the Zoo Community Pledge

Venue for public, uncensored, honest, constructive conversations amongst zoophiles worldwide; we proudly follow the Zoo Community Pledge #lgbtz | info@zooish.net
User avatar
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 17:21
Location: ~ in the throne room of the mountain gods ~

the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby Fausty » 16 Mar 2013 06:21

There's one more thing to consider when you're posting here at cultureghost, in the zooish.net subforum. It's called the Zoo Community Pledge - the ZCP - and we've adhered to it for more than five years. It reads as follows:


    This forum explicitly rejects the use of outing or threats of outing of other zoos as an acceptable method of interpersonal disagreement in the zoo community; those who out or threaten to out are not welcome here.

    This forum will act to remove any posts that out or threaten to out other zoos, and we will notify the intended target of such acts so that they can protect themselves more effectively; those who make such posts are not welcome here.

    This forum is not to be used for generating, nurturing, or distributing hate - either of other zoos or of non-zoos. Those who create and spread hate are not welcome here.


Attachment:
zetapledge_small.gif
zetapledge_small.gif (10.77 KiB) Viewed 1270 times


Most folks are already pretty familiar with the ZCP, the history of how it was developed, and why it's so important. If you're not, and you're curious... just ask & we'll dig into it. But it should be pretty self-explanatory, eh?

Note that the ZCP doesn't, for example, protect zoophobic bigots from being "outed" as to their true identities if they've tried to hide behind fake names: that's exactly the sort of thing the DeepJustice Network does, proudly so. Is that "promulgating hate?" We don't think so. But that could be a fine line, true enough. And if you think DeepJustice is going over that line, make your argument here.

That can get complex if, for example, we're considering Randy Pepe, i.e. "zoobuster" - is he covered by the ZCP, or not? Good question. Start a thread on it, and we can discuss if you want to.

That's about it. Question or whatever, post 'em here.

~ F
founding CTO: Baneki Privacy Labs | co-founder: DeepJustice Network | co-founder: cultureghost
co-founder: DeepSymbiosis Institute | contributor: Cross Species Alliance


"From the dew of the few flakes that melt on our faces, we cannot reconstruct the snowstorm."
    ~ John Updike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

User avatar
Posts: 303
Joined: 14 Mar 2013 02:58
Location: The Edge of Time Sez'ere

Re: the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby GalacticLlama » 16 Mar 2013 16:30

The threat of outing...

Kinda ironic isn't it? Think about that for a moment...

One guy telling another guy that if he doesn't toe the line, his private life will be broadcast (as though that must entail some terribly evil thing) even when the guy threatening to do the outing likely has just as much to lose (in the present western social climate) by being outed themselves.

That denotes such an extreme level of self-hatred it's uncanny.

"If you don't be good and do what you're told then I'll tell the normals you're not normal because their judgment is better than scum such as ourselves and matters more than scum such as ourselves. Their mere opinion counts for more than the very lives of our families. Who cares if another zoo commits suicide or gets arrested or if their family is murdered by the glorious normals...It's normals who have the final say and they're always (omnipotent) right so BOW DOWN BEFORE THEM or else I'll make you."

Really. That's what the threat of outing really translates too in my opinion.

That's one sick and twisted puppy we got there.
Tech | Socio-Culture | OrganicMedicine | Artdev
"Is life just a game where we make up the rules while we're searching for something to say..." -- Monty Python

User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 08:46

Re: the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby DeepJustice » 30 Mar 2013 09:02

GalacticLlama wrote:
That's one sick and twisted puppy we got there.


Indeed. As are his apologists. This, from 2007:

Attachment:
Bernard welcomes Pepe back in 2007.jpg

User avatar
Posts: 303
Joined: 14 Mar 2013 02:58
Location: The Edge of Time Sez'ere

Re: the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby GalacticLlama » 30 Mar 2013 22:24

ASAIRS

...This can't be after ASAIRS

...After the laundry basket

...After providing false witness and profiles of everybody else just because he himself is a piece of shit

...Were there not radio talk shows also

When I mess up, I might drop things and let them slide - even when they're important...but do I take everything I've been entrusted with and exploit that trust vested in me to intentionally fuck up every life around me? And all the lives that depend on those lives? Of course not. Who in their right mind would, right?

"Randy" went out of his way to ruin the lives of two and four leggers alike. He made a protracted and concerted effort over the course of years to inflict as much damage as he was possibly capable of creating. He erected propaganda websites, prostrated himself and basked in the faux loving embrace of "normals" who commended his new ideals to rat out everybody he knew and smear them.

Fuck "Randy". I'm no saint but my fucking word...fuck that guy.

It's been a number of years but I seem to remember he possessed some degree of skill with sculpting; he seemed to have an appreciation for artifacts and materials. He had a choice and did not choose a path of art, creativity or introspection that may well have redeemed him. He instead choose to intentionally inflict wanton destruction with the full knowledge that lives were at stake.

If that doesn't matter to Bernard then one is forced to wonder "what the fuck is up with that"?

Bernard wrote:
..."didn't want to know... anything else current about him"... -- Bernard


"Oh Randy is just a naughty-naughty. That's just the way he is. Get over it."... Way to score one for the fucking team, Bernard.

Some might say I'm just generating hatred myself by recycling the past...but to the best of my knowledge this is the truth and I'd be more than happy to be put wrong.
Tech | Socio-Culture | OrganicMedicine | Artdev
"Is life just a game where we make up the rules while we're searching for something to say..." -- Monty Python

User avatar
Posts: 36
Joined: 05 Apr 2009 01:50

Re: the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby silverwolf768 » 31 Mar 2013 00:01

I've often wondered if someone could do something that would forever deny them forgiveness, and I almost always used RP as a real-life example. What he did is not some "oops" event that can be apologized for and then quickly forgotten. As such, I am certain I could never trust him with anything for any reason, nor could I in good conscience allow others to do so without knowledge of his past.

It can be a comforting thought that people can learn from their mistakes, but I struggle to conjure a scenario where what he did was anything other than a calculated decision with full knowledge of the effect of his actions. Even though he made no direct action against me, there is still nothing he could do that would win back any measure of trust, and in that regard I have to think he is simply beyond forgiveness. Furthermore, any group that willingly welcomes him back is betraying the most basic measures of safety for its members and is similarly lacking in trustworthiness.

What he did is almost unfathomable. Had he done so to virtually any other group, there'd be books and books written on his misdeeds, he'd become the go-to descriptor for evil, and people would celebrate the day of his capture and/or execution (is there any other group that would simply allow him to slip away and allow him to live his life despite those that he ruined? Is there any other group that would then accept said individual back in even the smallest capacity? I sincerely doubt it). It'd almost be comical how like a super villain he is if it were not so horrific.

cG helping hand
User avatar
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Mar 2013 11:59
Location: Everywhere

Re: the Zoo Community Pledge

Postby crossspeci.es » 12 Apr 2013 12:02

Some observations on Randy Pepe, "Zoobuster," self-hatred, and the damage caused by a retreat from reality - offered in response to an interesting article entitled "The Science of Zoophilia."

Quote:
If you ever want to get the full backstory on “Mike Rolland” – his real name is Randall Pepe, although he’s using a different name nowadays and he had nearly a dozen monikers he used back in his “Zoobuster” days (including couples, as in “Mike and Judy Myers” – one of his favourites) – people associated with the Cross Species Alliance have firsthand knowledge of the whole affair. Indeed, one of our founders was the person who paid for and hired a private investigator to track Pepe down to the Iowa apartment from which he was running his hate campaign.

Pepe’s autobiography outlines his zoosadism quite clearly, and quite horribly. Healthy, self-respecting zoophiles who met Pepe in person, in the mid 1990s, consistently described him as having something “off” about him – seriously so. He did not “smell” right, it was often described.

As recently as 2007, Pepe was trying to gain readmission to the online zoo community. Bizarrely, some self-hating zoos such as “Bernard” were eager to welcome him back – under yet more false names! – potentially exposing a whole new generation of younger zoophiles to the horrors Pepe caused so many of his victims in the 1998 – 2001 timeframe. Fortunately, others with more wisdom and courage hunted Pepe down again in 2007 and kept him firmly under watch so he couldn’t slip back in unnoticed – whatever “Bernard” and his ilk might have wished:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=244&p=638#p638

On one of his websites, Pepe – as “Zoobuster” – used to keep a running tally of zoos he had directly caused to commit suicide by outing or threats of outing. He bragged elsewhere online of the nonhuman partners who had been seized, mutilated, and murdered as a result of his attacks against individual zoos. He is profoundly evil.

It was that bragging that eventually brought together a small group of zoo leaders who were willing to pay the personal price – in being outed, threatened, and stalked by Pepe – that was required to bring him down. They brought him down, some paying a terrible price as a result.

When his outing wasn’t enough to drive some zoos to suicide, he began fabricating “dossiers” of fake smears against them; he would circulate them to local police, animal shelters and so on as he targeted specific victims – usually the lies involved claims of actual violence against nonhumans (Pepe, himself murderously violent to dogs, generally fabricated stories about his targets that included nauseating echoes of his own awful violence towards nonhumans). He got fairly good at forging documents to include in these “dossiers,” and of course most police took whatever anti-zoo claims he made at face value, with no fact-checking whatsoever required to make them believe any horrible lie created by Pepe about his targets. Many families were destroyed by these fabricated “dossiers.”

As late as 2008, “Bernard” was still circulating Pepe’s dossiers online in efforts to harass genuine leaders of the zoo community – despite knowing they were pure fabrications. So it was that Pepe’s vicious mendacity was carried forward into a new generation, by a new generation of self-hating, dishonest, destructive zoos.

The author of the upcoming book “Uniquely Dangerous” has been told of the full Pepe backstory and has done some research on her own into the details of his zoophobic hate-spree; indeed, the subject of the book was himself one of the key people who worked together to stop Pepe back in 2001 – he was also outed, and smeared with a fake “dossier,” by Pepe during that process.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=236

There is a great deal of self-hatred in the zoo community, sadly – it’s perhaps predictable, given how much hatred society directs at us. But predictable or not, it is a destructive, malignant force and it has done enormous damage to real efforts to move a constructive, realistic, well-founded agenda of zoophile respect forward within the larger Normal society. One self-hating, angry, embittered zoo can poison the souls of 100 zoos on the tipping point between self-respect and despair… and the self-haters are often pathologically eager to see others fall to the same depths of dishonesty and misery they themselves inhabit. Pepe was the ultimate example of this.

What is sad is that few zoos of a younger generation know the full story of Pepe, what he did, who helped him do it, and how he was stopped. Those lessons are as vital today as they were a decade ago, and yet they are largely lost in the background noise of today’s over-politicized, fragmented, infighting-heavy online zoo world. Many zoos who hide in nonpublic, invite-only discussion boards – “communities” would be a stretch – are willfully ignorant of such tragic episodes in the past… they’d rather isolate themselves in a fantasy world of imaginary rainbows and puppies, disconnected from the reality and challenges of life as a zoophile with integrity and self-respect; they prefer the false “safety” of self-imposed ignorance to the honest work of educating themselves – and protecting themselves – as a result. Never mind real work towards a better for us all, human and nonhuman alike; these fantasy-land inhabitants turn their own cowardice into a point of pride. Failing to support other zoophiles, and failing to support work to improve our status in society (with the increase in safety such improved status inevitably brings to our nonhuman partners, as well), they often savage any other zoos who “dare” to work for a better future. Self-hatred does terrible things to people, and to our community.

That said, kudos to you for discussing Mike Rolland/Randy Pepe/ASAIRS/etc. His lesson is important, both for community activists and for individual zoos who seek to protect themselves and their families from the worst of the zoophobic monsters out there today.

~ Cross Species Alliance | crossspeci.es | @CrossSpecies

cG helping hand
User avatar
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Mar 2013 11:59
Location: Everywhere

Truth, Lies, and ‘Doxxing’: Real Moral of Gawker/Reddit Stor

Postby crossspeci.es » 28 Jul 2013 12:41

Truth, Lies, and ‘Doxxing’: The Real Moral of the Gawker/Reddit Story
BY DANAH BOYD | 10.29.126:30 AM | wired.com


Sitting U.S. President Ford was visiting San Francisco in 1975 when a woman attempted to shoot him. A former marine named Oliver Sipple grabbed the gun, preventing the assassination attempt. When the press began contacting him, he asked that his sexuality not be discussed. While Sipple was very active in the gay men’s scene in the Castro, he was not out to family or work. But Harvey Milk, a famous gay rights activist, chose to out him so the public could see that gay men could be heroes, too.

The cost to Sipple was devastating. The White House distanced itself from him, his family rejected him, and he sunk into a dark depression. He gained massive amounts of weight, began drinking profusely, and died at the ripe young age of 47. Many around Sipple reported that he regretted his act of heroism and the attention resulting from it. But for Harvey Milk, the potential social good from using Sipple’s story far outweighed what he perceived as the costs of outing him.

This is a hard moral conundrum, in part because Sipple was clearly a “good” guy who had done a good deed. But what if he wasn’t? What are the moral and ethical costs of outing people and focusing unwanted attention on them?

Two weeks ago, Gawker journalist Adrian Chen decided to unmask the infamous Reddit troll “Violentacrez” as Michael Brutsch. When Chen contacted him, Brutsch did not attempt to deny the things he had done. He simply begged Chen not to publish his name, citing the costs that publicity would have on his disabled wife. Chen chose to publish the piece – including Brutsch’s pleas and promises to do anything that Chen asked in return for not ruining his life. As expected, Brutsch lost his job and the health insurance that paid for his wife’s care; Chen reported this outcome three days later. Many celebrated this public shaming, ecstatic to see a notorious troll grovel.

Although none of his actions appeared to be illegal, it’s hard to call Brutsch a “good” guy. He had created settings where people could share deeply disturbing content. He enticed people to reveal their ugliest sides. In many ways, Brutsch was a classic troll, abusing technology and manipulating the boundaries of free speech to provoke systematic prejudices and harassment for his own entertainment. He got joy from making others miserable.


Unmasking as a Way to Regulate Social Norms

There are many different reasons to unmask people, out them, or make them much more visible than they previously were. Sometimes, the goal is to celebrate someone’s goodness. At other times, people are made visible to use them as an example … or to set an example. People are outed to reveal hypocrisy and their practices are made visible to shame them.

In identifying Butsch and shining a spotlight on his insidious practices, Chen’s article condemns Butsch’s choice of using the mask of pseudonymity to hide behind actions that have societal consequences. Public shaming is one way in which social norms are regulated. Another is censorship, as evidenced by the Reddit community’s response to Gawker.


What happens when, as a result of social media, vigilantism takes on a new form?

Yet, how do we as a society weigh the moral costs of shining a spotlight on someone, however “bad” their actions are? What happens when, as a result of social media, vigilantism takes on a new form? How do we guarantee justice and punishment that fits the crime when we can use visibility as a tool for massive public shaming? Is it always a good idea to regulate what different arbiters consider bad behavior through increasing someone’s notoriety – or censoring their links?

As the Gawker/Reddit story was unfolding, another seemingly disconnected case was playing out. In a town outside of Vancouver, a young woman named Amanda Todd committed suicide a few weeks after posting a harrowing YouTube video describing an anonymous stalker she felt ruined her life. The amorphous hacktivist collective known as “Anonymous” decided to make a spectacle of the situation by publishing personally identifiable information on – “doxxing” – Todd’s stalker. They identified a 32-year-old man, enabling outraged people to harass him. Yet it appears they got the wrong person. Earlier this week, Canadian police reported that Todd’s stalker was someone else: reportedly a 19-year-old.

Needless to say, this shift in information doesn’t relieve the original target of the public shame he felt from Anonymous’ pointed finger. It doesn’t wipe his digital record clean. He has to deal with being outed – in this case, wrongly – going forward.


The ‘Koan’: Technology as Tool and Technology as Weapon

By enabling the rapid flow of information, technology offers us a unique tool to publicly out people or collectively tar and feather them. Well-meaning people may hope to spread their messages far and wide using Twitter or Facebook, but the fast-spreading messages tend to be sexual, horrific, or humiliating.

Gossip is social currency. And in a networked world, trafficking in gossip is far easier than ever before.

The same tactic that trolls use to target people is the same tactic that people use to out trolls.
When someone’s been wronged – or the opportunity arises to use someone to make a statement – it is relatively easy to leverage social media to incite the hive mind to draw attention to an individual. The same tactic that trolls use to target people is the same tactic that people use to out trolls.

More often than not, those who use these tools do so when they feel they’re on the right side of justice. They’re either shining a spotlight to make a point or to shame someone into what they perceive to be socially acceptable behavior. But each act of outing has consequences for the people being outed, even if we do not like them or what they’ve done.

This raises serious moral and ethical concerns: In a networked society, who among us gets to decide where the moral boundaries lie? This isn’t an easy question and it’s at the root of how we, as a society, conceptualize justice.

Governance and the construction of a society is not a fact of life; it’s a public project that we must continuously make and remake. Networked technologies are going to increasingly put pressure on our regulatory structures as conflicting social values crash into one another. In order to benefit from innovation, we must also suffer the destabilizing aspects of new technology.

Yet … that destabilization and suffering allow us, as a society, to interrogate our collective commitments. The hard moral conundrums are just beginning.

Jump to:  

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest