The Hypocrisy Behind The Drama Against Splatoon 3 'Vore' Post

  WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this warning here anyway.

 

 

It seems a bunch of weirdos on Twitter (and also Reddit) has been freaking out about something that I don't think by law (though, I could be wrong) is considered pornography. It seems a lot of people has this extreme view of "weird kinks" or "weird fetishes" that they seem to believe that if there is even a tiniest awareness of existence of such a thing, they think the entire thing is sexual in the same way as showing sexual nudity of a person. Maybe I'm thinking too much but it's kinda similar to the argument that if someone said that gay people exist to kids, then it's the same thing as showing sexual content to children.

About some time ago, someone on the Splatoon 3 Plaza (a video game hub where it's possible to upload a message through online communication features) has decided to draw a picture of borderline 'vore' with a slight suggestion of getting inside a large mouth, with a heart, which as a whole suggest the person does have a bit of a kink interest into such thing. After that, thousands of reactions stirred on Twitter screaming against the artist because the person was apparently uploading a "kink" or a "fetish" to a "kids game" (magic words to raise moral panic), even though the person was just, what I believe to be, was following the same guidelines a lot of kids focused media has often done.

In many under 18 media, there has always been suggestive lewdness and romance styles for the purpose of making a character look more 'attractive', with the open mind of having some people 'enjoy' it or be inspired by it for same reason. We have had for example, the Blades from Xenoblade Chronicles 2, which were suggestively designed. There has been a lot of PG media that had romance that was used in a way to make a character seem more "beautiful", one Disney remake suggested a grrr kink reference, there were even suspicious happy references even a certain fetish for a rated E game (the infamous unnecessary feet scene from Paper Mario - The Thousand-Year Door), there was a literal blatant inappropriate scene involving a women's bottom in Dexter's Laboratory, a show aimed at even young kids, and there was a lot more 'happy' references in favor of the same perverted brain. And I'm not exactly trying to talk about jokes, even though it could be argued that jokes are no better or worse, I am talking about, assuming that's what they do, people trying to make a character look, positively, 'sexier' or 'sexy'.

There has never been a known widely accepted system that agrees that the intention behind a picture is what dictates certain pictures as a whole just because of intention, as it's usually more depending on what it is if I am assuming right. A "kink", if I'm thinking of the word right, is not even itself sexual, but rather an enchanting tool that can rise arousing ideas to a living being, and the main problem with these people is that they confuse it with the actual sex or perverted nudity, and they use such a label to describe something that isn't any different, in terms of nature, to what many kid medias has often done, somehow extreme.

So much of these people are hypocrites, as they seem to forget the fact that a "kink" or more likely, a "style" of preferring someone is just a suggestive way of preferring someone, just like showing suggestive curves and large breasts which happened in many under 18 medias. Not only that, but there seems to be hypocrisy even for fans of the same Splatoon 3 game, here it is:

Note: Wasn't nudity but still wanted to censor the 'perverted' parts. The top was more of a mouth, but censored in case of umm, policy, and will it work? IDK.

This clearly exposes the hypocrisy problem with these strange puritan freaks. The problem is that they are enforcing a completely made up moral mindset, that doesn't fit with standard censorship, against people doing stuff that is arguably no different than what a lot of even average people are doing. This right here, is mainly why I had a problem with the backlash. Another reason why I have a problem is the idea of canceling those for not following the weird less cultured morality mindset that seemed made up, and finally the last reason is that this is such a dangerous argument.

 

A lot of people seem to have this extreme view to the label "kink" ("fetish" has sometimes been included too) that they seem to think that a "fetish" or a "kink" is somehow a magically different thing that declares same exact nature levels as being much worse just because of the word "kink" behind it. In reality, using a "kink" in a slight suggestive reference way is exactly no different than using a common "non-kink" suggestive style to suggest arousing the same sex part of the brain, in the same way. I start to wonder how dangerous this argument could get? If someone was attracted to a furry character and was the only reason for the existence of the character, is it always pornographic to show to a general audience? Also is showing romance for the character itself kinky now because it's 'kinky' to find an anthro character attractive? I've heard that preferring a character giant for attraction reasons is itself a kink, so yeah, dangerous argument. When does this line stop?

If one wanted to be far less hypocritical on this, then one must by logic be against all of it. That includes the suggestive curvy designs of the Blades from Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (for a T rated game, which includes 14-17 I think), the person's actions of wanting to upload a blatant inappropriate picture of Shiver, the scene from Dexter's Laboratory, and many more.

Also I can understand a bit if we were talking about uploading say a detailed foot for the SOLE purpose of masturbation where it's clearly designed for it. I could at least view that on a tame level of bad (though I think calling someone a groomer or a pedophile for it alone is a bit too far as it's possible someone might do that without being interested into children alone) because I think that is a lot similar to nudity of sharing exposed breasts. Sadly, it seems a lot of people are confusing tamed suggestive references, which has been done a lot already in many kid medias, with flat-out porn.

______________

Disclaimer: I am not too sure what the law said. Don't do any activity that is breaking the law. I am not sure if what I'm defending is itself legal or not.

Article might get updated.

Why the Anti-furry Feral Arguments Fail

 WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this warning here anyway.

 

 

For many years, the rise of finding 'anthropomorphic' characters attractive has been on the rise, however, there has been on and off drama involving a debate about what kind of anthropomorphism is required in order to make it morally alright, and that usually involves the topic of "ferals", which is more commonly more referred to four-legged beings mainly focused on canines, and felines. Does there need to be some form of 'humanoid' body to make it acceptable? There has also been arguments claiming that what counts as "anthro" or anthropomorphic is that they must have two legs as well, even though anthropomorphism has never required that.

Let me tell you that such debate has been ridiculous from the start considering why 'anthro porn' or otherwise pornographic or 'NSFW' forms of anthropomorphic animals existed in the first place. The desire for anthropomorphic NSFW situations was always about animal parts in the first place, but with human characteristics mixed in. Anthropomorphic animals such as Nick Wilde isn't attractive to some because of the human characteristics, they are attractive because of both animal parts, and human characteristics. Otherwise if it was just about humans needing to be focused, then why is it 'anthro porn' and not 'human porn'? Due to this, the psychological reasoning as to why some "ferals" appear attractive as well to many, is because of both the non-human parts and the mixture of human parts (i.e. sapience and/or human like emotion). There has never truly been a true line crossed between the two.

So let's give out the arguments once and for all to shame and roast what is likely, and on topic, the worst type of people in the furry fandom, the anti-ferals. Though this is also a shame and roast for anti-ferals that are outside of the fandom too!

Originally written from elsewhere, I thought to expand it here with likely editing and/or additional content. Let's get these two definitions over with:

===The definition of zoophilia===

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/zoophilia

": an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or imagined contact"

===The definition of animal=== 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal

": any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation"

Errr... 2- ": one of the lower animals (see lower entry 3 sense 3) as distinguished from human beings"

Well, basically an animal that isn't human includes the full body, the legs if any, tail if any, face, intelligence level, and pretty much the rest. Of course is varies species by species, but hopefully the picture is understood here. Note that nothing in here is saying that four legs and a main body is enough. Four legs and a body is only part of it, just like a head, tail, and some other parts. Remember this...

===Now Onto the Arguments===

 

Argument: "Being attracted to (or wanting to ****) characters like Nala, Balto, and some other ones is literally the same as being into, or wanting to ****, actual animals!"

Why that argument fails: An actual animal is a realistic earth animal that has no sapience and has no natural human behavior. If a non-human character like Balto happens to have human sapience and human emotion, then it naturally becomes anthropomorphic by definition. The sapience, emotion, and physical emotional facial expressions (regardless of fiction or becoming real) for example are in fact, a form of human characteristics, which is what makes this different than real non-sapient animals. Such personal reasoning for such "feral" is exactly the same reasoning as having 'human shoulders' or standing on two legs. The psychological reasoning are the same. You cannot decide that the other one doesn't count and then turn around and want to **** realistic dog heads over human shoulders.

Note that many anti-ferals are unlikely going to freak out about characters like him being used in certain scenarios. But likely will freak out if an even less realistic animal shaped body on fours was used in the same manner just because it's on fours.

Argument: "But the four-legged beings uses an main 'animal body' so it's different and therefor like actual animals!"

Why that argument fails: A body isn't the only thing required for it to be a truly animal, and even then, many 'ferals' don't even use an accurate realistic body, thus, making such argument even less of logical sense. And speaking of less accurate "ferals", Nick Wilde has animals parts all over himself; he's basically just a two-legged animated fox shaped being. To accuse someone as a zoophila for liking a MLP horse looking only 10% horse but then turn around and drool over Nick Wilde (which is 95% fox) is truly hypocritical. The two-legged argument here clearly fails here.

Even if it did used a realistic body, it doesn't change the fact that the levels of intelligence, human like expression (which is physical too), and natural possibility of behavior is also what makes a being exist, so with those being in, it's still not a real 'animal'.

Argument: "The reason why characters like Nick Wilde is attractive is because of all those human characteristics, so the focus on the animal isn't there anymore!"

Why that argument fails: There is a reason why anthropomorphic p*rn is anthropomorphic p*rn and not human p*rn. Human characteristics isn't the sole reason why Nick Wilde is attracted. The actual reason(s) are of the fact that they're not human, has a lot of non-human parts (animals suspiciously usually), and because of the human characteristics. Human characteristics is a reason, it's just not the only reason, and additionally, animal parts are literally the sole focus as to why Nick Wilde and/or certain other anthropomorphic animals are used as pornography (e.g. the fox head). If animal parts were not the focus on sexual focus, then what's the point of anthropomorphic porn then? Why use a FOX HEAD, PAW, and/or OTHER ANIMAL PARTS if none of that is the reason as to why some like characters like that?

Thus, quadruple animals being enjoyed partly with human emotion expression and sapience is the same exact psychological reason as liking characters like Nick Wilde. Both are using animals and human characteristics as the primary focus.

Argument: "But four-legged creatures are not anthro!"

Why that argument fails: Wrong, as long as they have some form of human characteristic either through physical such as human-like facial design and/or expression or inside, they are anthro. "Anthro" or "anthropomorphism" never required a 'humanoid' shape body. The idea that being anthropomorphic is a two-legged being that can walk like a human was a stereotype to begin with. There is truly no real difference here.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anthropomorphism

Found from Google I think: an·thro·po·mor·phism

"the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object."

 

Argument: "But you like the feral for less human looking reasons, so it's zoophilia!"

Why that argument fails: I might of already kinda explained this but I'll just use this anyway: Using Nick Wilde and Balto as an example, they both are: Not human, both has a lot of animal parts, but both are sapient which is a human characteristic, and (even though not truly needed) both don't even 100% look like a real animal. Both the attraction reasons for them are of two reasons: Non-human parts, and human characteristic in it's own form. Two-legs doesn't change the fact that Nick Wilde is not a human and uses a majority of animal parts. One human feature does not physiologically change it! 

It's either two things: It's all zoophilia, or it's neither except for actual true animal (realistic non-sapient).

Argument: "But (using a different definition of zoophilia) even if my dog was sapient and consensual, being attracted to it is still zoophilia and that's the problem."

Why that argument fails: That argument ignores the entire reason why zoophilia was an issue in the first place. The main issue is that animals do not consent like humans. If dogs in real life ended up becoming sapient and consensual, then the entire problem for why zoophilia is an issue in the first place would be gone for this. So even if it was still technically zoophilia by some lose definition, "zoophilia" for those types of "dogs" would no longer be an issue by itself as the fantasy would be about wanting to screw beings that can consent except for the type preferring only non-consensual non-human animals.

If this is about only some dogs, then that would still mean "zoophilia" would have a consensual outlet like how heterosexuality can have outlets with consensual human adults (while some human adults do not), and that's if the person finds both types attractive as some people are exclusively attractive for sapient beings partly for their sapience feelings (making it just like how some furries prefer certain ferals over actual animals).

If this is still about the 'animal' shaped body again, then I will say that this argument still stands for that and that I already explained that there is no difference between a two-legged anthro like Nick Wilde and a four-legged anthro (due to human sapience through such being).

Argument: "But it's like the cub thing! It's also like the 1000 year old thing!"

Why those two arguments failed: The issue with minors is that they don't consent. The issue with animals is that they don't consent. It's solved with a being being an adult and is consensual. Not only that, but even with the "It's like the 1000 year old excuse" argument, then I'll tell you this: Do you really truly want to compare it? Would you freak out if an adult human body had a realistic or even somewhat cartoony child head on it? Yes? Then why would you be alright with an animal head on top of a human adult looking body then? Let that sink in!

It's also not as artificially fake as saying that an obvious child and child mentality character is technically 1000 years old as the majority of "feral" characters feels different and visually feels difference mainly due to sapience from inside to outside through expression. Balto's face for example feels very different than that of the real dog species Balto was based on. Don't you dare tell me that it doesn't count while turning around and saying two-legs count for Zootopia characters.

Anthropomorphic animals by nature are animals, but with human characteristics added in some way. Many of us already accepted a special exceptional route from the beginning of many anthropomorphic p*rn. The preferences for many people is a scale, and there is no real difference between a human body with a wolf head on it than Nick Wilde, and neither is an unrealistic or somewhat realistic "feral" shaped being that has emotional human-like faces and/or is sapience. It's all within the anthropomorphic scale (as defined), and part of the reasoning why such anthropomorphic characters were attractive to many is because of the non-human features (animals) that exist with them.

Besides, even the cub thing is a bit debatable alone. Why? Because some cubs don't even look like real children. Some are entirely lacking of a child look where the only "child-like" feature is a type of fictional label. So I don't even think a person is truly a pedophile for that alone. There is an adult looking "cat" looking character that apparently is supposed to be a 'baby dragon'. There is also a 'fiction' argument for some content but I'm putting that aside for this point.

Argument: "But zoophiles like it!"

Why that argument fails: Well actually, it's technically true that some actual zoophiles like it, however, many zoophiles are also into two-legged anthropomorphic characters as well according to what I heard. To ban furry feral porn all together is to ban nearly all furry porn. Even then, it's not even an issue for a zoophile to enjoy less realistic furry porn as there is no evidence that it causes it. The person would of likely abused an animal anyway, probably even sooner if a victimless outlet was taken away.

 

Argument: "But it can create a safe haven for zoophiles!"

Why that argument fails: Such possibility applies to even two-legged furry websites! Nearly everything in that fandom has this possibility. The key to handling this in certain websites however is to make sure they aren't using the place (feral or not) to promote bestiality when it comes to that topic. I also want to point out that a furry person who holds such place are not automatically responsible for what a zoophilia does unless the law describes so. If a zoophile feels inspired to abuse an animal because of some furry content, then that blame should, morally speaking, fully go toward the zoophile for thinking that and to anyone (if any) who according to law created a complicit into it. If a zoophile is using the site for illegal purposes for example, then that's one of the things the creator needs to step in to stop it assuming no one else is stopping it enough.

Just in case it's hard to read. The word is "parts".

 

Argument: "But someone who liked feral porn offended, that proves feral p*rn leads to bestiality!"

Why that argument fails: There is no proven link between such fiction and acting out, especially considering that there are many people who finds many feral characters attractive and doesn't do it. To blame the fiction because the person who liked it actually acted out is like blaming violent video games or knifes because a person that happen to like video games or has used a knife for cutting steak has committed violence via guns or a knife. It's a fallacy, just like blaming victimless outlets involving controversial child "dolls" because someone who did it had one with them.

Such fallacious blame completely avoids the real issue (the person's personality) and blames the wrong thing. Taking away these things isn't magically going to cure zoophilia, nor does it stop certain zoophiles from acting out. Heck, if the zoophila who planned the offense had their fiction taken away from them, they probably would not only still act out, but probably even sooner too.

Don't forget too, there are likely stories where people who liked two-legged anthropomorphic characters also offended.

__________________

In the end, "furry" is about animals with human characteristics either visually and/or non-visually. The reason why anthropomorphic characters are attractive is due to the joy of finding non-human animals with special characteristics attractive. The reason why it's not zoophilia or bestiality for two-legged is due to how different such feelings are for them, which exists in anthropomorphic four-legged beings too. There is never truly a difference under the physiologically reasoning as to why, and it's time for many people to realize that fact.

The definition of "zoophilia" and "animal" fails to create a line between sapient creatures such as Balto, Pokemon, and/or some others, and two-legged sapient creatures. It's either all zoophilia, or not. Pick one, and stop dictating that there is a real difference when there isn't. It's morally wrong to harass someone for falling in love with a fantasy creature such as a "feral" Pokemon, Balto, or whatever else fits the sapient or sapient like creature category. It's also morally wrong to accuse someone as a "zoophile" for liking sapient feral p*rn. Such a claim is extremely harmful, and is misinformation. Preferring Balto over real animals is harmless. Publicly accusing someone who has such preference a "zoophile" is harmful and it's a form of grooming manipulation to make someone who isn't into real animals think they are a "zoophile" for it. It's a form of abusive behavior.

There are people who likes four-legs and two-legs and doesn't prefer real animals. There are 'zoos' who likes both. There are criminals who liked both. The reasoning why some people like both are the same. Nothing makes two legs and/or a different spine shape back a difference, and it's time to realized this.

Real "zoophilia" involving pure art is about a fully 100% accurate (including head) animal with no sapience. If level of intellegence is hidden, then it should at least be judged by the first part and specific purpose.

 

_________________

Where the images were found, and some or all has been edited after:

baltotrilogy.fandom.com/wiki/B…
zootopia.fandom.com/wiki/Nick_…
hero.fandom.com/wiki/Twilight_…
pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fennek…
knowyourmeme.com/memes/crying-…
imgflip.com/memetemplate/27966…

This article might get updated.

Jacob B. Drama Deal Main Thing

Special Note: Other than this added note, this is a newer edited version of the deal. Usually to make this easier and to maybe clarify I think. I asked first too. Special Note Done

  I am not expecting this to even really work out, especially since I've tried to make or accept deals in the past only to find out that one deal didn't get accepted and to find out one deal got violated from the other person. Won't mention who though. I also want to stress that I'm not having some type of "anxiety" over this. I just want to mainly see if this works, and probably because I was bored.

Also there was a topic about Channeleven and MrSquiggles dealing with this I think, however due to the amount of time waiting, I think it's best to deal with that separately, or added on this page if possible.

Main Message

To be clear, the only reason why I was mentioning Jacob B. a lot, was because he couldn't let go of me. In one example in recent times, I caught him talking crap involving me on a random video against me, including by talking to a random commenter on it. At another recent point I've caught him side-mentioning me on another website toward my friend. On yet, even more recently, I've found him letting that MrSquiggles person know that I've made an article partly about him where I exposed his harassment and bullying toward me (which I partly explained of), and even supported a tumblr filled with some porn, including some very disgusting porn, in which were being used against me. Older times he kept mentioning me, and contacting me with certain alternative accounts (even after blocking some of them) in the older past as well, and couldn't leave me alone on certain places such as Flayrah, F**Affinity, and some other websites. If he wasn't doing this to me, and wasn't harassing people I know, then I don't think I would of bothered mentioning him. He has a life he can enjoy, that doesn't have to involve interfering with other people's lives involving innocent activity, and he could of chose that instead of having focused against us instead. The chance to go in that direction is still there I think, so let's try to go for that.

In this deal, there are some things that isn't required. In terms of opinions, we don't have to agree with our opinions on animated movies, we don't have to agree with our opinions about how criminals should be treated through legal prisons, and we don't have to agree with our opinions about whether what furry certain interest each of us like is wrong or not. We don't even have to agree with a lot of other opinions too. Note that this is about merely agreeing/disagreeing alone. I will still, for example, likely support being against cruel and unusual punishment for many criminals. We are just not going to "force" each other to have the same 'opinion', intending to mean, in thought, on these matters. We don't even need to have to say an apology to each other.

Anyway I'm going to try to make terms of this agreement and have it as mutual as possible.

Requirements

Mentioning Part

We must avoid mentioning each other except for what's in The Non-Requirements Thing somewhere in this article. That applies to direct and indirect. Except for the one exception, we shall not mention our names publicly and non-publicly. This includes going to some topic involving me and mentioning me there and/or talking to a random person to mention me as a way to get such person to hate me, like what maybe happened on that video uploaded by a TheDarkReindeer fan. This mentioning thing includes communication possibilities through like Flayrah, DeviantArt, emailing, and many other communication places. This mentioning thing also includes physical locations.

Just in case 'mentioning' does not include contacting, then we must also not contact each other through certain places such as private contacting, public profiles such as DeviantArt, YouTube, __kBunny, __rAffinity, and many other profiles, and real life. The exception thing here for 'mentioning' applies here too. The '__' is a censoring thing I did. It applies to what was intended to be replaced.

Other than that one exception, we shall also avoid being too specific without direct mentioning (e.g. "There is a certain DeviantArt user who sometimes defends an Alpha and Omega scene and defends the idea that criminals have human rights too.").

The Bullying* Part

While I doubt I was bullying in this drama, and regardless if some of these counts as mentions or not, we shouldn't be bullying each other. No public or private shaming, no insults, and/or no other bullying of individuals living their life in an innocent way. This includes avoiding bullying someone for marrying 'fictional characters' (e.g. telling the person that he's wasting his life for it.).

This is mainly referring to people I know as friends. I still argue don't do that to less related even though that might not exactly be part of this deal.

*This could be subjective, but hopefully one sees what I'm trying to say here.

We Must Respect Our Rights, Ethically and Legally

For example, I am allowed to disagree with many points I don't agree with (e.g. over some review of a lawful movie). I know it depends how one disagrees, though I assume some people seem to have an issue with me making things like this, or that for example. To be clear, you can disagree with my points in those stamps alone if you want. The thing I was talking about is being so-called "called out", like I did a bad thing just by making certain stuff like those two examples, and to me, I found such attempt at calling out non-respectful to our rights.

Another example is respecting our right to enjoy lawful media content, and to let us defend many stuff within those. Even if one finds such media "bad", "mediocre", or any other certain arguments. Reminder that me defending Alpha and Omega specific scenes isn't stopping one from enjoying one's life lawfully, and if one doesn't like the movie and/or certain scenes in it, then I suggest simply don't watch the movie and/or those scenes.

---

Basically a lot of what's listed sometimes might count as a mention anyway.

The Non-Requirements Thing

As already mentioned, we don't have to agree with our views. We don't have to make sure one or the other 'agrees' with a point alone. If a close one had a religious belief I strongly don't agree with, I'm not going to automatically cut away from the person just because of the religious belief, even if I don't agree with it.

We don't have to state an "apology". It would be nice though as long as good, though of course not exactly required.

We don't have to avoid talking or avoid contacting and/or mentioning each other if it's reasonably about this deal, required to talk to each other required by law authority, and/or law reporting. I also don't mind casually talking to each other if we were to agree on something typically random, but I recommend we avoid that part. Merely private mention to an outside party outside is fine if it's following the same rules earlier in this paragraph. Technical broad indirect included mentioning alone doesn't violate this deal. Example, "I don't like Alpha and Omega fans." is fine. "reasonably about this deal" is intended to mean wondering about the deal in certain ways, like saying for example: "Wonder if he will follow through? I hope he follows the deal.". "Another-Realm is a furry loser incel but I hope the deal follows" is an example that is not alright.

I don't think we have to delete certain specific stuff mentioning us. e.g. (that one blog article. That one hate art video.), despite that, we must obviously (as mentioned already I think) avoid making more of it, including any further promoting activity toward them. Exceptions of this: Law reporting and/or working to help stop crime. Promoting the deal article here is fine. Looking in certain stuff even if it gains a view is likely fine (I'm trying to make this this easier).

Calling out friends for harassment and/or other bad thing(s)*. E.g. calling out a hate video uploaded by what may be a friend of the people that is part of this deal. So like if your friend harasses me and/or calls me a "wolf f***er" all because I liked furry v*re of some anthropomorphic wolf, I'm still going to call that out as victims have a right to lawfully stand up for themselves, even if they were not perfect themselves in past. I can't avoid speaking out against something that harms, and/or tries to harm me.

*Bad thing(s) is intended to mean stuff like going against people enjoying harmless and non-threatening content such as lawful p*rn (e.g. lawful feral porn assuming possible), publicly shaming people for defending a lawful movie, falsely accusing people, death threats, death wishing, threatening illegal activity, witch-hunting against the right to exist online, and/or any other thing that ethically and/or illegally disrespects our rights.

Checking out certain pages of us, especially if it's to check on each other to make sure the deal is followed.

Accidentally doing what's forbidden on this deal doesn't violate the deal.

Of course there are likely a lot of things not listed here not required. I guess this stuff is closer to being about being clear and has one main thing where there are exceptions involving the mention and another thing involving the accidentally thing, for both of us of course.

That One Callout Article

I've said in the past that I'm not so sure about deleting that, but mentioned I could save it as draft. Due to worrying about losing some feedback, I think the drafting thing isn't the best idea, however I believe that 'editing' the page by replacing it all with a message about why might work. That way I can still keep some of the feedback on it and if things don't work out, I can restore it maybe.

Though this isn't a clear promise. Basically I think that it's something that could be earned. If Jacob B. decides to private the videos toward me (though I don't much care about them currently existing alone), and showed some regret to a lot of the things he's done, then I'll have more likelihood to do it. If this deal gets accepted by Jacob B., then I will at least likely make a note of it on that one article.

I'm still worried about changing it to hide that main thing as I fear I could be indirectly aiding a possible future of bad behavior by hiding it. So I might do it when I get good faith, but it might be a while. If I do see Jacob victimize yet another person or tries to go after an already known victim, I might have to bring it back up.

_____________

Anyway, that's the deal with some commentary attached. It's partly about stopping the mentioning drama. I suggest forgiveness if something here was violated only if it's more of a misunderstanding. There might be some cases that if done on purpose, a chance of re-doing the deal might be open but it's no promise. This deal will activate if I see acceptance of such deal coming from the other person.

There is no intention to be breaking the law with this article. Any error damaging the purpose of this deal can be dealt with appropriately.

Jacob B. Sends Link to Explicit Fictional CP

|If you see any link leading to this kind of stuff, report it properly.|

Note that I mean a certain person who used the word "Jacob" in one of his username. Note Done

After exposing a bit of what MrSquiggles has done, Jacob started it against with me claiming that I somehow live rent free in MrSquiggles head, even though it is (or was) the other way around. After talking about it a bit, he updated the comment and sent an archive link to MrSquiggles tumblr (do not go there), which contained links to many cases of pornography including at least two fictional pictures of explicit child p*** of fictional characters from the Mario series.

I have reported the archive(s) to what I assume is the head of it by the way. I have recorded Jacob's comment in a video, and have reported the link as sharing porn. Jacob/lame865/tribond kuba, -many usernames- has made many f*** ups in his life, and this one was a big low. He's an enabler of a person who stalks me with so much hate porn, including fictional CP, and has even promoted it on his public YouTube video. He's a seriously f***ed up person as far as I can tell.

You better remove that comment Jacob, it will only get worse if you don't. Same with any of your other place(s) where you shared that same link. Not sure why I didn't bother addressing that one. I guess it didn't come to mind.

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/03/mrsquiggles-creepy-mentally-derranged.html

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/01/jacobs-disturbing-obsession-with-me.html

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-insane-user-that-is-tribond-kuba.html

MrSquiggles - A Creepy Mentally Deranged Individual

Note: "MrSquiggles" might be connected with people and/or things unrelated with this person I'm intending to talk about. Note Done

Edited picture of one of MrSquiggles's art.

So, I was looking around, and noticed this creepy person ended up commenting on a certain video from late 2021, and well, this creep doesn't seem much changed. As a victim of MrSquiggles here, I have a right to stand up about this. It's clearly my business in a way...

Apparently this person is acting like I never learned from my "errors", without even trying to be clear on what these so-called "errors" were. Yes, this person. This person who had a crap-ton of errors himself. Why am I calling this person a creep? Oh boy! It's gonna be a juicy one, and I want to use this as yet another example to show why I was never the main enemy here.

Apparently I feel like this person sort of got away with the awful sh** (that he's hiding too) he's done to me. Years ago, these were one of the anti-wwwarea/anti-another-realm fanatics, and apparently this person has been causing harassment on DeviantArt. At this one time, the person uploaded hate art against me. I reported it, then it was taken down. This person apparently didn't agree so he did the one thing a not so smart person would probably do, he reuploaded the image. After it was reuploaded, the admin took it down. You know what he did after? He uploaded it again, then it got taken down. This was probably the last one being the trigger for him being banned from DeviantArt. He was one of those people who was against me standing up for other people enjoying harmless and non-threatening stuff if I remembered right.

At some point, perhaps after getting his alternative account (I think it had something to do with a T-Rex) on DeviantArt banned for ban-evasion, he started having this insane stalking interest against me. This was perhaps the biggest, and creepy anti-wwwarea or "anti-another-realm" stalking to ever happen in history on this planet. The person even admitted to doing it for over a year if I remembered right. Here is this picture to show an example of his stalking. I don't think he admitted here though. Not sure if I saved that.

The person was devoting pretty much his entire time and effort to making countless hate arts against me, even to the point of using fictional child p*** against me as hate.

A lot of the hate arts were uploaded on his tumblr account. I tried to report the CP thing, but had trouble getting the staff to do anything about it. Not sure if they actually removed it though.

At one point, he even expressed his hatred by making an FA account pretending to be me in such a perverted nature. Please note that I had a persona of some kind, which was some dark colored man with a black hat. I think I was using an art style inspired by a classic detective filter, I think.

Noticed the links, showing how much of a creep this person is, plus this account, the tumblr thing, the edited arts, that kind of stuff.

Sadly I didn't get a good picture of the edited pictures he uploaded. But I do remember him admitting that a lot of the hate art jokes was out of hatred, acting like I deserved it or something like that. A lot of them were vore related. He was attacking me for a fetish I didn't even ask to have involving certain anthropomorphic wolves.

Anyway, I sadly didn't get a whole lot. It's a shame, but hopefully this article will properly get bigger. I feel like one of the reasons why I had a lot of people going after me was because I had a big mouth calling out a lot of bad behavior back then. Seeing these screw ups shows that I was targeting many people that clearly wasn't innocent...

 

Special Update

It appears that my deranged disgusting degenerate stalker (The Jacob/lame865 person) has updated MrSquiggles about this, claiming that I'm living rent free in MrSquiggles head now. Apparently this degenerate is literally once again, twisting the information around just because I exposed a person (who is also an enabler of Jacob) that clearly stalked me in a strongly disturbing way for over a year.

 

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-insane-user-that-is-tribond-kuba.html

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/01/jacobs-disturbing-obsession-with-me.html 

Special Update Done

Special Update 2

https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/03/jacob-sends-link-to-explicit-fictional.html 

Special Update 2 Done

______

Article will likely get updated.

For Victims of Jacob B/Tribond Kuba (Some Other Ones Too), Lawfully Share Your Story!

Jacob B. (also Tribond Kuba, Lame865, and many more), none to be confused with actual brand names, is a disgusting degenerate who bullies many furries (even though he's a "cringy" furry himself), insults people, tells people to die, threatened indirect violence, threatened to "DDOS" that one exposing article, contributed to false info toward some people (me included), a direct harasser, indirect harasser, made disgusting sexual insults toward a person, gives out the lie that he respects free speech while proceeding to silence and telling people to shut up, a stalker, a liar, and many other crap.

I encourage victims and those that were targets but are considered non-victims (assuming that's a real idea) to lawfully share their story on here about this degenerate. I have enabled the comments on this blogger article as well, and will likely many comments will be sent to the moderation area, which I will likely approve from anyone that isn't Jacob B.

Please look at these two articles. He's been exposed a lot as well:

The Insane User That Is Tribond Kuba (GoldBond7, wazzala9, PringlesPizza, bonbourn, eneloop1, SpeedStick, and many more) 

 

Jacob's Disturbing Obsession With Me 

________________________

At least one of the blog articles here has been easily found on Google, by trying to search some info about him.

In the victim and target list, anyone listed here can request change and/or removal to me by commenting on this blogger about it. I recommend here or the other article on this blogger. Here is this pasted thing:

Mainly Victim List

Some of these are people he went after badly. Though some may not have suffered as much to be labeled as victims (LadyNanako less sure of for example), but still Jacob has attempted to cause suffering.

People he went after and/or continued terribly with:

Another-Realm/SpaceOmega5000 (me) | Obsessed for about 5 years, with insults, illegal threat, attempting to get people to hate me, badly stalks, joins mob-mentalities against me, and direct harassment.

HSJProductions | Obsessed for about 1-2 years, with insults, telling him he wastes his money, racist toward him (e.g. "indian wolfaboo" or whatever it was), has a problem with the person enjoying victimless and non-threatening content.

LadyNanako | Got called out by LadyNanako when Jacob B. started drama against me on her profile, then Jacob B. eventually insulted her with sexual insults, to the point of threatening that he puts people like he in hospitals, and has told her to get several illnesses like cancer, and covid, and then told her to die in a way. | I don't think this got to her, but it does show what Jacob B. is willing to do.

Mister Snakebite | Tried kinkshaming him, insulting him, aided and abeded some friends or his own alternative accounts to insult his family, told him to cut-himself, blackmailed him, and posted a map of his home town on his YT channel. Jacob B. also claimed he knows where Mister Snakebite lives.

Zach Coley | Tried to go after him on a Fanpop profile. Though it doesn't look like much to me, so I'm way less sure if I should list this here. 

GreenReaper  | Got triggered over GreenReaper calling him out likely for him using VPNs to comment and vote, went back and kept commenting against GreenReaper while probably GreenReaper deleting his harassing comments. Usually likes to call him a loser I think. I was noticing this almost 4 months after GreenReaper called him out.

End of pasting.
Article will likely get updated...

Jacob's Disturbing Obsession With Me

EDITORS NOTE: I removed the inkb*nney links due to fear of legality in specific countries. EDITED DONE.

Do I really need to make this personally? I already made this main page here showing some of the obsessive behavior, but I guess it's still a good idea to make a single page focusing way more on the obsessive behavior, and probably "triggered" attitude, coming from Jacob (Tribond Kuba, and many other usernames). Part of the reason why is because he's recently been acting out on his hatred toward me, and that includes him trying to twist information up by him claiming that I'm the one who's mainly obsessed with him when that's not the case. I caught him first starting it with me in public.

It is true that I was focused on him a lot in the past, but looking back, it is only because Jacob won't allow me to move on out of his life. He usually tries to get into my life and has been doing so yearly. As I said, the blog article mainly exposing him (which he got very triggered by a lot) shows that. I guess it's time to focus on this obsession story mainly alone on here. I want to help bring awareness that I'm not some paranoid crazy "conspiracy" nutcase who is obsessed with people who are not obsessed with me I guess.

Jacob B.'s Propaganda

Jacob B., also known as Tribond Kuba, lame865, and many other usernames, has been obsessed with me far back as even into 2017 and has sometimes been bypassing the block system on DeviantArt complaining about what I usually like to share (having nothing to do with him). He's been banned several times, but he comes back like a tumor, somewhat similar for certain patients. He often has been insulting me, attacking people who is on my side, and has been trying so hard to get people to hate me online. His ultimate goal is to get after me, to make me lose, to get so much people to hate me in public. He has a propaganda against me. He has no respect to many basic human rights, which is an example of him being a degenerate, which doesn't change no matter how much he tries to claim that I'm one.

He's been more recently obsessed with me over and over again in recent years, coming up with childish "wolfaboo" insults, diabetes insults, and many other insults. He personally attacks a lot of people for being into a lot of harmless and non-threatening stuff (usually furry related) while at the same time he has a fetish for a bunch of furry characters (usually dragon characters). There were so many problems with this person that it's really hard to list them all, but in the end, he's been against me moving on in life with some of the things I like. He also probably severely attacks people who calls him out for such discriminating behavior. For example, he attacked a women with sexual insults, and has gone to the point of telling her to die with playing in traffic suggestions and trying to encouraging the person to get serious illnesses like covid, mainly because the person called Jacob out for his behavior.

He also acts like he's just "trolling" (not that it makes it excusable), and act as if he's never been obsessed with me, which isn't true. He also acts like he's not "triggered" even though there is so much evidence suggesting that he is. As I already tried to show on the other article, I might as well show a lot of examples of this on here (mainly reusing pictures that I already had uploaded).

Examples of Jacob's Obsession (Likely Without Order)

Ignore the edited arrow thing. Pretty sure it's him.

Alpha_and_Omega is my account, SpeedStick is his account.

His triggered comment reacting to one of my stamps. (Eneloop1 is one of Jacob's account)

Him admitting to looking at that "wwwarea" DA profile, suggesting he keeps checking it even when it's not active much.

Pretty much right after one of his accounts getting banned from DeviantArt.

Examples of Him Being 'Triggered' (Likely Without Order)

Note that some of the stuff above me may be examples of him already being triggered, but this will focus on him being triggered mainly anyway. 

He usually keeps making triggered comments in reactions to some commentary about him, even simple small ones too. For example, he's made a lot of comments (including threatening of DDOS) to the article exposing him, showing how mad he's is, even though he mainly did this to himself. He's EASILY triggered, by a lot!

A small example of many of his triggered comments, pending.

Him being triggered by my comment calling him by exposing his hypocrisy and desire of DA suing him for evading bans for like, I don't know, 20 and some more F*CKING times. His triggered feelings in that picture was also a reaction to what was going on here and probably that main article update. Also the insane amount of hypocrisy this fraud (Jacob B.) has.

Jacob B. getting triggered for being called out by website owner of Flayrah.

I think this was pretty much right after website owner dealing with this ass a bit. I could not see the comment since I think the owner deleted it before I got to it. So I just have the email notification.

Pretty much right after he got one of his "countless" accounts banned from DeviantArt. This is also an example of him being obsessed with me (aka, me living "rent free" in his head, assuming I got that right).

Just to further clarify the banning thing.

These are the examples I will provide for now. There are a CRAP TON more examples I did not provide here. It would just be too damn big to me if I keep going on with it.

 

One Big Example of Him LYING and REFUSING to Leave Me Out of His Life

Even to this day, this creep still has a major obsession with me, and at the same time, he's trying to hide that fact and then telling me in public that I'm the one obsessed with him, and he's pretending to be a victim claiming, and I quote, "Seriously, it's 2022, I want NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU." (comment here)-linkedremoved.

Jacob B. pretending to be a victim, acting as if he never dragged me in his life at all.

Further snapshot showing why he's still obsessed:

Caught him still being obsessed with me with crap, on an main archive video against me talking mainly crap toward me.

Trying to randomly tell people crap toward me under the same video.

After exposing it, this is what he eventually did to his channel...:

Even though it's the other way around in terms of the head thing. He also did something kinda similar to his other channel. Then eventually it was changed. Cowardly? Google maybe taking action? Another reason? I don't know.

Eventually later, he was still acting up on his obsession toward me, which brings us to the Inkb*nny thing where he pretends to be a victim.

This is him harassing my friend and mentioning me yet again:

While that was him still showing his obsession with me and starting it, here is yet another thing that might be a little older and another time, sort of...

Note the racist insult here.

And with the fact that he showed intention of this main article being taken down, to the point of threatening illegal activity toward it (which he claims he was "trolling"), he's even trying to hide the truth and lying to the public.

Also, around the same time, involving the "Seriously, it's 2022, I want NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU." thing, I tried to offer him to end the drama, if he doesn't want me mentioning him with this:

"Also one more thing to Jacob B.:
https://www.deviantart.com/comments/1/903876816/4963897140

Read it if you are so serious with "Seriously, it's 2022, I want NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU."."

But surprise surprise, he doesn't take it.

Him not bothering with it, which is not surprising knowing his "nature" involving me.

Then I commented:

"To Jacob B.:
Listen here Jacob, if you want me to "stay out of your life", then you need to do the same thing. If you keep mentioning me, directly bothering me, and/or some other thing that involves me, then you will get the consequence of me calling it out, which is how the real-world works partly. You can't expect to start sh*t with other people and then be free from the consequence of that. I have the evidence that I live rent free in your head, and you can't hide it. It's really not that f*cking hard stay out of my life...

Ignoring some of your other comments, as for DA, I don't run the website, however it's clear that you lost the right to join judging by the some of the admin power behavior, and I was simply trying to give you advice if you want to come back allowed."

Then what does he do?

He really doesn't want to move on from me...

Finally, to maybe wrap this one thing, here is him being triggered and showing yet again, more obsession toward me by posting a sad YT childish video. after I been calling him out on that Inkb*nny thread. 1. 2.two-links removed.

He's so triggered that he went full "NO U" with the further lying attitude acting as if he's the one being obsessed with by me, and yet he stole the meme idea making fun of him.

No "Jacob B." or whoever you are, YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM.

It's very clear that I'm the one living "rent free" in his head.

And while I don't want to look like I'm being forceful, or whatever it's called if that's not it, I think it's safe to say that the case is closed here.

_____________________

Article might get updated.