This guy's podcast is a low-quality production and his opinions are very self-centered, pompous, and angry. This podcast sounds less like a Zoophile podcast (or a podcast in general) but rather serves to be a drama-centric series of rants about specific (and named) persons in the community at large. I make this review having only heard three episodes, in order, with the latest being Episode 19 speaking against this site. While some of his complaints are valid, his comments are worthy of KiwiFarms or other Dumpster-fire websites. I do not enjoy this podcast, and am opposed to many of the views presented (especially about specific persons). I find much of it to be libelous as well. If this man presented his viewpoint with less anger and less drama-centric claims that sound like a gossip-mill, I would be more inclined to support his efforts. He seems to like to use the word "Gall", and thinks he is in a place of authority to say he will "let [things] slide". He is against monetization of Zoophile Pornography (which I am not against) as he mentions in the Anti-Zooville Forum episode. He then went into a rant about monetization of animal pornography which could easily be considered a statement against both capitalism and/or a statement against monetization of pornography in general. "Your motives are either hidden or tainted with possibly, you know, unethical intention. And I believe this is the case with Zooville. [...] Some of their motives are based on God Complexes[...]." He then says that if people give him money he will create a non-profit.
The entire production is just one guy ranting and some woman who hardly speaks except to agree with him, with low-production value.
: one who defends or maintains a cause or proposal
ex-an advocate of liberal arts education
: one who supports or promotes the interests of a cause or group
a consumer advocate
ex-an advocate for women's health
He has paid respectful attention to the home schooling movement by meeting with its advocates and endorsing their cause.
It is NOT defending a cause to threaten exposure of its members.
It is NOT supporting or promoting the interests of a group to slander and threaten its members.
This person has, in front of multiple members of the group they claim to advocate for, defamed, threatened, and tried to intimidate via threats of exposure members of the group he had arguments with.
Love the concept. Don’t love the person behind this. Certainly dispelled a few of my concerns when I commented on a post. Which i appreciated the response. However someone running this threatened to out another member, accusing him of being a zoosadist. Though I’m not the biggest fan of the man who was accused, I think it’s highly suspicious. I hope no one gives out criminalizing information to the podcast unless you don’t mind the risk of being in prison.
I’ll chalk this review up to very bad PR. Hope to see something change
TLDR: Called someone a sadist and wanted to collect black mail. Bad PR.
I saw you threaten to OUT someone who disagreed with you in a thread. THAT tells me ALL I need to know about you without listening to you babble. They SHOULD have banned your ass on the spot. YOU are a CANCER.