Zrcalo Has Gone Too Far, but Same With TransphobicLss

There has been some drama and serious stories involving someone known as Zrcalo (main name, I assume) and if I'm reading right, there has been exposure of such person as being into minors, doxxing victims, claims of supporting bad specific people, promoting suicide, and specific other bad stuff. There was also a part (but I don't think is enough as being a predator itself) where I hear there was "jokes" that went way beyond "Adult Swim" humor.

Here is an example video that addresses maybe some of his behavior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFaDzCB7l0

A group account known as TransphobicLss has done some exposing about some of the behavior, and I can maybe be thankful to that as it can be important whenever a person is still a threat. I don't fully agree with everything, but that doesn't mean I have to dismiss everything about it because of so. I prefer to have my own opinions on this matter.

Despite some things, there are indeed moments where I find TransphobicLss going a bit too far at times and I think, TransphobicLss really should be criticized for some things. I unlikely mean to come at such group of people as some kind of typical "EXPOSURE" type treatment, but more of one of those civil criticisms to some of the things that brought to my attention. Note that I probably won't exactly try to address every disagreement (for example, I don't agree that it's wrong for the 18 year old "Shark" (Aiya mainly) to use a good account as a distraction away from animals, after all, how it's managed might be debatable), but I would rather focus on some dangerous arguments and with likely no date order.

In one main highlight, I find TransphobicLss does lead on to focusing too much that it leans to 'stalking' someone and at times try to expose some as way more bad as to what they really are, and while I don't know Aiya well, I did hear he's a teenager and I feel like 24-7 stalking of him might in itself be a form of abuse, and considering 18 is not a magic number for age. This isn't to say that it was wrong to expose certain things, just I would rather be a bit careful about it. It's a bit complicated.

---

In one post, there has been an accusation saying that Aiya is as bad as Zrcalo, and the only claims of reasoning I've seen was that Aiya was said to be promoting zoosadism and "grooming" (I'm really skeptical of this one, which at one point later down here might show my reasoning). The other reasoning was that this person was 'talking' to a specific person and had some kind of manipulation similar to Zrcalo.

I have to disagree. Zrcalo did a LOT of things such as doxxing victims, likely 'orbiting' a minor, and so much more. In this involving Aiya, all I'm likely seeing is possibly a solicitation of likely a lesser thing (that I am unclear of, it doesn't show a lot of context), a mere talk with a specific person (which isn't really an offense if I recall right) and some kind of possible attitude with emotion which is probably nowhere near as bad as Zrcalo. I think it's unfair to use this to suggest that he's equally as bad considering Zrcalo did so much more worse things. The reason why I cared about this is because Aiya is a teenager who is still underdeveloped, was groomed (I think), and while a victim still has the possibility of being an abusive person alone, that still doesn't change that this is likely falsely accusing him to get more and more people to hate such person. I think that's not a really good way of dealing with a person that needs professional treatment. Remember too, just because he's guilty of something doesn't mean we should be abusive about it.

---

---

During another part of TransphobicLss, there was some accusation against something as "grooming" when it likely isn't. One of them involved making r*pe jokes involving minors. It was a bit hard to tell if the person was literally saying that it's grooming by itself. The person also likely suggested that it wasn't "Adult Swim" humor because not even Adult Swim makes blatant jokes like this (I can somewhat agree that yes, it's too far too). There was also a claim maybe that it wasn't even a joke... However this person did something that further suggested that making a joke about p*dophilia around minors is the same as grooming and even went on to liking a Tweet arguing that 'Adult Swim humor' cannot be shown to kids (during a topic of people that was included in 14-17) with a very bad poor argument saying that kids go to bed too soon as an attempt to justify that a program that partly allows minors 14 and up is exclusively to adults.

https://twitter.com/TransphobicLss/status/1617260949949546496 

The Tweet that was liked in question...

This in my opinion was one of those most silliest and dangerous things I've ever heard (mainly the tweet TransphobicLss liked). Why do I care, even though I even found the exact jokes too far too and knowing Zrcalo is still a bad person? Because it's extremely concerning to call something that many adults do online and on certain shows a "groomer" for this. This is sort of equivalent to calling a parent a "groomer" because they let their 15 (or even 12) year old watch an episode of Family Guy. Not only that, but Adult Swim is not only mainly TV 14, so many minors actually usually stay up until 12 AM and Adult Swim can even be accessed mostly any time on the official app. There are even many parents that let many teenagers watch it. I'm pretty sure I was one of the kids that were allowed to watch it. I am not going to call my parents "groomers" because of that... The creators of say, Family Guy knows that many teenagers will see their show (which even has p3dophile jokes in it) as they likely know about this, intentionally lowers the age rating with some censorship, and still proceeds to publish it.

To say that someone making an "Adult Swim humor" style joke without actually being into minors* in front of 16 year olds, is committing predatory behavior, is not only insanely ridiculous but this is exactly the same as accusing thousands and thousands of creators who didn't feel like they needed to censor strictly their lawful media knowing certain ages will likely see it. It can be debatable whether one thing can be 'appropriate' or not for some ages to see, but to force an overly strict idea and then accusing someone as predators or "groomers" over something like that, is morally questionable... There are so many people online who were following content strictness rules and law but didn't act as strict, and to argue they are predators because they didn't feel like they needed to limit some of their stuff as 18+ only when the rules and law didn't require that is a bit too far. Also there is PG-13 certain movies, T-rated certain games too. Even certain MA 17 games... Are the creators of those predators too by default? Are the parents who suggested one of these a predator? *Note: This is more scenario. Zrcalo might actually be into actual minors. This is strictly more focused as a separate point.

Maybe making an Adult Swim "style" (e.g. Herbert careful sensitive joke?) joke in front of 16 year olds might be considered too far by many? I don't know and maybe I need to know, but I do believe there is a very big difference between someone who mentioned a debate, joke, or maybe somewhat adult desire, lightly mentioning sex as a topic without restricting it to 18+ and not caring if minors will see it, than someone who is actually attracted to minors and is trying to act s*xually in front of them for pl*asure reasons or trying to meet them. If it really turns out that it's too far all this time involving people who were never attracted to children, then can we please at least just not treat these people like they are a threat to children over it? A parent who let a 7 year old watch Family Guy could improve but still shouldn't be treated like an actual predator for it still.

---

---

In another post, there was strange arguments about a specific company (*** Dragon) that makes certain products and while I don't remember seeing that this person went against a such company, I still want to say that it's ridiculous to go after many furries who purchased some of these because of moral panic feelings about zo*philia or one of the creators. I don't know if this deserves a highlight, but I guess I'll allow it.

---

---

I think I remembered something else but I can't remember so I'll just mention that there may have been an accusation of someone by claiming the person was dating a minor like the person was a p3dophile. At first it sounds reasonable, but then it was said there was a two-year age gap, which isn't p3dophilia... I also heard the person made a specific topic too open, but I don't think that's evidence of a person by definition being p3dophilie. Remember, a parent technically exposing a 7 year old to an episode of Family Guy (while that is too far because of rating requirement) was more of a stupid action, and can be something shamed, but that doesn't justify treating the parent like they are automatically a p3dophile who can't see their kids anymore...

---

_______

Whenever I see the "canceling" side of furry. I have often seen a lot of questionable things so far. I have an extreme hatred to a lot of the culture as a lot of that part of furry has often gone too far and prefer a socialist style fandom. Some even going against four-legged anthropomorphic animals doing smut because of LEGS while still supporting something being exactly the same psychological nature (It's either all that or not), but I can probably still see some good in this account despite some mixed feelings, so I won't exactly view this as one of those accounts (like the account that partly "exposed" KaimTime for having some 'feral' NSFW account), for now...

I wish this person could stop coming up with weird moral ideas because I think stuff like that is what drives concerning specific individuals away. I feel like this person overly exposes people, likes terribly and dangerous Tweets, and heard this person wanted people in prison over a victimless fictional specific outlet (I mean yeah, it's concerning but prison for victimless is still too far). I also think the person needs to be careful about how they handle bad people directly other than what I already mentioned. At the moment, I won't entirely give up on this individual(s), but I'm not sure how long that will last.

I also want to suggest someone in that account to make a better and lawful document on Zrcalo bringing up very big highlights that are for sure, predatory behavior, including the doxxing thing, death wishing, promotion of suicide (was even to a victim I think), and probably some other very serious stuff. If the r*pe jokes need to be brought up, I would rather show concern if the person is being so serious with it in some way or share the argument that it's not appropriate to explicitly make jokes like that in front of minors (because like I said, I do believe that went too far in another way). Right now the account is a big mess. Many of the very serious stuff is usually being buried. I would rather have a nice clean and lawful document (it would be a nutshell maybe in comparison) re-exposing a lot of the horrible stuff.

Maybe I'm missing a few points and I don't mind a healthy debate here. Disclaimer: I don't think I am a friend of Zrcalo, or Aiya, not that it matters. Sometimes I find some random stories online and might notice some interesting things.

Article might get updated.

Bunch of Furries Are Possibly Responisible for Animal Abusive Behavior

  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.

 

A while back ago, there has been a bunch of evidence suggesting Kero The Wolf (A large known 'furry') is guilty of zoosadism. One behavior was deadly to the animal, and there were specific other offenses involved. As someone who has a care for many animals, I certainly wouldn't trust such a person to be around my pets, and seeing how he has shown no regret for his actions he did to those animals, I can see and understand a lot of concern involving this individual.

For some reason, some people's ways of handling him, just stinks. For some weird, strange, and somewhat mind boggling reason, some furries are acting like they can gatekeep the fandom (they literally aren't allowed to do that due to human rights) and seem to act as if him being "in" the fandom is somehow the ultimate crime and that the ultimate goal seems to be that he should be witch hunted out of it, as if that will solve the problem. It's as these people seem to forget the fact that he's outside of prison still, still has no evidence of him being fixed (getting proper treatment, which is destroying his evil desires from inside), making him still a threat, and is possibly around real animals. I sometimes wonder if these furries even really care about real animals, or cares about clout and/or wants to protect an 'image' that doesn't even exist? When I see an individual being a threat to animals, I really don't give a rat's ass about him being a furry. I would care how risky it is involving him being outside of a proper facility, it's not him being technically part of a specific community that nobody owns and isn't itself a real place.

If I had to care about him being online, the only risk I can really see is that he might start finding other people online to aid offensive behavior involving animals and/or contact finding more animals. Him leaving a certain fandom having nothing to do with real animals, isn't going to fix that problem. If I was worried about him existing online, I would be worried about him being around the wrong people. This could either be him having a large enough platform (furry or not), possibly finding the wrong places in private, and/or probably one or more than one other things. If he wants to be a furry so badly, but prefer him doing so safely with good people alone lawfully, then I don't think I would care.

Am I saying that he should come back to main online when he's still a threat? No. Despite that, I mainly just don't get the obsession with trying to kick him out of a place that has nothing to do with real animals, as if that will break apart the entire surface. People in the fandom are not anymore or less morally obligated to do something right about him than anyone outside of the fandom and these people need to realize that going after Kero's innocent's interest (such as him being furry) is not magically going to save animals or restore what happened, and you know what? It might just make it worse to do so.

Are Furries Pushing Him Into Re-Offending?

When dealing with bad people, society has a type of responsibility as to how they handle it, similar to how prisons do. Science clearly shows that psychological effects from other people are real, and it's been proven that if you treat criminals like animals, they will less likely be fixed and have a higher chance of reoffending (here is an interesting video). There has been evidence for this involving prisons, and there has been evidence suggesting how main society treats a specific group of people actually increases the risk of further abusing. -article 1- -article 2- These are mainly examples, of course, but they do go in favor of this theory involving specific individuals not in prison and not on some registry.

Some might argue that the criminals in prison are different because they are in prison. Remember, they do release many people eventually, so the chance of re-offending outside of prison due to past-treatment is obviously there and therefor can be compared with social issues dealing with certain other people outside of prison. There might also be indirect effects from what happens in prisons too.

For a while, I have often seen god-awful responses to how they handled Kero, and recently I've seen some furries on Twitter stooping down to a low level by intentionally promoting harassment by asking people to bully Kero, and even going out of the way to even shame people for refusing to engage (so much for nazi-free furry fandom). This right here is what ticked me off as someone that believes in human rights and realizes this type of trash likely pushes certain people into re-offending. If this was just an alert that Kero simply changed his appearance online for example, then I would care way less.

In my theory, I would argue that these types of furries are responsible for animal abusive behavior. I have argued this with some people and it seems they can't understand the problem. Perhaps I blame Twitter for making it hard to explain... I'll explain here...

The Main Issue?

I would like to remind that just because a person is currently a threat, doesn't mean rehabilitation isn't possible. They are a threat, so enough restriction must be obligated and that may be fair, at the same time, they MUST be treated properly and legally. If you handle it wrong, then you become responsible for the reaction of said person wrongly. If you leave less room for improvement, then you have accelerated the push of him possibly re-offending. Remember Norway prisons? They are to take in people believed to currently be a threat, and because rehabilitation is possible, they must treat them fairly while they are restricted enough. If they get treated like crap, they will more likely react negatively to the treatment. They will likely respond with more hatred too. Remember, many of these people do get released eventually.

Now it is true that Kero still has too much freedom, possibly online too. If he's too free while a threat, it's not like welcoming him back with open arms is going to much solve anything too. Yeah, I don't think it will save animals from him either. I want to point out that I'm not exactly trying to argue that we should completely welcome him back at this moment. It's mainly just that when one responds negatively to bad people, one needs to be careful, especially when they aren't that restricted in real life.

A good example response would be warning about him while he's a threat, criticizing him arguing that he's a threat and shouldn't be around animals, while encouraging him to get professional good treatment by arguing that he can get another chance at society if he puts in the right effort. Warning pet stores about him would be a good idea too.

A bad example response would be sending him death threats, doxxing him for vigilante reasons, strongly discouraging proper treatment by saying anything that means "Even if you changed, you can't come back!", and/or telling him to die. - One of these or more than one of these not only push him away from getting proper treatment, it likely creates simulation of hatred, causing him to hate other people more, possibly making him prefer staying away from getting proper treatment. That type of stuff is a complicit.

Remember, Kero the Wolf is still too free. He's not in a proper prison as far as I know, so the way he's treated is likely going to have an even larger impact involving animals (and maybe even humans too) while he's still free. There might be a chance that the good example might not fully be enough to fix the problem alone (clearly there has to be a better handling), however that doesn't change the fact that treating him wrongly likely causes him to offend faster, which is still a complicit.

Some people seem to have this idea that fully welcoming Kero back would somehow be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. There is also the idea that poorly handling Kero will also be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. You can't pick only one to be concerned about in this situation. It also doesn't matter what you call those poor handling, whether one calls it "consequences" or "justice", it won't change how debatable they are.

_____________

NUTSHELL KINDA: If you want to call out Kero assuming he's a threat, do it right. Warn people about him, tell him to get proper treatment, report any criminal activity to law, warn certain pet stores, have big main media places ban him. There can be other good things to do involving him too. If you only did one of these things for example, it's still better than nothing I guess.

Also, certain furries need to stop weirdly going after neutral furries for wanting nothing to do with it assuming the law doesn't make them do so. If people are allowed to not join the police force, then I'm pretty damn sure furries are not obligated to specially be part of special predator hunting. I'm not interested into being an active predator hunter (but I might have some sayings intentionally for the better like this main article). As long as I am not responsible for causing anyone doing harmful things, leave me out of it. I've seen some 'hunters' call out wrong people, promoting harassment, and some is anti-"feral" (don't even get me started on that one). My hatred to that side of furry cancel culture is high, even if there was some good things in it.

_____________
Article might get updated.