Opinion: Haters in Furry
Posted by Bastett Cheetah on Mon 7 May 2012 - 15:25 — Edited by mwalimu as of Thu 9 Jan 2014 - 11:34
JM Horse just posted an article on [adjective][species] about haters in the furry community, with some controversial suggestions as to their motives.
In the furry community, we don’t have a significant problem with homophobia. But we do have a problem with hatred towards some of the more unusual sexual orientations and interests, such as transexuals, babyfurs, zoophiles, and more. In all cases, people are being attacked for things that are innate.
Interesting read, if provocative at times.
About the author
Bastett Cheetah — read stories — contact (login required)a Cheetah from London, United Kingdom
Comments
I doubt his hypothesis about 2. There is another variable when dealing with intra-furry hatred and that is misconception that the act of another furry will cause a blow back on those innocent of the wrong doing. So 2 was more thinking about being seen rude because of the behavior of one baby fur rubbing off on people (such as the hotel staff) and in his worrying about perception of the actions of the one he attacked the whole group of them to place the behavior on the subgroup to severe it from the whole. "Throwing them under the bus" if you will. It's not the first time he did it, it certainly wasn't the last, and he'll do it again.
More accurately would probably be describing 2's behavior as a gay person hating on a bisexual because bisexuals make it SEEM like gays have a choice. Or a monogamous gay person who hates on a polygamous gay person because they know people will use that as "proof" that ALL gays are immoral.
The concern of ignorance in other can cause people to distance themselves from people 'weirder' then themselves. The irony is when the fear of ignorance causes the ignorance itself.
There was that even recently where a gay person said they chose to be that way and got attacked by a lot of other gay people because they claimed it was bad for the gay image.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
It's not a great piece because it's far too speculative. It has some good info on research in homosexuality but then tries to apply that to various fetishes. For one fetishes are not an orientation, although zoophilia may be, and while homosexuality may be partly genetic I doubt any fetishes are.
What's more likely is that those people hate things not because they see themselves in them but because they are subjects that are often seem as abhorrent or really push the barrier of what is acceptable. Babyfurs are sometimes sexual and sometimes not but in all cases they represent something that people do not want. If sexual it makes people think of sex with children who are neither mentally nor physically mature. If it's not sexual but includes diapers then it is associated with scat and urine, things that are seen to be dirty and unhealthy and which are avoided. Even if that is removed it's grown people pretending to be children and immaturity is not something that is appreciated and the closest real life examples to that are the mentally disabled. At every level the topic will disgust or make someone uncomfortable and that's a far more likely explanation than to try and say that those people are secretly babyfurs, or some other hated minority, themselves.
That's not to say it's impossible but he's taking research out of context and has nothing else to back it up.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
This was at the bottom! I saw it there when I posted it. Greenreaper, I think there's a bug with the comments that if you post a reply to a comment and then, without leaving the page, you post to the article itself your post gets moved to the comment you first replied to.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
OK, well, let's try that . . .
Testing to see if Rakuen is right!
Well hey, looks like there is a bug. How annoying - yet unsurprising given how flaky Ajax Comments is.
For now, I'd suggest reloading the page if you want to reply and then post to the root.
So where's my salary now that I'm finding bugs? :)
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You are welcome to eat any bugs that you find!
Slimy yet satisfying!
Hmm I think "Fetishies" (Or some) might be a sexual orientation in someway and/or that they are generic based from what I seen. (But those might have different histories) Or altease some people with them cannot simply "choose" to get out of them. Then again, its not very proven to be simply a non-orientation or based for those from what I see. But ofcourse, Homosexuality was more proven to be a orientation just like Heterosexual.
This is just one of those things that is always going to exist, there will always be people with insecurities about themselves , that don't have the strength to face them, and instead redirect these feelings onto others that are different. Haters gonna hate
The writers of [adjective][species] have some interesting things to say, but frequently blunt their points by using too many words to do so. (Part of this impression comes from technical choices of column-width / line-spacing / font size, but not all.)
I also noticed several instances of "here's a concept I just read about that I'm applying to furry". This is perhaps part of the point of a "meta-blog", but it still feels like they're trying too hard when they do that.
As with Flayrah, sometimes the best part is the comments. Here are some posts worth browsing:
* Re-evaluating your Sexual Preference (I agree with Altivo; age is a uncontrolled factor)
* Furry Cons of the World (possibly triggered by my story about Fur-st and Kemospo two weeks prior)
* Death in the Fandom
* Eighty-Twenty
* Animal Farm (Maus, I believe, has the same non-furry status)
* Online Relationships
* Participation Mystique 2 - On Words
* Zoophilia in the Furry Community
* Dressing Up
* First Impressions
* How to Approach Someone (mostly for the Tapestries flowchart, though it surprisingly lacks cinfo)
* Character Verses Self (largely for Klisoura's comment)
The site also suffers from the same "huge-ass header on every page" that FNN had (literally half the window on my netbook) . . . but I didn't notice until I tried it in Chrome. It didn't even load for me in Firefox, because it has "ad" in the URL, which I block. Whoops.
For those wishing to keep up with [a][s], I've added their feed to our front-page footer.
Guess that means my LJ can no longer be the "more TL;DR then you", my posts average length now seem tinyer.
than*
You see but then I'd be a liar, because that is actually the title. Which despite it being up there for more then 7 years not a single person ever pointed out that grammar error until this comment...
than*
So you're saying I should use then than?
OH GOD I JUST CAN'T I MEAN WHY WOULD YOU
Would http://assets.adjectivespecies.com/testmini.html for subpages be a better layout for netbooks? I haven't one to test, unfortunately.
FYI, I nearly nuked that reply as spam (it turns out it's legitimate). For future reference you might want to make sure your posts are formatted in a way that they are not likely to be mistaken as such.
Apologies, I suppose I figured I was just leaving a quick link :o)
Thanks for the note.
I don't know, I was kind of thinking, "Oh, maybe now's a good time for an opinion piece! I did one last year about once a season, counting the movie countdown, so a nice spring piece before June ... hmm. Maybe not."
There does need to be a good opinion piece. The title on this article was sadly misleading.
Also, total coincidence, but today is the one year anniversary of the first "folding story" victim's appearance.
I like how the article implies that the babyfur community is purely sexual.
i like how animal rapists are lumped in with trans people and other legit sexual identities/orientations/what have you cause you know they're all just so """"fringe"""""
What is "legitimate" varies. North Carolina just declared gay unions not just illegal, but unconstitutional, probably making them worse than "crimes against nature" (which have been used to prosecute homosexual activity).
Incidentally, "crimes of nature" involving animals don't count as registrable sex offences in Michigan, on the grounds that animals aren't normally recognized as "individuals" or "victims", despite being under 18 per the law.
2 Made up the diaper story.
I'd heard it told at various cons, the same damn story, from people who "saw it themselves." Long before that FWA, long before that convention even existed.
He walked around that con drunk, the whole time, plastered off his ass. Someone probably talked about it, and he thought he saw it in a haze of alcohol. The story turned deeper in him, and it became a rant. It's just common. If all these people who claim they saw a diaper in an elevator at a convention really did, the conventions would be covered in diapers.
The rest of this article is just pointless speculation on why people continue rumor mongering and how that makes them "haters."
Umm.. we're human?
>I like to eat shit
>people call me weird
THEY BE HATING I DEMAND TOLERANS
*facepalm*
Okay, so either a. Mister Twister is telling the truth.
If Mister Twister is telling the truth, and Mister Twister says he likes to eat shit, then Mister Twister likes to eat shit.
Therefore, Mister Twister likes to eat shit.
Or b. Mister Twister is not telling the truth.
If Mister Twister is not telling the truth, and Mister Twister says he likes to eat shit, then Mister Twister does not like to eat shit. Except, as the article linked to clearly proves, if you do not like something, that means you like it (there was a study).
Therefore, Mister Twister likes to eat shit.
Ha ha! It's TV Tropes time!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic
"Our hater is just reacting in a natural fashion to his own sexual interests or orientation: the anti-zoophile is very often a zoophile himself."
brb, off to enumclaw washington to see a man about a horse
Am I a "hater" if I hold the opinion that certain behaviors and pursuits-- often but not always sexually linked-- are harmless fun but in the interests of good taste should be pursued in private?
"In the furry community, we don’t have a significant problem with homophobia."
Tell that to this guy:
http://www.furluminati.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1081
Oh Crusader Cat is nothing, you should see the one wolf guy I saw on FA, forgot his name...
"Oh Crusader Cat is nothing..."
Nothing is another word for the vacuum; in other words, Crusader Cat is frigid, and sucks.
"You should see the one wolf guy I saw on FA, forgot his name..."
Rukhwhitefang?
That was it.
See the fact that you can name homophobic individuals just by me saying their species shows how rare they are.
The fact is that homophobes will always exist, as will racists and sexists. Their group just gets smaller. it's like an 1/X function where x is time. As I had said in the article about room 366 we're ahead of our time, say X = 50). While the real world is at like X = 10. Though no matter where you are you'll always have a value greater then zero. Saying something general about the group does not mean giving an example of someone under the curve proves the entire trend incorrect, the fandom is still more gay friendly then the world in general.
I remember Rukh. I just ignored him after reading something like one thread. It just became massive paragraphs about the Bible for every sentence he disagreed with.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
>2012
>People still talking about Crusader Cat
> 2012
> Crusader Cat still being a cunt
> Furries still cheering as he walks past in in fursuit
Oh, silly, they're not cheering Crusader Cat.
They're cheering around Crusader Cat.
No no no. I don't cheer the man on. But there comes a point when name-dropping this guy needs to stop.
Yes, because stopping calling out bigots stops bigots.
That makes no grammatical sense, and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I think he is attempting mean spirited parody of fundamentalist just to be provocative
I think you may actually be right. I don't think he's honestly an ultra-fundamentalist homophobe in real life either, he's just playing the part.
He's one of the most elaborate and complex trolls this fandom contains; and in effect, he's managing to fool a lot of people.
Well, seeing as how I myself have only recently started to believe you aren't a mean spirited parody of conservatism yourself ... uh, I'm going to bet Crusader Cat is exactly what he says he is.
https://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1099/pokemon.html
>.>
"The Landover Baptist Church is the website of a PARODY fundamentalist Baptist church"
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church )
One or two people is not a significant problem. Those are isolated problems. A significant problem would be when there is a large group that is homophobic or one of the large furry sites implemented homophobic rules.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
As somebody who had volunteers for conservative causes a standard joke is a homophobe is conservative arguing with a liberal and the conservative is winning. The underlining joke is the liberal activist resorts to argument ad hominem (to attack the person than the argument)
The gist is one disagrees with a homosexual one is a homophobe and worst suffers form a mental illness. To make matters worse JM now attempts to link the same argument to fetishism in furry fandom and sinks into non sequitur territory. JM flawed proof does not follow his collusions. If I were to follow JM illogic then would objection to baby furs, means the objector has lenient baby fur tendencies?
They are many other issues like in the case of zoophilia, and animal lover would think zoophilia is animal abuse or baby furs behaving badly in public.
Fight homophobia: punch Crusader Cat in his stupid fucking fursuited face.
Okay I know this is a decade old.
But did this person serious defend zoophilia.
Like serious what the fuck.
I am all for LGBT rights, I am literally a bisexual guy who fell in love with trans women and trans men.
But if you think zoophilia or bestiality is okay then you should just kill yourself or go to a mental hospital.
Don't worry, [adjective][species] is dead, it can't hurt us anymore.
Thank God, the buddha, Vishnu, or whatever deity answered.
Shit forgot to add cis-women as well. Fuck now I can't edit my comment.
LOL
Look at this 20 something year making cringe of himself.
Oh well, everyone on the internet knows I am a bisexual furry who edits wikipedia.
I have already made a fool of myself years ago.
Seriously all I had to say was I am a bisexual guy. What is wrong with me!!!
Admins of this site do me a favor and ban me or something.
I honestly want to die.
How the fuck can I embarrass myself this badly.
It's okay. In a month some drama will happen and the ensuing flame war will push your comments right off the front page and no one will even remember.
I doubt that. Seriously why did I revive this post!!!!!
Nobody remembers most of the stupid things I've said, anyway. (Or at least that's what I tell myself as a cry myself to sleep due to cringe.)
Swearing every other comment really isn't helping. Or the one-word comments. Try replacing those with a vote for the story in question.
Sorry. Sorry.
Nah, Green Reaper, ABP.
A=lways B=e P=osting
(While we're here, though, can I just say I did not expect this to actually work. Oh, I'm allowed to curse, I have "been here well over a decade and won't leave" privileges.)
Perhaps you should try actually reading about topics before making rash statements.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Pedo
Maybe you should read that the scientific consensus is that it's a paraphilia
Telling people to kill themselves because someone had a rational piece attempting to have their take over certain controversial topics really show why we need more adjective species morally and less people like you.
I love how you paint this as a “controversial opinion” when in reality it is just animal rape. I have no idea why you see this as okay.
I didn't defend that I think.
I just remember a while ago, there was interesting arguments about a controversial topic and as someone who doesn't let emotions get in the way on these arguments, I remember there was some points that, granted super controversial, that technically made sense (like the hypocritical killing animals for sport or whatever it was on something) and I liked that such person had a mind of his own and was more on a phycological like mindset.
2012 was like a year where a lot of people questioned a lot of tabooing beliefs and I remember the guy was really into being rational as possible when handling a lot of debates. And yet here you or whoever are are whining emotionally and telling people to kill themselves over an opinion, further proving why 2012 was much better than pathetic morally panic 2024 today.
I don't think certain acts should be legalized, I just find it sad that today that people like you are ruining the freedom to lawfully debate era that was way rational. Adjective Species place was actually a great website because of how open it was and attempting to be more smart back then. Not perfect though.
Fair enough. I take back my comments about people killing themselves over this.
Hahaaaaa oh dear.
Wait until you find out about the apologists of Flayrah.
And the way the Seattle furry scene hushed up the zoosadists who weren't the two who got decades in jail, and their pals who run events there.
https://naia.me/2024/08/more-than-slight-disappointment-with-slightly-furry/
Not really an apologist myself, there are bad people in most communities and it is important to bring such things to attention when information about things such as this occur. There are folks who have more time than I to do that and provide that kind of beware content and I would encourage those looking for that to follow accounts such as that.
But I think it's also important to just get people a wider picture of the options they have. If one is wary of those who are involved in the Slightly Furry business, there is a second option in the city to go to called the vulpine taproom: https://www.flayrah.com/9098/second-furry-taproom-opens-seattle
The information you provide is recent (blog you posted was published two days ago), so us not having brought it to attention wasn't intentional. I have added a comment referencing the blog in the original article about the Slightly Furry taproom.
Post new comment