Are insular furry communities and MUCKs at risk of Alt-Right takeover?
In recent years SPR MUCK, a long standing furry fandom MUCK with an international user-base, has quickly seen it's membership decline. In my opinion, this has been caused by a small group of highly vocal users. These users would consistently quote from the playbook of the alt-right, attempt to suppress any discussion of topics such as 'Black Lives Matter' with accusations of being anti-police, and go so far as staging a take over of a location on the MUCK that explicitly allowed political discussion in order to then change the rules and shut political discussion down under claims that it 'only causes drama'. I was very surprised to discover one of these users had been made staff on the MUCK, and wanted to know how this could have happened.
To answer this question, I'd like to present to you an on-the-record conversation I had this weekend with "Snout", the head of policy. This conversation has been edited for terseness. It may serve as an important indicator of the risks of insular fandom attitudes and the peril of existing within a local bubble.
Do you know what happened to Rocky Mountain Fur Meet?
"Nope. Living half a world away from most cons, and not having funds to visit the few local Euro ones, I don't even care to hear con reports. What good are they to me?"
You may have noticed the world has a neo-nazi problem right now. Alt-furs are part of that.
"I haven't heard of anything neo-nazi caused in my little part of the world."
[after Snout was provided with an international press report of the issues]
Do you accept the fact that there have been organised attempts to infiltrate organised fandom by so called 'Alt-Right' neo-nazi and white-supremacist groups such as the AltFurs in furry fandom?
"I accept your statement of it. I haven't seen any facts to support it. [...] I've now been notified by you of the Alt-Furs existence, and if you can point me to more of their 'official agenda', I'd be prepared to deal with it in the future. [...] The Alt-Furs thing is something I haven't been aware of. [...] Besides this [Foxler]'s admittedly provocative arm band, the views of _some_ in the article makes me see them as the old 'burned furs' movement. 'Ban yiff etc!' and all that."
Back when I was [active] here, [a member of staff] was still cutting and pasting talking points from alt-fur groups. Any comment?
"Well, my views and actions are, to the degree I subjectively can, as neutral as possible, and I wouldn't invite any right _or_ leftist extreme person into a spot where they could have real power. Myself, I've excused me from a few wiz matters where I've felt that I was too biased for or against the person(s) being discussed. In short, I try to treat people fairly with the information I have."
Would you agree with the statement made recently by President Trump that 'I think there is blame on both sides between the Alt-Right and the Alt-Left'?
"He's put his foot in mouth so many times before and after becoming President of the USA that I just can't take him seriously. Now, taking this quote out of context and applying it here, as you do now, I can't comment since, again, i don't know the Alt-Right (furry) and Alt-Left (furry) agendas, or what they've said. It's, as mentioned before, something I haven't been made aware of. And unlike Burned Furs, that managed to make noise because the fandom was much smaller back then, this Alt-Right hasn't even become big enough to make fandom noise to the level where I've heard it."
I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the causes of SPR's decline. However, the MUCK I saw went from being a vibrant community of many voices, to a tiny bubble of 'the right kind of person', very quickly. It can be very easy to allow a loud minority dominate and push out those who might question their behavior, particularly when questioning them gets dismissed as "bringing up politics" and "causing drama".
Comments
Welcome to the Comments section, please be good to each other. Before commenting, your required reading list includes Matt Lees' talk on "Cultural Complicity". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY90symFHaY&t=0s
The more you fear the Alt-Right (or what's became of it anyway), the more powerful that movement will become.
Do not yell and throw stones at an angry dog, that is the direct opposite of wise.
In other words, don't treat them like a big deal.
Well, I'll be...
Allowing an Angry Dog to feel confidence, or running away from an Angry Dog are the worst things to do when attacked by an Angry Dog. Throwing things, or attacking the dog are the correct actions to take. http://www.wikihow.com/Handle-a-Dog-Attack
Yeah, and also if the dog attacks you, it gets put down, which ... makes this a slightly icky metaphor for a furry site, but, you know, as long as the dog gets put down, a few rabies shots are worth it. Metaphorically speaking.
And, outside furry, that could already be happening; Charlottsville didn't stop Confederate monuments being taken down. If anything, previously safe monuments were taken down that would probably still be up if they had kept quiet.
I guess the metaphor circles round, here. The alt-right has thrown a few rocks at unsafe dogs, itself.
To be fair, I think part of the reason why a MUCKs is declining is because nobody gives a shit about MUCKs anymore, but that may be my insular bubble talking.
Well, FurryMuck has had quite a revival recently. And SPR was gaining users again a few years ago...
"a few years ago"
"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~
Well, Furry Muck's revival has continued. SPR returned to contraction. What do you think the significant difference was?
Link to the altfurry chat logs and some samples of contents (Asking Nazi leaders outside the furry fandom for their involvement, trolling against conventions, discussing hiring a hitman, antisemitism, racial slurs and discussions of supremacy and genocide.)
"This Alt-Right hasn't even become big enough to make fandom noise to the level where I've heard it."
That's because they don't even act with enough good faith to present a real front. Everything they do is a false front borrowing the trappings of cute animal avatars and networks pre-made by fans of creative stuff. They're like those wasps that infest a furry caterpillar, make it be a zombie for a while and eat it from inside out.
Relevant NY Times article:
Lame "free speech absolutism" doesn't map to the grid of these social networks. Not when you don't have any ownership of them. One thing that works is, inside or out of them, holding people to good faith in some shared community ideal. In other words, there is an actual community and it can't coexist with nazis. And no, it's not hard to tell when people are in that group if you look. All those bad faith excuses about "they're just trolling" are intentional distraction. There you get the bottom line of Lamar's piece - the head of policy for the MUCK just didn't care enough to look, or maybe preferred the way things shriveled up.
It's a lot like stuff in a long report about FurAffinity moderation I have on deck to post.
I'm looking forward to that. A person could damn near write a thesis on everything wrong with FA on a systemic level. I bet a lot of it will end up sounding like the gist of this MUCK owner's lackadaisical attitude of "it's not a big deal to me so it's not a big deal after all".
The root of FA's problems is fairly simple to address. Everything follows from one single point of failure.
You saying it's Dragoneer? Because I've heard a lot of theories about Yak being the man behind the man.
"the head of policy for the MUCK"
I don't know where this Lamar got that from, I (Snout) am not head of policy on SPR. Even if we once upon a time _did_ have a single top person, those days are in the far past, now.
Aside from that, I have only personal opinions and guesses on the original post, and I'm not going to feed either side by putting them here.
When I became the Official Editor of Rowrbrazzle in 1989, I proposed changing the Rowrbrazzle Rules to make the O.E.ship elective with scheduled elections, like in all the s-f fan apas. instead of permanent for as long as the O.E. wanted to serve. All the members protested, "NO! Let's avoid any politics in Rowrbrazzle!"
Fred Patten
I'm not sure it would have made any difference in the long run. Put enough people together and you get politics any way you slice it. Trying to avoid politics is like trying to avoid doing any cleaning, it just means that theres more to do and it's a worse mess when you actually do have to handle it.
Leftists riot and destroy property after Trump election.
Leftists punch a person on live TV without provocation while he is involved in a live TV broadcast.
Leftists prevent a conservative speaker from giving a peaceful talk and injure faculty in the process.
Leftists carry weapons when going to peacefully protest.
Leftists praise antifa's militant and, pretty much, terrorist activities.
Leftists deny there is blame on both sides.
Yeah... That's convincing.
"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 is a pretty good example of a "derailing" technique, to try to move the conversation away from looking away from the AltRight, AltFurry and NeoNazi's efforts, while also attempting to establish a "blame on both sides" false narrative.
Actually it's directly related to your last question in the interview. And, since I'm not aware of anyone denying those incidents actually happened, I'm not sure why you think it's false. That seems to me to be very clearly biased. If those actions were done by the right, you wouldn't hesitate to condemn them. It's basically the very definition of partisanship.
"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~
Define "Leftists"? The way you have used it is so you can collate a handful of minor incidents in order to present a case for "blame on both sides". Maybe some "leftist" protestors went to a march carrying sticks. But the AltRight *actively celebrate* going to marches openly carrying loaded rifles. And yet you present this as equivalent.
Plus, 'antifa' isn't an organised group, and you're making a massive stretch to try to create 'antifa terrorists'.
Plus, 'anonymous' isn't an organized group, and you're making a massive stretch to try to create 'anonymous hackers'.
Oh wait.
Hi Perri!
Too short to be Perri.
Perri confuses the fuck out of me. I've actually taken the time to read his comments here in the past and I've never gotten a sense of what his point is or where he's coming from. What the fuck is his deal?
Pretty simple, really. She sympathizes with "neo-Nazis". Been uncharacteristically clear on that front.
Oh. I never bothered to read her LiveJournal. Thanks for clearing that up. White genocide my ass. Europeans will always be European, but white never meant anything but arbitrary and false superiority over everyone else, including "the wrong kind" of Europeans.
Dear Perri if you're reading this, Jesus was black and so was Cleopatra. Know your history.
Bottom line fuck that fat bitch.
Thanks Perri, now I know your ass is reading this XD
...Jesus was from galilee. If anything he was likely either turko-semetic or syrian-arabic, and Cleopatra comes from the line of the Ptolemiec dynasty, which is a Macedonian Greek family.
What books did you read where you got that they were black?
The idea that Jesus was Black has existed for a long time, based on the theory that the ancient Israelites were (partially or entirely) a Black people. Of course since even the historicity of Jesus has not been confirmed I doubt we'd be any closer to determining his racial category (or modern equivalent)
Equivamp, most historians agree on two thing:
1. Jesus was a real, historical figure.
2. Bill Maher is not a historian.
Who?
Uh, this guy, for one. I like this point:
Also, I'd point out, if you wanted to be anti-Christian, you could point out it was basically a cult at first, and cults kind of need "a charismatic leader" claiming to be the son of God or whatever to work. So, Jesus is a David Koresh type character that worked.
Unless you mean who's Bill Maher, and in that case, well, good job avoiding that, but for the importance to this conversation, his documentary Religulous helped popularize the "Jesus wasn't real" instead of "Jesus wasn't magic" idea in America.
His main point is the story of Jesus is a lot like the story of Horus from Egyptian mythology, which is really easily debunked by actually looking up the story of Horus. For instance, he claims Horus was born of a virgin birth, which is laughable. Horus is the son of Isis and Osiris, and they totally fucked, like, all the time. Set, Osiris's brother, killed him and chopped him into little pieces and hid them all over the world, so Isis and Osiris's bastard son with Set's wife Nepthys, Anubis (yeah, Anubis, despite being a death god, is totally a good guy) went on a fetch quest to find all those chopped up body parts. They found all but one piece, Osiris's penis, which had been eaten by a fish. Well, the fetch quest had a purpose; since Osiris had no legitimate son, Isis had Anubis mummify him (Anubis was the inventor of mummification, and was so good, when he did it, people sort of came back to life) so she could fuck Osiris's dead body and get produce a legitimate heir. The missing penis thing was a problem for this plan, so Anubis, instead of just saying, hey, I'm right here, I'm a son of Osiris, I did all I could with the incestial necrophilia plan (I hadn't even mentioned that Set, Nepthys, Isis and Osiris were all siblings yet), I'll fucking fight Set, made a dildo out of wood and magicked it up and apparently that worked. So that's how Horus was conceived. And then Horus grew up to murder the shit out of Set, Osiris's mummy became the king of the underworld, Anubis got a menial bureaucratic job involving weights and measures, and ISIS became a Muslim terrorist organization.
So, you know, exactly like the Gospels!
wait why am I being accused of being anti Christian
You got the resident obnoxious atheist on my ass, so what do you think?
Atheism is the worst form of Christianity.
But really, the important thing I want everyone to take away here from my post is that Anubis is either the most underappreciatedly noble character in all of Egyptian mythology, or the biggest schmuck.
One or the other.
The evidence for a real historical Jesus is extremely weak. The argument below barely counts as evidence. You can't reason something into existence.
"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~
The evidence for a historical Socrates is no better, but nobody gives a shit, because not believing in Socrates doesn't make you think you sound like you're smarter than Christians.
The historical evidence for a Jesus who had magic powers and was the son of God is lacking, but don't fucking be an asshole about it and say well, "well, I mean, all we have is the word of people who wrote down his life story". Yeah, you know what that's called? Fucking history.
That's all this argument is; just bullshit by assholes.
(And that's why I'm calling your comment anti-Christian, Equivamp; because it fucking is.).
The bigger difference is probably that a major world religion which around a billion people base their lives on does not depend on him being real. Socrates' ideas the important part. If Jesus was not real then the whole Christian faith breaks down.
"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~
Socrates was teacher; so was Jesus. His ideas are kind of important.
So, actually, no that's a bullshit answer that's already been handled by Christian apologists since at least C.S. Lewis. He was an atheist. He could see that the evidence that Jesus was the son of God was sketchy. He wrote an entire book of poetry about atheism before his conversion.
His novel The Silver Chair is all about the challenge of atheism and the possibility that their is no God. And in that novel, the answer given by a character is straightforward.
The historical fact that Jesus walked the earth approximately 2000 years ago is the one goddamned thing I DON'T take on faith and actually have evidence for. Whether or not he was the son of God, we can argue, but fuck, we actually got this one, Rakuen, and you're being the dogmatic going with no evidence.
Sure, the teachings are important but everything that goes with the religion is based on it being real. No Jesus then no way into heaven, no redemption from original sin, no trinity. The major story of Jesus is that he died to save the world, if he didn't do that then its pointless. He wasn't just a teacher.
That speech there is pretty lame. We aren't living in Narnia. The made up part of Christianity is in the future. And belief there distracts people from the real world where they can actually make a difference to people. It's why get figures like Mother Theresa who happily let people wallow in poverty and misery because they will be rewarded in the next life when in reality all they are getting is one miserable existence because no one really cares for them when it matters.
"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~
Don't mansplain Christianity at a Christian, Rakuen. That's rude.
Do you know how Christian Biblical scholars rate how historically accurate a passage of the Bible is? (Because they agree not every detail is correct. Yeah, Rakuen, people of faith have dealt with this problem. Approximately 2000 years more than you.) There are multiple criteria, but one is how embarrassing it is to the faith. For instance, many agree that Christ's final words probably were "My God, why have you forsaken me?" because why in the fuck would God in human form say that?
Fuck if I know.
But you're not just misunderstanding religious people, you're also misunderstanding the historical record. Do you believe the Battle of Thermopylae happened? Well, then, by your own logic, you're stupid. It supposedly happened around 500 B.C. according to the writings of our primary source of the events, Herodotus, writing around 100 A.D.. Six hundred years, Rakuen. And you're quibbling about one generation? You're not looking at history, and the way it has been recorded. Shit didn't get written down like it does now, Rakuen.
I'm a fucking journalist, recording history is what I do, so this matters to me beyond religion.
And finally, you're misunderstanding Christianity. You don't like Mother Theresa, actually, she's way more controversial among actual Christians than you think, for the very reasons you gave. Because that bit's actually in the Bible. Half of the the New Testament is letters from various apostles to groups of Christians acting like they don't have to do shit anymore because Jesus has their back telling them, no, you still need to do the fucking work.
But, in a completely un-Christian sentiment, I'm going to mansplain atheism back at you. What's the point of atheism. It doesn't teach anything; how to behave, how to act, what it all means. No words of wisdom, or comfort. Nothing. It offers nothing. Nothing except the ability to get off on your own intellectual vanity, and, as you can see, I've already got that covered.
You want to try the book of Genesis now?
Because, actually, you can have that one. That one is of very little historical value.
You know what, we're really off topic, but this shit is actually really cool to me, so I'm just going to go. Nothing to do with furry or the alt-right or anything, but maybe somebody'll find this interesting. Not even arguing anymore, just cool stuff about the Bible as an historical document and shit.
Because that's the really neat thing about both the Old and New Testaments; they really did a good job keeping up with their history, and keeping it written down and preserved. I mean, that's why we still know about Jesus and the old-school Israel. Because, Jesus, as I pointed out earlier, came at a time when Jewish Messiahs were about a dime a dozen. I mean, the reason he doesn't show up in a lot of non-Christian historical records is because the Zealots were right down the road holed up in an impregnable fortress and killing the shit out of any Romans that came their way until they finally all committed mass suicide, so, like, who gives a shit about the guy who surrendered peacefully and was executed without a hitch and specifically told his followers not to avenge him.
But this care for historical accuracy comes from the Jewish priests; much like Jesus was a dime a dozener who, depending on you beliefs, either got lucky or was the real deal, Israel (and Judah) was, like, a tiny little shitsplat of a kingdom in the middle of nowhere that we all remember today because they made sure to write their history down, even when they didn't even technically have a kingdom. So, now we can all read it. Keeping records of what happened is ingrained into Christianity via Judaism.
There are contradictions in the Old and New Testaments, but the interesting thing is that the Bible at one point even acknowledges that an error has been made in the transcribing of earlier texts, and that pains have been made to fix them. In the Old Testament books 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, during the reign of King Josiah, a old text is found in the temple, and this causes a great deal of disturbance in the kingdom (the general consensus is this found text is part of or the basis of most or at least some of the the book of Deuteronomy, though there is some debate about what this actually means).
The Jewish priests were also perfectly aware that their texts had contradictions; they were often the ones that put them in there, after all, when they originally wrote them down. The Genesis story of the Noah flood, and its constantly changing number of animals on the arc, is an easy way to see this. The book of Genesis, as a whole, is thought of to be a mashing together of at least two, possibly as many as four, different traditions. The two tradition version is that of a priest version versus a non-priest understanding of the stories (so, for instance, the priest version sees the a more complicated stance, differentiating between the number "clean" and "unclean" animals on the arc while the "lay" version is the simple two of each), while the more complicated versions see the priest sections divided into rival priests of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, plus possibly a bit of that "new" text from 2 Kings/2 Chronicles.
Another example of a contradiction in Genesis is the opening; the first part, the "In the beginning" stuff, is very "priest". It's more mysterious, you know? "Let there be light" and all that stuff movies like to quote when they want you to think they're being serious and shit. Then, when you get to about the second chapter, you get a story, about Adam and Eve, but really, it's a whole new creation story, because this the "lay" version. You get less of God as a force of creation, more, well, anthropomorphic, and you also get stuff like talking snakes. If you don't know the gap is there, you can read it and not see it, but if someone points it out you, you can see the gap. They read differently, if you're paying attention.
Point out here that this is one of the earliest contradictions in the Bible with the priests saying man and woman were created at the same time while the lay version has Adam decidedly first, Eve second. This gave rise to the legend of Lilith, the first woman before Eve who went bad and is some kind of demon vampire succubus now, but that was way later when people stopped remembering that this was really two versions of a story and not meant to be read as one.
But let's talk about people who actually believe in the Bible as the Word of God, and how they square not just the contradictions of fact, but ethical and moral lapses and contradictions that maybe God should be above (and also occasional descriptions of horse jizm out of nowhere). And, yeah, fundamentalists just kind of bulldoze over it all, history and morality be damned, but Christians who aren't stupid have to deal with this, and religions, it turns out, get to have theories, too.
One way of dealing with the nasty bits of the Bible is a Biblical theory called the "tape recorder theory", which uses a tape recorder to kind of explain the process of how the Word of God gets obscured. Okay, so, like, the Bible is a tape recorder, and God is recording his Word, and for some reason isn't making an MP3 but a cassette tape. Okay, so to make a copy of this tape, you have to record it on another tape, because in this metaphor MP3s haven't been invented yet. Anyway, while you're copying the tape, if you sneeze or fart or someone walks into the room and doesn't realize you're recording, well, that sneeze or fart or random asshole talking about what he wants to talk about is now part of your recording. Now someone else wants a copy of God's Word, but you've given God back the original copy or something, anyway, it's no longer available, so you have to copy your copy with the farts and sneezes and ramblings, so this new copy is going to have all that plus any new farts and sneezes and ramblings that accidentally get recorded, and so on and so forth, until, after so many recordings, there are entire sections of "God's Word" that are obscured or completely erased by all the accidentally recorded farts and sneezes and ramblings.
So, in this metaphor, the Bible is a recording of a recording ad infinitum that also unfortunately has a lot of stuff, though not random farts and sneezes, but the cultural baggage of its transcribers and translators. You can hear the Word, but some of it is farts, is what I'm saying.
(Interrupting my own off topic ramble with an off topic ramble to say my favorite joke in Christopher Moore's Lamb is when Biff tells Jesus his anticipation is like a mustard seed, and Jesus is like I don't know what that means, and Biff tells Jesus, "See, that's what that's like.")
I guess I'm done.
Atheism doesn't need to teach anything. It's just recognising that there is no god.
I'm not totally following your history paragraph there. I guess denying a historical Jesus touched a nerve. But even if there were a historical Jesus, which I doubt, that's only a very minor aspect of why I'm an atheist.
The Mother Theresa thing was an example of the difference between Narnia vs the real world and heaven vs the real world. The Narnia example would be great if we were wondering if this world were real or not but it's a bad explanation when debating a future world.
"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~
Well, I guess it helps, if you haven't read the book, the character of Puddleglum is actually an ultra-realist. This is about his first hopeful line in the novel. He's more likely to give out inadvertent black humor:
He's arguing that, at a practical level, if something is real or not is kind of beside the point if that belief causes you to act good. The speech isn't about heaven, Rakuen. It's about the Christian call to do good deeds. He is rebutting a villain who's arguing since there is no God, there is no good, so they might as well give up their fantasy quest now. He's saying his beliefs may be wrong, but they're getting the goddamn job done, so who cares?
It's also a message for Christians who have doubts, who may feel self-loathing or depression due to feelings of hypocrisy. Both this and later books make clear that Lewis, at least, believes if you act like a Christian, you are a Christian.
It's basically "fake it 'til you make it", except British.
Well I can at least understand that but I'm not sure I agree with it. Why you do something can matter even if the results are the same.
For example, a man walks in to find a second man beating a dog with a golf club, quickly he goes up to him, pushes the man back and takes the club while shouting, "Stop that!" We might say, he's a good man. But if we then find out that he only stopped the second man because beating the dog was getting blood on his carpet do we still think he was a good man doing good? Sure he stopped the second man beating the dog but not for the right reasons and he wouldn't have done it if the situation had been slightly different.
Some people are motivated to do good because of Christianity (and other religions) but the reasons aren't always good and often they will do bad because of those reasons, see the anti-abortion movement as one example. I'm not saying people should stop doing good things but they should do them for a good reason and religion is not a good reason.
"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~
In Islam you believe that Judas was given Jesus' form and that Judas was the one who was crucified. So Judas would be the one saying that quote if we were to splice these two stories together. This is also why his followers then deny him, as they are in the know.
Of course in Islam you also believe that God has no form and that we are all the sons and daughters of God as one family of humanity. Also that Satan wouldn't bow to Adam because he didn't believe that humans are superior to angels and djinns just because God created humans in his image. Image meaning the 99 qualities/99 names of God. Free will, the ability to create, etc.
Islam is blindspot in my religious knowledge (though I love the story of Hagar, because the Bible kind of rambles out of its way to make clear she and her kid got out all right). Jesus is kind of like a prophet in Islam, rather than a Messiah ... I think?
So, does that make Judas a good guy in Islam, or is that his punishment?
In Islam Jesus is the Messiah. He will come down from Heaven etc. etc.
(presumably after a war that starts in Syria and spreads and spreads until a "God loving country in the west" goes to war with Russia and China who are allies in the story - but that's a very old story)
The Ahmadiyya sect of Islam believes this already happened before World War 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad
They are also one of the sects of Islam which consider Buddha to be a prophet.
There are 73 sects of Islam, so it can be tricky to figure things out sometimes.
Judas is known as "the betrayer" so he's still a bad guy.
They also claim to have found the Tomb of the original Jesus. https://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/
@2cross, is this relevant to your other discussion at all? About Jesus being real or not?
No, I'm just curious. It's relevant that I'm interested in religion and religions in general, as well as being religious, but I'm not using this as some kind of evidence for historical Jesus.
Not necessarily.
Taoism in the west is a lot like this; a lot of American "Taoists" are into the philosophy of Lao Tsu, and even compatible with, say, Christianity, but then you actually ask the Chinese Taoists and it's not just, like, a philosophy, man.
They actually have a Taoist pantheon over there (which does not actually include Lao Tsu).
The key difference between these two being that the former is an orthopractic religion (or religious subsect) without orthodoxy, and the other is an irreligious philosophy.
There are way, way more atheist Jewish people than Christians though.
Whut? I literally believe that he was likely a real person based on consensus of near-East historians. There's no smoking gun though, and they disagree on almost every aspect of his life except his baptism and his execution.
I think that's the problem I have with this argument that there wasn't a historical Jesus; most atheism versus Christian fights have one side or the other bringing a knife to a gunfight, because one side is acting on evidence while the other is acting on faith.
But this is, like, the one argument where I've got a gun at the gunfight, for fuck's sake. It's kind of irksome that this time I'm the one citing sources, while the atheist in the argument is the one going "well, I believe differently" with nothing to back up his argument.
We seldom go to those lengths in the comments section but if it pleases you there are some summaries and links to things here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/once-again-was-there-a-histo...
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/rosa-rubicondior-not-much-ev...
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/peter-nothnagle-no-evidence-...
I don't have so much time for arguing about this though. I've been arguing with Patch on Twitter and doing a lot of writing and sources for a new opinion piece. (Technically at the moment I'm just watching ponies but in the grand scheme of things I am supposed to be writing.)
"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~
Oh, great fucking source, Rakuen.
Are you quoting from the direct link or the secondary links that are collected there to provide the evidence? I'm not a climate scientist nor have a I read the literature but would you dismiss me saying global warming is real and linking to statement by climate scientists?
"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 more like you saw an opportunity to bait Rakuen into a gun fight, and got so excited that you actually have a gun for once that you forgot to actually use it
Thanks, guys.
Because of this thread, the Church of Satan is mad at me on Twitter.
This is all your fault, totally.
When you have people, including furs, saying "America first" "jews will not replace us" "we will not be replaced" and boo-hooing over statues of losers from 152 year old war, you have to sit back and wonder what the hell is wrong with their ideology, what is wrong with their minds and what the hell is wrong with this nation.
Here leftists is basically the opposition to Trump and his right wing, white supremacist supporters. I believe the majority would consider themselves left wing. I use it that way because these incidents are by people with generally the same political view.
I also never presented both sides as equivalent. That's an assumption you made. But just because one side is more to blame than another doesn't mean that the less reprehensible side is innocent. To quote from one blog (also because it refers to some things Peter Singer has recently said about non-violent resistance):
"But that doesn’t matter, nor do both sides have to be equally to blame. What is clear is that the Left holds some responsibility for initiating violence, and yet many refuse to admit it, pointing to the car murder. To do that is putting your fingers in your ears and saying “nah nah nah nah.” The far Left is becoming more violent, and those closer to the center seem more willing to condone violence or turn their heads to it."
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/peter-singer-decries-the-use...
Terrorist is perhaps a stretch as they do not yet appear to be attacking innocents. However they are deliberately creating conflict and starting fights with people. It's not an organised group but it does share an ideology and the use violence is part of that.
"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~
Okay, well if you want to make it a reductionist 'both sides', and lump everyone on the Left and who's Anti-Facist (which is literally all Antifa means) together with Anarchists and the Black Block... You realise that also requires everyone on the Right to be aligned with and on the side of the Murderous Neo-Nazis?
You sure you want to live with that?
I'm not trying to be reductionist here. I'm saying both sides in the sense that there two sides that clashed in the conflict. Not everyone on the right was involved and not everyone on the left was involved. Strictly speaking each person is their own side and responsible for how they behave. If you want to accurately interpret what I said then it is that... there was a conflict and the people that went there ready for violence and who used violence all should not have done so and those that did use violence were present on both of the two major sides that are generally recognised as the political left and right; furthermore violence committed by anyone should be condemned and I consider it to be a frightening commentary on the highly partisan nature of politics at the moment that people are not prepared to recognise or criticise anyone who is broadly aligned with their own views.
"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~
If you're going to make it specifically about the recent marches, then... Well, the idea that there was 'violence on both sides' seems entirely without basis of any evidence from the actual events. And some of the items you cited were unrelated to the recent marches, or unrelated to AntiFa activities, or hyperbolic attribution of violent acts to "leftists". So I don't quite see how you were not trying to make general broad strokes towards the entire left...
When I say both sides I refer both to marches and to the general state of things in the US over the past few months. True, it is difficult to try and keep it focussed because it the issue is heated and always changing. As for broad strokes I think that was again pretty clear in my previous post. Saying there is blame on the left is shorthand for saying there are people who were violent and were generally aligned in the group that is the political left.
"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~
Also if you want to see true lumping, just scroll down where TyphonDog accused me of being a Nazi sympathiser. I have basically no sympathy with Nazis, white supremacists, nationalists or anything like that. So either, they are completely ignorant of me, which seems unlikely considering that person has been here a while, or they are locked into a black and white world where disagreement means you must support the "other side."
"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~
Well, so far as I can see, you have called AntiFa, the people opposed to Nazis, "terrorists". It would be a better demonstration of your sympathies, if you spent the same amount of time attacking the Nazis as you do attacking Leftists.
Question!
If I attack the wannabe Nazis, who started World War II, nobody whines at me about it.
Why do people whine at others for attacking the wannabe anarchists, who started World War I?
Because Anarchists didn't start World War I. Count Leopold Berchtold started World War I, based on scapegoating Serbia for the actions of a cell of anarchists and giving them a list of ultimatums he personally tailored so that it would be impossible for Serbia to satisfy them.
The people I am engaging with here are not Nazis and would agree with me on the point that Nazis are bad so there is little to be gained by patting one another on the back. However there are people here who, whether I agree with them on the Nazi issue or not, are threatening values which are immensely important and promoting violence against others. That is something that I feel an ethical obligation to oppose and seeing as that is the other view being promoted here it is one that is available for me to argue against.
"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~
Well, since you are making this comment on my article, I assume that you are indicating that somehow the article was a call to arms? Otherwise, what exactly was your point in railing against the Leftists in an article about alt-right and alt-furry infiltration?
I would advise you to stop making assumptions. You don't seem to have written this as a call to arms. However you brought up something I find a bit strange with the way different sides approach the same news and I figured I would comment on what I see as basically reality denialism.
Also it's a really odd article. Basically you're taking a foreigner and demanding to know why they don't follow US politics. I know you aren't from the US. We both aren't but we see a bunch of it. However, as I've said before, I think most of this furry drama is coming from the American furs. There is no talk about Nazis and such things in the South African furry fandom (or at least the areas I am in) and, apart from occasional talk about how stupid Trump is, there was no talk about Charlottesville or Nazis are Eurofurence either. Or, again, at least not that I was aware of. Yes, there are problems in the US and the more US-focussed areas of the furry fandom but that doesn't mean you need to spread it around and drag everyone else into it as well.
"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~
Interesting, because I'm just back from Worldcon in Helsinki, and we were talking about it there. But again, this article is all about how easy it is for the Alt-Right to infiltrate when you've created a insulating bubble from "politics".
Without actually showing any evidence of the alt-right infiltrating SPR MUCK. You have two links, neither of which show anything. No screenshots of waht was actually said or anything to link anyone to the alt right. It's purely your own recollection of what happened and that that was similar to what some people on the alt-right have said. That doesn't make them alt-right. And the person you interview doesn't really know what you're talking about either!
"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~
I ALSO HATE LISTENING TO PEOPLE DESCRIBE THINGS THEY SAW
I STAND FOR FREE SPEECH IF WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING
SHOES WILL NOT REPAY US
Have to agree with Rakuen here that this is just a weird article. A random conversation with a person of seemingly little significance trying to comment out of ignorance on topics and events happening half a world away.
I'm kinda torn honestly. It's a hot button issue, and those are worthy of attention and controversy and all that, but yeah, it's not really of significance in this case. If all the site needs for content is opinions on the current topic of the day presented in a way that's entertaining, someone just drop me a line and I'll gladly sign up.
Full Disclosure: I am a massive fucking pillhead and almost never don't write under the influence which is supposedly what got me permabanned from oldFAF but fuck those guys they're a bunch of retards LOL.
But if you write a story, you'll have to register an account! :P
Is that a bad thing? Just another place to eventually get banned from.
I don't think you can be banned from Flayrah.
This is not a very good resume, Wolf-Bone.
I think describing everyone who is ideologically opposed to fascism as "antifa" is materially incorrect, historically and contemporarily.
"Antifa" is literally just a contraction of the words Anti and Fascist.
"Nazi" is literally just a contraction of the words National and Socialist. Socialists are by definition leftist. Therefore Nazis are leftists.
That was sarcasm. To spell it out: The literal meaning or etymology of a word does not define its meaning. Meaning is defined through use.
Actually, it's a contraction of the words antifaschtische aktion, originally named for a specific leftwing paramilitary group. The "action" part is just as important as the "antifascist" part.
And anyway being named for something doesn't mean a movement has a monopoly on said thing. (Or even, necessarily, that it IS that thing; lest you forget what "nazi" is a contraction for.)
Antifa is *not* short for Antifaschtische Aktion, unless you're using it in a context to specifically refer to the exact 1930s German communist group called "Antifaschtische Aktion". Otherwise, antifa is a term that is used by *a huge spectrum* of Anti Fascist individuals, organisation and loose coalitions. It's like saying that because LGBTQ communities use the same term and use a rainbow flag symbol, it's a single organisation.
Seems pretty revisionist if you ask me.
I'm more than happy to cast my lot in with the people that snuffed out Mussolini. Anyone who read Nineteen Eighty-Four and actually got it is antifascist and not antisocialist. Orwell himself was a socialist. I don't know if I could be considered one, but I'm damn sure not going to give props to this golden mean fallacy bullshit we got going on right now.
I don't think it's sensible to get your ethics from Peter Singer, Rakuen.
I don't agree with all of his positions or primarily use utilitarian ethics but he gives well-reasoned arguments for his positions. Furthermore, he tries to follow his principles which cannot be said for everyone. So I think he is a good moral teacher.
"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~
I also have extremely simplistic opinions about countries I don't live in
.
A group of anarchists and very upset people riot after a contentious election that did not reflect the popular vote.
A person punched a Nazi on live TVwhile he is involved in a live TV broadcast.
Groups of college students prevent a conservative speaker from appearing on campuses with the sole purpose to provoke trouble.
Right Wingers have been carrying firearms when going to 'peacefully' protest for years, or saying "We came unarmed this time", as well as committing 74% of politically-motivated murders in the last decade.
Many people on the Left and the Right praise confrontation of Nazis.
Disingenuous people say both sides are equivalent.
I wonder why some people might call you a Nazi, with your ardent defense of them and the broad brush painting of anyone who opposes them as "Leftists". I guess the majority of Republicans are Leftists too now, seeing as a majority of the big name Republicans have also condemned Nazism and said that it is morally bankrupt to try and blame "both sides" on this matter.
I don't think you're a Nazi, but it would be impolite to come out and say what I think you are.
Rakuen is kinda the ur-example of the guy who starts with "free speech is the most important right we have!" and then you're all like, "oh, boy, here we go" and then five minutes later they're explaining the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia like this isn't the Internet and five hundred creeps haven't already explained the difference to me.
If free speech is the most important right we have, self-control is the most important responsibility. If your best defense for what you're about to say it is you are technically allowed to say it, it's probably not actually worth saying.
I think Pratchett, speaking through Lord Vetinari, said it best: The foundation of freedom is responsibility. Particularly, taking responsibility for your own actions.
Free Speech is a very important right, but there's an important aspect to it: In the US, it only applies to government reaction to speech. It in no way violates my freedom of speech to be banned from any site or removed from any private property, nor does it violate my free speech when someone uses their free speech to combat it.
That and Freedom of Speech does not cover all speech - there are exceptions to it, and for good reason: They are irresponsible usages of speech. Such as call to riot, or specific threats made.
So, telling someone to "Get the fuck out and shut up" is not a violation of someone's Freedom of Speech. 1) I'm not a government. 2) I'm engaging in my own Freedom of Speech. 3) If you believe that me saying "Shut up" is a violation of someone's freedom of speech and try to prevent me from doing so, you are thus violating your own definition of Freedom of Speech by denying me mine.
Considering that one of the alt-right tactics I saw on display was taking over a location in order to ban "political" discussion there (except their own of course) in the name of "preventing Drama", I'd assume that free speech absolutists would be out in force against that kind of thing.
I must say, I would've expected better from you.
"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~
And I must say, completely predictable from you.
Sorry about the hebephilia thing, that wasn't you.
It's like, tiger's gotta pounce.
But you're arguing this wrong, if you're really arguing from a free speech perspective. I mean, you're taking the stance that this is fringe versus fringe with your "leftist" rhetoric; it's not. The alt-right is a fringe; fuck, it's name literally means "an alternative to the right", meaning it's opposed to the regular right just as much as it's opposed the left. It's a fringe versus the world. I mean, if there's an "all sides" to this debate, it's that; all sides are against the alt-right, because the alt-right is against all sides.
Which doesn't really mean a damn thing in the free speech thing; as your own quote points out, it's still a fringe's right to not be silenced. But then why in the fuck did you bring up the left at all? Because you're using rhetoric that picks a goddamn side, it sound like you picked a goddamn side, Rakuen.
Maybe, don't do that?
I'm certainly not consciously trying to say fringe vs fringe. I have no idea what amount of support each side has nor does it affect anything for me. The left vs alt-right is perhaps more a result of where I get my information.
I read very little from right wing sources. I should perhaps read more, it's just that that tends to be less factual and more unhinged than left wing media and I reach my tolerance much faster. (My main source of US news is Slate which has some loonies but generally seems pretty good and is fairly balanced.) So most of what I see is the left reaction to things and it is that reaction that I find troubling. Just like it's alarming to see such an authoritarian side to the, mostly US, furry fandom. I don't know so much of what the right in the US is saying beyond what comes through a leftist filter and has comes loaded with biases.
"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~
I GET MY INFORMATION FROM BATHROOM WALLS THEY ARE A GREAT SOURCE OF UNCENSORED FREE SPEECH
As long as we unscentsor the bathroom first!
I'm a regular Slate reader myself and while you could certainly do a lot worse as far as "loony left" (personally, Salon.Com I find is about two steps up from Tumblr), you really need more variety. CNN has finally started to find its balls, though I'm only cautiously optimistic about how long it'll be before they turn. TYT is basically infotainment, but at least it's equal parts info and 'tainment. And for a good, well rounded look at the black experience in online news media, you can't go wrong with The Root (they used to be affiliated with Slate but something happened, probably a change in ownership).
Part of me wants to recommend Canadian news sources since it's an outside perspective but... I'm Canadian and honestly I think our media is pitiful.
I already hear plenty from American sources. While it's certainly topical, I'm not sure American perspectives are really aligned with the perspectives of any other country. I have a general feeling that if most of the world is doing one thing, America will be doing something else. And with the messed up political situation there, it'll probably be a while before the views and opinions coming from there are entirely appropriate for an international audience.
"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~
That time when a South African complains on an article written by a Brit who is interviewing a Swede(?) about alt-right infiltration into their MUCK that Flayrah's a bit too 'Murrica.
Your complaint is noted.
But I will say that Flayrah is far more international this year than any year prior. We had an article reviewing a Chinese convention from somewhere in Hong Kong this year as well. I do hope that continues to improve, and I think it shall.
Um... I didn't say Flayrah was too American. I was talking about where to get news and Wolf-Bone recommended CNN, mentioned Salon and another two I've never heard of but appear to be American in context. There's nothing in my reply or the comment it replies to which is about Flayrah.
"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~
I think Sonious just likes to read himself type.
Sometimes, yes, it's cathartic and makes me feel like I'm actually doing something when I'm not.
My apologies, must be I zoned out for a second there.
Hebe-what-now?
Don't answer that... I don't wanna know... I'm not googling it either...
Six years bad, twelve years better!
Any group can and will be subject to this sort of thing, insular ones moreso. All it takes are people making "innocuous statements" that make others uncomfortable and cause them to leave. The percentage of Alt-Right speakers increase, and with it how accepted the statements they make are. With the abscence of opposition, the ideas slowly seep into other people as accepted - these are members of THEIR community, right?
As a result, boundaries of what can be said shift, so the Alt-Right statements grow even stronger, allowing for more rhetoric and more people who are made uncomfortable to leave. As the statements continue to be made, challenging them becomes harder and harder, with those doing so seen as disruptive or causing a problem.
It can happen with any ideology, but it is the Nazi and Alt-Right that make it a specific mission to do it intentionally. This is how 4chan's /b/ board became so bad - an intentional conversion campaign by Stormfront, seeing the Ironically Pro-Nazi mocking/edgy shock jokes as an opening.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
South Africa First, y'all!
Just as a warning, if Nazism did every take over the US (which is extremely unlikely); you know that like a crap ton of furry porn exports would be gone from web. Especially since we are clearly an enemy of their state at this point.
So yeah, perhaps care about America a little bit. I know our politicians are assholes, but we do have some good fur porn artists being held hostage behind that flag.
I am reminded of a Tweet a movie critic I follow made on election night last November:
Somehow, my job now requires me to sit and watch THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS.
Old member of SPR here (first arrived in 2004). I stopped coming around mostly because it was so dead to begin with, wasn't fun to hang around dying of boredom in a room full of idlers and life got real busy and stole all my attention away. I do still stop by sometimes though, and plan to come back around more soon. Haven't heard a single thing about the alt-right from friends I talk to daily who are always on SPR (we're talking botspot holders here) and have zero alt-right tendencies and would probably tell me if there was a problem going on there with it. So this is new to me.
If there were alt-right jerks coming around SPR thinking it was their new little insular haven, you can bet I'd march my dusty ol' tail back in and give 'em a piece of my mind, though. And this fox is REAL good at being obnoxious when she wants to be. They wouldn't stand a chance. ;)
Things are a little different over in SPR. Pretty sure alt-right types wouldn't last long. Just my 2 cents.
Well, all I know is that I personally saw someone participate in the aggressive take over of a location in order to ban "political" discussion, who regularly used alt-right talking points to disparage BLM. (Their ban on politics only covered people trying to argue against alt-right talking points of course.) And that this person is now a Wizard there, in charge of policing conduct.
SPR has become a place where hate speech against transgendered people is acceptable.
I mean, I've heard that you and one other were of that opinion, and had decided to go around screaming it from the rooftops, and you're entitled to your opinion -- but last I checked that wasn't actually a thing. If you're talking about the wiz I think you are, that guy's about as alt-right as a sandwich. He's more like, midright maybe. His politics are usually along the lines of "whatever, people are dumb". Not even the most republican-leaning member I can think of, lol. You guys already drove out the older old-school-republican gent for being...well, old fashioned and set in his ways, lol (but his opinion of Nazis is generally one of disgust and derision as well, because he's more that old school republican line of thinking - you know, that kinda Reagan style, which although I disagree with it, in his case it's honestly pretty harmless and comes from a pretty decent fella).
I mean, look, if people were being transphobic and spewing alt-right BS, trust me, I'd have been the first to log on just to scream at them about it. I'm kinda midleft and generally believe everyone should have the right to do whatever they want (so long as it's not harmful, etc. etc.). Hate speech raises my blood pressure and I got a big flamey foxy temper to match.
All I'm saying is, there's nothing to panic about, and if there was, I'd be right there shaking a stick at whoever it was and I'm sure a few others would too. I think SPR will be okay.
I want to put this delicately because I don't know you very well, but, er... your politics are EXTREME left (nothing wrong with that, just a fact that that's generally where you stand) and, more importantly, your ability to agree-to-disagree with anyone about anything political, even minor inconsequential things, is generally....lacking. To the point that you will troll them right the fuck off the MUCK for disagreeing with you. Like, literally part of the reason things are dead is YOU, the way I hear it. The entire reason the "no politics" thing sprang up was that people didn't really want to be screamed at for no apparent reason (as in like, here comes that guy logging on to scream about something new today and then scream at anyone who disagrees with him) when they're just kinda there to hang out and chill. Wasn't very condusive to a chill environment. I wouldn't put it past a couple folks to have trolled back a bit after being harassed so damn much, and then had you take them way too seriously when they did so. Because that's kinda how bad things get sometimes.
So in this case I'm not very inclined to take these cries of doom seriously.
I mean, in any other case, I'd be like "it's totally gaslighting to not take it seriously when someone says there's hate speech going on", like if I didn't know anything about any of it I'd probably believe you by default -- but for once this is actually a situation where it truly just is not that bad. SPR's an alright place overall, albeit very deadish these days. And I haven't heard even an echo of hate speech around there.
But hey, if a bunch of antifa types start joining because of this doomsaying, I'll count it as a hilarious positive! We could always use more folks to chitchat with.
I can also name people who left SPR because the place became personally toxic to them. And yes, there was transphobic BS being spewed. And yes, the wizard in question is someone who believes that 'BLM' is "racism against white people", defended George Zimmerman, and most tellingly helped drive someone out so they could take over a popular muck location and change the rules there to their own liking. But since you stopped coming, you weren't around to witness that. However, you certainly seem intent on denying it happened.
And here's a direct quote from one of the people who left SPR - "My only advice re SPR is to get out. The less personal info about you they have, the safer you are."
Plus, my personal politics are moderate left for Europe. I've been attacked for not being left-wing enough. But I find it weird that you start off attacking me for being an agitator, then end with saying you encourage more antfa types to join the muck. I guess so long as they don't actually say or do anything that might upset anyone?
The wizard in question has been a friend of mine for over a decade, as in we speak daily, and I've never once known them to say things like that or to have even a hint of sentiment like that. That's why I'm calling you out and seem "intent" on it. Imagine if someone you'd known very well for over a decade and speak to daily was being accused of something that was so absolutely bonkers it made you burst out laughing at the very thought of it. You might as well accuse me of hating foxes. It's just so opposite to how this person ACTUALLY is, it's ridiculous. Same with a lot of the other stuff you're saying. It simply does not in ANY way align with the SPR I've known over the years. I may not be present, but I VERY much keep in touch, let's just put it that way. Most of the time I log on these days, it's because someone is literally on the phone with me and goes, "Oh hey you should log on", FYI. Or they'll be online going 'I'm talking to a Kelly!' and pass on hellos from folks while chatting on the phone with me, or whatever.
So what I'm getting at is that what you're saying is basically the opposite of what I know, and trust me, I would know.
Either we really are talking about a different person, or you're ignoring all the problematic and outright toxic things this person has done in the past.
>Are insular furry communities and MUCKs at risk of Alt-Right takeover?
Betteridge's law of headlines states, "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
You posit a fearmongering headline, you show no argument to support your theory, and you're asking a person's opinion of politics on the opposite side of the ocean that he clearly has no interest in, for a game that prided itself on being outside of America.
I would expect better quality from the Daily Mail. Fie upon you, sirrah.
The author of the article in question is from the United Kingdom, not the United States.
Unless the ocean you are talking about is the English Channel.
The author of the article is asking about United States politics from a person living in Sweden. Different hemispheres.
Right, but we are all connected via the internet. The very forces that allow furry fans to connect with one another and grow a community, which some have argued would not exist at all without the internet (I think that argument was made by the VSauce guy at a conference, but I'm having trouble finding the video) are being used by those who want to destroy communities as well.
Vigilance is a good thing to have, no matter where you are. I think the lessons around what happened at Rocky Mountain Fur Con can be used by convention runners in many places in what to do, or not to do, in given circumstances.
I will say this, many furries would probably feel this story isn't that relevent because it is a MUCK and many of the furries younger than myself probably have no interested in MUCKs of any description, so they may likewise feel the alt-right take over of a MUCK is not really of interest because the impact on others is relatively small. I think if people aren't paying attention after the fur con incidents, a MUCK story isn't going to sway them one way or the other, unfortunately.
Does the author have the best of intents? Sure. Does it effectively show what the problem is? Not entirely. I mean, who is the wizard? How have they changed the culture? How do we know they have ties with Alt-Righters? And so on.
While the point is valid, I do feel this is a poorly constructed article on the topic. In an attempt to not name names, the background explanation is very poor. The lack of documentation in logs or screenshots is understandable but also lends to a "I totes saw this, guys!" impression being made.
Is the author probably right? Yeah, I believe him. But the way this article is presented makes it seem like he is the instigator of a problem, rather than reporting on one and trying to get a major thing fixed.
I'm hesitant to offer suggestions on how it may have been fixed because this is something I don't have experience with.
We're seeing a new Burned Furs fight, but Alt-Furry (which includes some older Burned Furs)learned the lesson from last time - don't be the aggressor, be the establishment. That way those who aren't aware of the issues will see those fighting the Alt-Furry as wanting to exclude members.
This concerns me. Maybe I'm too concerned, but I've got a reason to be extra sensitive to this sort of thing.
Off-topic but why is this comment only rated two stars? There's nothing inherently wrong with it. I think certain people might be butthurt.
Anyway, I think the comparison to Burned Furs is apt if only because it's a "movement" that clearly won't last long before burning out.
All most people have to do is watch one video of Foxler and/or his defender(s) (he took us out to dinner, he's such a nice guy!) and their stilted, awkward speech to see the lack of confidence (and intelligence) this blatant display of self-importance is trying to overcompensate for.
I almost hate calling "AltFurs" true examples of the Alt-Right because they're so fucking pitiful as physical specimens and as orators. Come on, where's the "alpha males" of this group?
I had a friend in the fandom once who was killed a little over 2 years ago. She was everything these sad sacks of fuck wish they could be - a trucker, an athlete, a writer with a genuine aura of confidence and charisma. I wish she was still around because I think she would be on the warpath against these losers right now and probably do a better job at cutting them down than all of us combined.
The reason the Burned Furs burned out was because they wanted to exclude people, and the fandom is inherently inclusionist. They were the ones who started the action, so when people who had no clue what was going on looked and saw the noise, the Burned Furs were clearly at fault.
The AltFur tactics are subtle, ever pushing the line without stepping over it, looking to provoke and misinterpret. Never believe that they are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The AltFurs/Nazifurs/Raiders have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
--Jean Paul-Sartre
Yup.
Ha ha, he's complaining about a two star on a comment. Everybody, this guy's new!
Okay, but seriously, I think the main point in the, uh, headline is correct in that furry does get insular and vulnerable to stuff like the alt-right. Not necessarily just or even particularly the alt-right. From the outside, furry already often looks a bit cult-y (like Scientology cult-y, not Rocky Horror Picture Show cult-y); it's like different sections of furry are lacking sometimes is a charismatic leader and, boom, full-blown real cult.
Luckily, as Wolf-Bones correctly points out, furry collectively has about as much charisma as you'd expect a group that are famous for their full body/full mask costumes to have.
This comment has nothing directly to do with this article, but I'm currently editing an anthology of furry humor for Thurston Howl Publications (deadline is October 1st), and I've gotten good stories so far from India, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, besides the U.S. The internet really has made furry fandom an international community.
Fred Patten
I'd be more concerned about the takeover by antifa and violent dindus. They're more likely to harm someone.
I almost feel this is much ado about nothing. The whole thing is more like a handful of trolls sing an obsolete mode of telnet connected text gaming in the age of gaming consoles, social media and MMORG. Could SPR's decline be just furs moved on.
What I don't understand regarding these alt-furry types is that they keep trying to get senpai (in their case, Richard Spencer) to notice them, and he even said "the only degeneracy i'll tolerate is homosexuality. I absolutely reject alt-furry. They have no place in the alt-right community." and they seem to wear that refusal like a badge of honour like "we're too extreme even for the alt-right to handle! YAY!"
I think we've reached the point where trolling and extremism have merged... basically, Poe's law in real life ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law ).
~ The Legendary RingtailedFox
Serious?
"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~
I can't find the specific quote, but "RIchard Spencer Altfurry" found a few things. https://twitter.com/theququ/status/763539186234171393
I guess it's sort of like having daddy issues only you get to choose your daddy and to have the issues.
"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~
So, nothing like daddy issues.
:p
"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~
Jesus was black and so was Cleopatra - Know your history is just something I said in reference to Paul Mooney, a comedian who is such a big part of our recent, real history I don't even know where to begin except to say he was Richard Pyror's right hand man. Really there's more I don't know about how deeply entrenched he is in comedy than that I do. But it's funny to say because people get all up in arms at the thought that maybe some of their beloved religious and historical figures weren't lilly white like them. And really, they weren't, if only because back then, there wasn't even a concept of a "white race".
Cleopatra was probably _not_ black.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-last-time-cleopatra-was-not-black
https://blog.oup.com/2010/12/cleopatra-2/
https://www.thoughtco.com/was-cleopatra-black-biography-3528680
Of course she wasn't. But she damn sure wasn't white either.
Not as we understand it today at least, but she was Macedonian.
"Of course she wasn't."
"Jesus was black and so was Cleopatra"
Make up your mind!
"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 can't grasp sarcasm, hyperbole, or even read the first sentence of a fucking post. The 'tism is strong in this one.
It's not Rakuen's fault if you keep repeating things that aren't true. You may think it's funny, or not to be taken seriously, but you're clearly just confusing people. (The use of quote marks might have helped.)
More like CUCKS are at risk of takeover.
#devastated
Not that anyone is likely to read this, or believe me, or whatever, but I seriously don't care, I'm saying this for my own catharsis: One of the wizzes from SPR sexually assaulted me while I was incapable of giving consent, and was very manipulative and abusive toward me. Others harassed, threatened and played some really creepy mind games with me - which he gaslighted me about, and only over time did I come to realize he was in on their sick games.
This wiz offered "help" to me during this vulnerable time. It sucks, because he was helpful - but that came with a heavy price, you see. He hid his alt right "power level" enough that I didn't realize how deeply disgusting his views on women and minorities really were at that point. What appeared to be genuine kindness turned out to be a kind of power play used to exploit me. Over time, his hateful views started to leak out more and more. He spoke of other women and of minorities with a smirking, deeply hateful outlook. He treated me like absolute dogshit, but in a heavily underhanded, manipulative, mind-games kind of way. He verbally abused me, gaslighted me, and constantly tried to control and dominate me and what I did with my life to an absolutely insane degree of obsessive minutia. And while I was incapable of granting consent, loopy as fuck on medication for my conditions, he sexually assaulted me. I blamed myself, I really did, I was devastated and I loathed myself and my body... until a later phone call wherein he said some really disgusting and disrespectful things that certainly helped clarify for me what kind of person he really was, and that he felt zero remorse and would gladly exploit me again given the chance.
His little buddies juggled usernames and did their best to fly under the radar when addressing me. I will never know who they really were. I didn't really know how to find out at that time. But the threats included some weird and purposely vague shit about stalking me for a DISTURBINGLY long time, looking for something vague and unspecified from me, not getting what they hoped to get, and threatening to show up at my house and violently attack. I don't know what the fuck they're smoking. I don't want to know. It was some scary, freaky stuff.
I have a history of mental illness thanks to trauma and this was known. I'm 200% certain this was seen as a weakness to exploit, a way to hurt someone who might not be believed if she spoke up. Typical, really. It's what people like that always do; either go for the mentally ill or invent mental illness out of thin air to discredit the victim. As such, I don't expect to ever be believed, but that's okay, I honestly don't give a shit. The truth is worth speaking even if nobody ever listens.
I have a more stable life now. I expect nothing. I know what happens to women who report in my country. I moved on and I stick to people who are healthier to be around.
There is a part of me that feels a twinge of concern about the possibility of...repercussions...even for just saying this here. But maybe that's exactly why I SHOULD say something, even just here. And, as I said, catharsis is a thing. So, here's my useless little callout:
SPR is absolutely a dangerous place, it is definitely infected with heavy alt right elements, and nobody should ever go there.
What is SPR? What is a wiz?
What is my life?!
Sociopolitical Ramifications is a MUCK and wizards are the administrators of such communities.
I'm not quite finished reading the WikiFur article on it but I've been reading through it and holy shit, man... This is what gets me about a lot of furry non-fiction writing, and why I'm sometimes oddly grateful WikiFur doesn't aim for the same degree of cold, clinical objectivity as Wikipedia. Because if it did, truths like these just would never get told with this kind of artistry. Seriously, that's the first time in years I've heard anyone say "fit of pique" yet I'm hard pressed to think of a better expression for what it's describing, this propensity furries and subculture nerds in general have for destroying their creation(s) in a moment of childish lashing out. And I know that's exactly what it was because I've done it, and seen plenty of others do it, and entire communities be irreparably damaged by it.
I want to strangely feel sorry for these people but it feels too much like feeling sorry for myself which is probably what is at the root of most of these "purges" and other outbursts. And really it all reminds me of the Soup Nazi episode.
You know, how an immature conflict with a guy with a few too many stupid rules leads to the exposure of his secrets and him doing the soup equivalent of "leaving the fandom 4ever" after throwing away everything he worked for...
Making Game Grumps references now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xrS5NEBKjU
Post new comment