I used to like watching YouTube drama. I stopped this spring. One of the things that woke me up was the never-ending feud between Greg "Onision" Jackson and… too many people to name. One of the things that Repzion said was he wasn't fighting fire with fire. He was going to "be the fucking water." He was wrong. Some Repzion video that popped up in my feed a few months ago (long after I stopped following the drama but before I put Youtube on a website blocker) was titled, "I trolled Onision." Spectacular. Repzion is antagonizing Onision. What else is new.

Now, it's not literally impossible that Greg is innocent of the accusations, based on what I've seen. I find it extremely unlikely, but it's still not impossible. And even if he is, his public behavior towards his fans, his rivals, and his detractors is indefensible. But I'm not here to talk about YouTube drama. I'm here to talk about fighting fire with water.

I already know there are going to be people, both reasonable and unreasonable, who are going to call me a hypocrite for posting this entry. Well, accusations of hypocrisy are something I seldom listen to anyway, but in this entry, I intend to make a point about dealing with drama and corruption, while using public figures as examples. Anybody who reads this and then goes on to harangue anyone I mention by name are responsible for their own actions, and doing the opposite of what I advise. I am not going to debate anybody on this. If you have any objections, post them on your own page, don't come after me. I can't say whether or not I will use Repzion or Onision as examples. One thing I doubt I will ever do is contact them directly with complaints about their behavior, over and over again, and get neck-deep in drama, like they both have done.

The thesis of this entry is thus: If you are going to fight fire with water, you do not repeatedly criticize your enemy over and over. I know there are factors I'm overlooking, like YouTube algorithms, popularity, trying to keep your channel afloat. None of those matter. The way to put out the fire, in the case of Onision, is to educate your followers about keeping a safe distance from internet strangers, regardless of their reputation. Now, granted, this is trickier than it sounds. On the one hand, we do live in a rather closed-off society where people don't really get to know one another on a substantial level. On the other hand, we also live in a society where people publicly spill their guts online. This makes social navigation that much harder.

One thing that seems to be a recurring issue is need fulfillment. In the social scene, you fall for a predator because he or she meets some need of yours, whether that be a need for acceptance, a need for validation, a need for intimacy, a need for income, a need for shelter, or even just the need for a good laugh. Needy people are extremely vulnerable. And for them, seeking out those needs is extremetly risky. It is a bresh of fresh air to find someone who can provide those needs, especially after facing rejection, over and over again. I've seen this quite a few times in public chats, where several people tell one person to "grow up and get some self control" or "go to therapy so I don't have to deal with this." And then they find somebody who can meet their needs. Their former experience has narrowed their vision, and they fail to detect the warning signs that would otherwise inform them that they've fallen into a trap.

Now, on balance, obviously no one can meet everyone's needs. This is especially true over the internet, where relationships are so near yet so out of reach. Keeping in contact with someone does not entail a substantial relationship. You have to see someone in a wide variety of contexts to actually know them on a personal level, like how they react when they don't get their way, what happens when they are caught breaking the rules, how they respond to criticism or confronations, what they do when they're bored, how they respond to loss, how they grieve in the face of tragedy, and so on. And literally every single person faces these situations at some point or another.

Nevertheless, an inability to meet the need, by definition, does not make the need go away. I do not have any answers for how to get your needs met beyond, "try not to fall for someone who seems too good to be true." One of the reasons I am a Christian is less so because of hard evidence for Creationism or Jesus Christs' resurection, but because I want to believe there is a world beyond this crap-sack Earth. I want to believe there is a path towards healing outside of what mankind can offer. There might be none. I'm sure that somebody will come along and say, "Look, here's all the evidence against that." I don't care. I need to believe this. I might be incorrect, but I need to believe.

Greg, at some point in his life, failed to have some crucial need met. Whether he's guilty or innocent, he is definitely a damaged individual. Now he's getting that need met by acting out in public, and quite possibly grooming needy young women. And if that's the case, he definitely should go to jail. But the story doesn't end there. There are other predators in the making, looking for something that will satisfy their needs. And when the needs are starved, they grow into urges. I believe a root cause of it is a lack of substantial connections with other people. Those who have had their needs satisfied don't need to go tricking other people out of their time, money, bodies, whatever.

I have my own need for intimacy; emotional intimacy. Now, when I was a kid, I was swatted for refusing a kiss to one of my parents. And then what followed was a mindset wherein kisses and hugs meant I had to submit to the authority. I hated physical "affection." And yet, that did not eliminate my need for it. What I needed was permission to turn down affection, to distance myself from the desires of my parents. About 22 years later, in a counseling session, they finally gave me permission to turn down hugs from extended family. In the mean time, I still needed to feel loved. And I can only process affection through fursuits. That's where I am today.

Now, somebody might read this and think, "Well geez, man, ever heard of consent? Who the hell made it the fursuiter's obligation to 'love' you?" And you miss the point if you think that. There's a difference between duty and obligation. It is nobody's obligation to meet my needs, your needs, or anybody elses. And don't lie to yourself and say you're too strong to have needs. They may look different from mine, but they are still needs. However, it is the collective duty of mankind to meet the needs of their fellow man and the needs of nature. After your own needs are met, you should also feel the need to meet others' needs. If you don't, then there is some other need of yours that isn't being met.

In addition, like I said, failure to meet the need doesn't make the need go away. I've stopped seeking intimacy over discord and telegram. My parents actually agreed with my decision to change my name legally (can't remember if I mentioned it, but my actual first name came from my mom's late white-trash slob of a brother, and so I was raised on my middle name), and I was hoping that they would object so that I could have a heart-to-heart talk with them. I know, it sounds weird; I only want to have deep conversations in the midst of a dispute. I think my parents have unmet needs, too. I have the need for deep, personal conversations. In lieu of them, I am posting journal entries like this one. Or buying lots of books. Or writing closure letters to people I'm mad at.

But… back to putting out the fire. I once asked over telegram if I could buy fursuit materials over Hobby Lobby. Some guy answered with, "No, not onless you're okay with it looking like a shitty pile of carpets." Now, the optimal answer would have been, "That's very helpful to know. Thank you for the warning." Unfortunately, unless you have a very specific personality type, trying to answer in that fashion will be very soul crushing, most likely. If this was somebody who was definitely trying to stir up trouble, like an actual narcissist, the disabling answer would be, "That's a very interesting response." Still, even that is something you have to grow into after several lost arguments if you don't naturally have a laid-back personality. What I think I should have said was, "I don't even know you, and that's the first thing you say to me? Piss off. Don't talk to me if you're going to be a dick." This might have had some pushback. After all, nobody in that conversation so much as implied that he was in the wrong, in fact, they may have accused me of overreacting. That would have made them numbskulls. Setting a boundary is not overreacting. It's informing someone of something you will not tolerate. Because I would not have tolerated any defense of his "teasing." That's something you have to build up to.

What should I have done if he'd gotten more aggressive? Leave the conversation, probably tattle on him to the admin, and if the admin is an asshole too, leave the group. Any social circle led by someone who's okay with disrespect to newcomers isn't worth being a part of, and its members are probably mostly vulnerable people getting their needs met in extremely superficial ways. Instead, I pretended to be thick-skinned, only to write an angry letter to this guy one year later. Maybe that was fighting fire with fire. I started out with a disclaimer that it wasn't going to be a friendly letter, so I don't think so.

As for the admin, there is one last point I want to make. I did have a few words with him. I've heard people say everything from he's the most generous, inclusive person they've ever met to he was the biggest windbag they've ever met. My impression was that he had a considerable amount of self-control, but he was kind of snobby. He had this perpetual smile that stuck me as insincere, like it was manufactured for the sake of good PR. Anyway, I'd written a closure letter to him, telling him my problems with my local group, trying to balance it with a disclaimer ("you can delete this without reading it, all I'm doing is trying to get closure by addressing my problems with the group so I won't feel bitter anymore") and appropriate compliments ("If you've read through this, I can admire your constitution. I wouldn't have been able to stomach it"). He didn't outright block me. I showed my letter and his response to my counselor, and she was impressed by his response.

To this day, I don't know what he said. He apparently compimented my writing, but he evidently read my complaint. Now, I don't know if he was one of the people who'd reported me as sending spam (I don't know if telegram lets you report people and respond to them, or lets you report them without blocking them), if he'd complained about me to his friends, or what. But assuming that all he did was give me that one response, the one that impressed my counsellor, I can point to that as an example of putting out a fire.

There are some more hoops I have to jump through before I am able to put out such fires myself. I don't regret the closure letters or publicly posting these entries; I don't think I'm starting any fires or feeding them, but I do need to have my say on the matter. I will definitely have to adjust my means later on, to see what action I need to take.