Don’t Hug Cacti controversy: Confusion rises amid cooldown; suspicion towards both sides build up

**Content warning: potentially disturbing information and strong language

Confusion on the rise, as the debate over the controversy involving fursuit maker Don’t Hug Cacti’s co-owner Lucky Coyote’s alleged misconduct cools down.

Recap

Since September last year in 2020, Lucky and her fursuit making business has been under fire in the community over a document released online, a large part containing anonymous testimonies claiming she engaged in various misconduct.

Lucky denied the allegations, though she has received criticism for her responses, with many furs saying that she is ‘avoiding responsibility’.

The community received their own share of criticism afterwards, with some furries commenting that, as right now there is a lack of confirmation, the community assumed unverified allegations as facts. Counter-critics in response argued this is a defence of Lucky’s misbehaviour.

Another party enters

As the storm over the situation went on, a third party soon came into the picture – when a furry YouTuber called Shi Okami began to cover the controversy. In two of her recent videos she brought the document’s legitimacy into question, saying she wanted more ‘substantial evidence’ in view of the testimonies and items in the document she says are ‘out of context’.

Subsequently, Shi and another YouTuber named Brony Inspector announced a live podcast with Lucky and Skuff Coyote, intending to go through the document and clarify the statements directly. According to Shi, this came after Skuff reached out to her.

In the podcast, under much questioning, both Lucky and Skuff consistently denied the allegations written in the document, suggesting the statements are a part of a smear campaign. They also stated they would not be pursuing on the cease and desist letter sent to Qutens.

Reception to Shi Okami’s coverage of the controversy was mixed.

While some furs praised her for getting both sides of the story and ‘not following the mob’, critics say she sided with Lucky and pointed out that her tone, specifically in her first coverage video was ‘condescending towards potential victims,’ and even said she did the podcast for clout. Throughout, a number of furs repeatedly remarked that Lucky and Skuff were being dishonest.

Guilty?

It is worth noting that since the release of the live podcast, some furs concluded that Lucky is guilty, to which Shi Okami said she is glad a consensus is made. And now with something to cross-reference with, other people can ‘come to a conclusion they’re comfortable with.

Building on that, since the podcast’s release, some points of contention became clearer – among them, Lucky’s handling of her rescued animals, and her allowing someone under the local drinking age to drink alcohol, which Lucky has received additional criticism for:

  • “Anonymous Horse” claimed Lucky, in view of one of her rabbits developing a life-threatening bloat, ‘physically (crushed) it to death with her hands,’ to which she denied; saying she euthanized it using cervical dislocation, admittedly as a ‘novice’ breeder.

Now, in her home state of Arizona, cervical dislocation as an euthanisation method can only be conducted by trained individuals, according to guidelines under the AMVA (American Veterinary Medical Association), with which, there is currently no proof she was trained before. On that basis, she was criticized for not possessing the necessary skills and expertise to do so in the first place.

  • “Anonymous Fox” claimed Lucky allowed her to drink while in her (Lucky’s) house. According to the DLLC (Arizona Department of Liquor), those under 21 years of age are allowed to enter bars under the supervision of their ‘spouse, guardian, parent of legal drinking age,’ that said, led to more criticisms on this part as well.

Other claims of her alleged sexual assaults, zoophilic behaviour, racism, animal abuse and inappropriate activities with minors in the document have been consistently denied by Lucky in the podcast.

‘More questions than answers

In the mixed ocean of support and opposition towards the notion that Lucky is guilty, confusion arose – for one, many furs including Shi Okami remarked inconsistencies in Lucky’s narrative and pointed out especially Skuff’s ‘controlling’ posture – that refers to how he behaved at various points of the podcast, where he’s reportedly uptight on the flow of the conversation.

Building on the doubt, suspicion towards both DHC and Qutens rose moreover, with some furs saying both parties are still ‘hiding something.’ The podcast’s co-host Brony Inspector also echoed this sentiment, stating the interview brought him ‘more questions than satisfactory answers.’

To conclude, though the authors of the document may have some backing in their statements, without clearer evidence as warranted by critics, their claims could be very weak. On the other hand, with Lucky and Skuff now speaking up, reported lapses in their behaviour especially during the podcast lowered their credibility at the same time, thus leading to the current confusion.


Don’t Hug Cacti争议——情况降温,困惑加剧;对双方的质疑态度开始上升

随着指控兽装制造商Don’t Hug Cacti的业主之一Lucky Coyote从事不当行为的争议降温,混乱的局面也在加剧。

回顾

自去年9月2020年以来,Lucky和她的兽装制作业因推特用户Qutens网上公布的一份文件而在兽圈内受到抨击,其中很大一部分是匿名证词,各个声称她从事了各种不当行为。

Lucky否认了这些指控,不过她的回应却遭到了批评,很多毛兽表示她是在“逃避责任”。之后兽圈也收到了自己的批评,有毛兽评论说,由于现在缺乏证实,兽圈把未经核实的指控当成了事实。对此,反批评者认为,这是在为Lucky的不当行为辩护。

第三方登场

随着风波的持续,一个第三方进入了争议的视线——当时,一位叫Shi Okami的毛兽油管UPYouTuber开始报道这场争议。在她最近的两个视频中,鉴于文件中她所谓“断章取义”的证词和项目,她对这份文件的合法性提出了质疑,并希望能得到更多“实质性证据”

随后,Shi和另一位名叫Brony Inspector的油管UP主宣布将与Lucky和Skuff Coyote一起直播,打算直接翻阅文件并澄清陈述。据她称,这直播是在Skuff联系她之后而决定制作的。

在播客中,在Shi和Inspector的质疑下,Lucky和Skuff都始终否认文件中写的指控,并认为这些都属抹黑活动的一部分。他们还表示不会就发给Qutens的停止信进行追究。

对于Shi Okami对这场争议的报道,各方反应不一。

有的毛兽称赞她能兼顾到故事的两面性,且“不跟风”,但也有批评者说她仅袒护了Lucky一边,并指出她的语气,特别是在第一段报道视频中是“对潜在的受害者居高临下的举动”,甚至说她仅为了得到观看数而直播。在整个过程中,不少毛兽们多次说Lucky和Skuff始终不诚实。

足以判罪

值得一提的是,自直播发布后,有部分毛兽得出了Lucky有罪的结论,对此,Shi Okami表示很高兴能助于达成共识。而现在有了可以对照的东西,其他人就可从其“得出自己满意的结论”。

在此基础上,自从直播发布后,一些争议点变得更加清晰。Lucky在被救动物的处理方式以及她允许未满饮酒年龄的人士饮酒等等的指控下受到了更多批评。

  • “匿名马”称,Lucky鉴于她的一只兔子出现了危及生命的腹胀,“用手(压)死了它”。她对此否认了;并说她用颈椎脱臼的方式对兔子进行了安乐死,同时承认当时自己是一个‘新手’饲养员。

相比,在Lucky所居住的亚利桑那州,根据AMVA(美国兽医协会)下的准则,颈椎脱位作为一种安乐死的方法,只能由受过训练的人进行,而目前,她没有证据证明以前有受过训练。据此,她因首先没具备必要的技能和专业知识并进行了该行动而被批评。

  • “匿名狐狸”声称,Lucky允许她在她(Lucky的)家喝酒。根据DLLC(亚利桑那州酒类部门)的规定,未满21岁的人士可以在其“法定饮酒年龄的配偶、监护人、父母’的监督下”进入酒吧,说到这里,也导致了Lucky收到更多关于这部分的批评。

其他在文件中声称Lucky从事了性侵犯、动物行为、种族歧视、虐待动物和与未成年人进行的不当活动等等的指控,在直播中一直被她否认。

困惑上升,疑心加剧

在支持和反对Lucky有罪的声音中,出现了困惑——首先,包括Shi Okami在内的许多毛兽都认为Lucky的叙述前后矛盾,并特别指出了Skuff的“控制”姿态——这指的是他在直播中的各种表现,据说其中他对谈话的流程感到紧张。

在疑惑的基础上,对DHC和Qutens的怀疑开始更多了起来,有毛兽称双方还“隐瞒东西”。直播的联合主持人Brony Inspector也对此表示赞同,他表示这次采访带给他的“问题多于满意的答案。”

总而言之,虽然文件作者的声明可能有一定的支持,但如果没有批评者要求的更明确的证据,他们的说法可能非常薄弱。另一方面,随着Lucky和Skuff现在开口回复,他们行为上的失误,特别是在直播期间毛兽们指出的,同时也降低了他们的可信度,因此导致了目前的混乱。

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s