."

Aligning with my previous repsonse before this paragraph, prepare for people like me arguing with those points if it's basically based off dislike toward a creative style rather than finding ACTUAL objective flaws of a creative work.

"Criticism is just personal opinion, they aren't debatable other than just being subjective!"
Did I cover this? Huh? Well, uh, here is this: www.deviantart.com/another-rea…

scottberkun.com/essays/35-how-…

Special

Someone went in and tried to explain the Bobsheaux drama, and it was mostly wrong. I hate staying in that drama, but when it comes to accusing me of being some harassor, that's low.

I've dealt with some people where one of these main people tried promoting suicide, even to innocent people. Same suggested of wanting certain people dead. I was spread with false stories from yet the same person, and the person even tried to censor a journal I made for having a specific opinion (that was I think even misunderstood). Bobsheaux himself wasn't so innocent either.

If you hear ANY story about that, remember to never blindly believe accusations without clear proper evidence.

_______

In specific parts, the video insults me with it's thumbnail (also no credit to the original artist of the red wolf, maybe), and person can't seem to much understand how debating works sometimes. I tried to watch a lot of the video, but man there were some poor points, including false misleading assumptions toward me. Here is my response, which is not the same as attacking by the way.

===================================

Extra Commentary Based off Some Events

Been commenting around this main reaction.

"you are literally pissed off because he didn’t like the movie."

False. At this point, this is more about his reaction toward me than about that movie. It's similar to what happened with a couple of other people before.

"this isn’t critisim, this is harassment."