Con Report: Eurofurence 24: Aviators – Conquer the Sky
Eurofurence 24 ran from 22 August to 26 August this year. It was the biggest one so far and a great opportunity to meet friends from all over and enjoy oneself. There were several panels, discussions and events which are worth noting. However, conventions are very personal experiences, so while I will focus on some larger themes, your own con experiences may vary. I have previously reported on Eurofurence 21 and Eurofurence 23.
The Nazi Furs Controversy
Eurofurence kicked off with something quite controversial; they began handing out stickers with the con book that said "Nazi Furs Fuck Off." This happened during early registration and led to an outcry on Telegram which seemed to result in them leaving the badges at the registration table but not actively handing them out. Along with the badges, Eurofurence chairman Cheetah began the conbook with a statement about politics, liberalism and Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance.
While distributing the badges was supported by some, it was criticised by many others for various different reasons, such as mixing politics with a furry convention which is supposed to be a fun escape. There is the concern that it could send a misleading message to outsiders that furry has a Nazi problem. There is also the issue of importing American problems into Europe; Cheetah even admitting in a Daily Eurofurence interview that there were probably no Nazis there in the first place and it was mostly an American debate. I want to briefly address the controversy and Cheetah's interview from a slightly different direction.
Perhaps the biggest problem is the meaning of "Nazifurs." When Cheetah was asked, he refused to define what he meant by Nazi fur, leaving it up to interpretation. Is it limited to just Nazi Nazis or does it extend to the alt-right more generally (however that is defined), all right-wing views or even, as I have seen on Twitter, those that just make racist jokes? Based on his conbook statement, he is using it more broadly but, while in his statement he distances Eurofurence from "all right-wing movements," he also states that Eurofurence does not check political orientation and conservatives are still welcome. How conservative is too conservative? It's never stated and none of the terms used are ever clearly defined. This means that it's entirely possible to be opposed to or in favour of Eurofurence's decision based on your own understanding of the words, which might be very different to the intention of Cheetah and Eurofurence. This is too important to be like Humpty Dumpty, the meaning of a word matters.
I also take issue with Cheetah's use of Popper's paradox of tolerance. He quotes it to support the need to remove intolerant aspects of the community but he chooses to cut it at an interesting point. As it appears in the conbook, it says:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In actuality, the quote continues; following up with:
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
Popper's paradox of tolerance was that at a certain point, force may be required when rational argument had become impossible. But he did not support suppressing intolerant views as a first step. It's hard to think that Popper would've supported Eurofurence's actions in this case.
While I think this was a huge misstep by the convention, I do not think conventions need to abstain from all politics but they should remain overall positive experiences. If a convention is going to make a political statement then it should be done in a positive manner. For example, the prominent usage of the gay pride flag in the Eurofurence 23 opening video was a positive, non-confrontational, political statement about inclusion and tolerance.
In any case, I fear the sort of polarisation that is building in the furry fandom and the damage it can do. Politics are fluid and people's beliefs change over time. If we want to address these issues we need to talk to one another, understand why people think a certain way and how that can be changed. That is not possible if we view others as evil or become aroused to the level of irrationality. There's a good quote by the Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello which encapsulates this:
Observe the marvellous change that comes over you the moment you stop seeing people as good and bad, as saints and sinners and begin to see them as unaware and ignorant.
Om Nom Nom Nom
There is a very strange phenomenon in the furry fandom; despite being constructed around the ideals of non-human animals, with some even going so far as to claim they have the "souls" or "spirits" of non-human animals, surprisingly few furs are actually vegetarian. This was the opening statement of Alpha_Ki in her round table discussion for vegetarian and vegan furs. JM Horse has also written about the same contradiction on at least two occasions.
The discussion also helped to highlight the later launch of Alpha_Ki's new vegetarian-friendly, furry cookbook. The recipes in her cookbook, which is filled with cute illustrations, all have a vegetarian alternative. The idea being that it makes it easy for people to either cater to vegetarians or slowly transition to eating less meat.
This soft approach was something that came up in a number of furs' stories of their experiences of being vegetarian. No one suggested anything like "meat eaters fuck off" stickers and the one fur who had had that sort of aggressive attitude mentioned how it was only after calming and talking with his family that progress was able to be made. The consensus seemed to be that pushing too hard for people to be vegetarian, actually resulted in them eating more meat as a way of pushing back. By just setting a good example, it was possible to get others to accept their choices and sometimes even imitate them.
Alpha_Ki also spoke about being mocked by many of the other Eurofurence organisers for her vegetarianism and how she had to really push to have more vegetarian options available at Eurofurence. When considering what could motivate that, there was obvious issue of some vegetarians being too annoying about their diet but there was also a second proposal.
The ethical issues of meat production and the impact on the environment are well known but, instead of addressing that, many people prefer to try and ignore it. That probably leads to a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. This also seems to be visible with furry conventions having rules against real fur but being fine with leather and serving meat. It's one thing to be aware of the problem but another to take action which will require an actual change in one's own lifestyle. Seeing vegetarians, who have done this, could make others more aware of their own failings and lead to anger.
I'm Different...
By happenstance, I went to a panel titled "Being different in the furry fandom," hosted by Mew Da siren kitty. The panel revolved around aspects of people that made them different and how they came to accept themselves. Mew began by talking about her very distinctive laugh and how she had had people just come up to her and tell her that they hated her laugh. Over time, she came to accept and appreciate her laugh as something that makes her unique.
Several other furs offered their own experiences with self-acceptance and there was plenty of talk about how a lot drama within the furry fandom might stem from people not fully accepting who they are, suppressing themselves and then taking it out on others; perhaps those in whom they see themselves. This is certainly not without precedent. At the end of 2016, Pink News released a list of 11 anti-gay preachers who were later caught engaging in homosexuality.
The themes of needing to accept who you are, to focus on your own and not others' approval and to live according to your own values seemed to recur in all the discussions. We have to accept ourselves before we can gain inner strength. This was seen as necessary to avoid just being swept up with the crowd. It caught my attention because it echoed what I had been learning with Stoicism. For example, Marcus Aurellius writes:
Just that you do the right thing. The rest doesn't matter. Cold or warm. Tired or well-rested. Despised or honoured.
The discussions ended on a positive note. Despite their issues, those that had shared their stories all agreed that they felt welcome in their local furry communities.
XXX
One of the changes to Eurofurence this year was the inclusion of an "After Dark" dealers' den where people were able to sell erotic items. While many artists in the normal dealer's den have a certain amount of NSFW material, the items in the After Dark dealers' den were more practical, including latex dragon hoods, various sex toys and yiffable plushies.
At least one panel also touched on adult themes; Stereotypes x Big Data by Stigmata and Skyhawk. This was very similar to Skyhawk's panel last year and involved tag analysis of the publicly-available e621 data. I was still annoyed that things were being called different without any statistics to back it up but it was interesting nonetheless. For example, I learned that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic now makes up 15-20% of the content on e621.
I think having these adult events is a great addition to the convention, even when hidden away, as the After Dark den was, and far preferable to trying to erase any trace of adult content. We should not shy away from sex positivity but use it as an example for how society can be better. Just having these events can make some furs feel more welcome.
I also want to emphasise just how much the presence of the After Dark Dealer's Den (and other places/events!) gave this erotic artist so much of a feeling of belonging. It's incredible getting to share a deep part of myself (PUN!), and I feel so very accepted in doing that <3
— Dark Violet (@DarkestViolet) August 28, 2018
Miscellaneous Fuzzies
One of the most awesome things about the furry fandom is how it brings people together. I've previously highlighted the South African and Turkish furry fandoms having a presence at Eurofurence and this year we got to see the Australian furry fandom as hosted by Jenner, creator of Doc Rat, and Nonna Bunny. As noted earlier, we care a lot about animals and the panel was split between the furry fandom and the Australian wildlife.
I also met two other South Africans at Eurofurence as well as a European fur who had been at the recent 2018 South Afrifur convention. There's a video showing some of the fun on IronWolfTempest's channel. If anyone is interested in visiting South Africa and the convention in 2019, you can find more information at the South Afrifur home page.
There were also abundant displays of creativity; as always there were more than 1000 fursuits and the dealers' den and art show were overflowing with amazing creations. Other furs showed off with their own diverse talents. One harpist gave such a great performance at the Open Mic event that he was invited on stage the next day to join Fox Amoore and Pepper Coyote's concert, performing Guardians of the Light with them. Roanth Rufry Alfer talked a bit about journalism and his new furry news site. He subsequently published a piece on Eurofurence and the difference between European and American furs. Lastly, Chaosthief was walking around with an animatronic jerboa that she built which was absolutely amazing!
In Closing
Despite a rocky start, Eurofurence was a heap of fun. It had a final count of 2911 attendees and raised €41 000 for the lemurs of Madagascar! As usual, it was a great place to meet furs from all over who you might otherwise not have the opportunity to meet. I was even able to snag a few original pieces of art at the art auction. If I'm still in Europe when Eurofurence 25 rolls around, I hope to be there and meet some more new people!
About the author
Rakuen Growlithe — read stories — contact (login required)a scientist and Growlithe from South Africa, interested in science, writing, pokemon and gaming
I'm a South African fur, originally from Cape Town. I'm interested in science, writing, gaming, all sorts of furry stuff, Pokemon and some naughtier things too! I've dabbled in art before but prefer writing. You can find my fiction on SoFurry and non-fiction on Flayrah.
Comments
The last part of that statement kind of reminds me other the argument that the religious make:
"Oh? Well the reason you must be so angry is that you didn't accept Jesus as your personal savior. If you did so you would be happier. Atheists are just miserable because their soul isn't saved, and they are jealous of those who are."
Little did the religious person realize that when they aren't around the person they're chastising is actually quite content and happy. It's only in their presence that they are miserable.
Vegan and Vegetarians have a lot to be proud of for sticking with a diet that one has to work to maintain, and should share their views for sure. Just should try to avoid worrying or hypothesizing why others feel the way they do. Because making assumptions about the motivations behind another's emotions is certainly a good way to evoke further ones.
That is fair enough. It's nearly impossible to say anything about someone else's motivations without a lot of one-on-one work. That also doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong. It is a generalisation and that comes with its own set of issues but many people do recognise the ethical issues and will try to avoid them. There are people who will feel sick when hearing about meat production or who can only handle it because it is so abstract to them. In those cases, it's not an unreasonable suggestion.
I also don't mention it here in isolation. What struck me at Eurofurence, and what I tried to show here, was as I went between events and discussions, I saw the same thoughts coming up again and again. That's why I link the Nazi fur badges with the experiences of vegetarians. There was a similar connection between why people might dislike vegetarians to the discussions of self acceptance.
whether these are true or not, I do not know. But I find it very interesting when the same concepts and ideas come up in multiple areas.
"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~
How dare they ban Nazis in Germany; Germany is the real Nazis!
Perhaps rakuen needs to avoid injecting his harmful bias in places it doesn't belong
I don't think Rakuen's actually not a Nazi for the same reason I don't think he's an actual pedophile or dogfucker; I just don't think he'd be self-aware enough not to tell us eventually. I've argued with him almost constantly about those things (or at least I used to, anyway) but the shoe never dropped.
I mean, the first time Mike Retriever actually got into an argument, period, it was insta-Nazi. There wasn't even really a build up, where we were waiting for the shoe to drop. It was just "bam, wham, thank you ma'am, I'm a fucking racist piece of shit."
Unfortunate timing with that section, though, Rakuen; the day after Obama goes viral asking "How hard is it to say Nazis are bad?"
Also, Discordian Dragon is totally a cryptofascist, aren't they?
I... guess I'll take that as a complement. It's a bit weird though because to even entertain the thought that I might be a Nazi would mean to ignore basically everything I've ever said and written since pretty much every one of my positions is completely opposite to those in Nazism. Why you wouldn't use that as your reason is quite odd.
I'm not too worried about what Obama is saying but nothing I said had anything to do with whether Nazis are bad or not. Sure, Nazis are bad. That's self-evident to 99% of furs. But the questions raised here are concerned with approaches to political issues at conventions and the importance of correct definitions.
I know next to nothing about Discordian Dragon. The only part that was relevant here was the comic. That stands alone regardless of any of his other views, to think otherwise would fall into the genetic fallacy. If the other comic reflects a good message then why would I care about the rest. As Seneca said, “I’ll quote a bad author if the line is good.”
"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~
Yeah, it thinks its an expert in everything. Needs to be cut down to size
Nice read Rakuen, thank you for the article
Well I'm still confused why you think it's ok to be a gay nazi
Dude, you know you messed up when you got Ahmar freakin' Wolf taking cheapshots at you.
Political polarization and intolerance is becoming a huge problem. People on both side automatically assume that anybody who belongs to the other side is either a member of or supports the terrible extremist both the left and the right have. Politicians on both sides are engaging in demonization of people who don't vote for them, and then they have the nerve, or complete lack of self-awareness, to accuse their opponents of being dividers. Sometimes I consider becoming a politician because I think it would be so easy to do a better job of being loving and understanding than just about every politician I know.
I'm pretty sure "Nazi" has a very specific legal definition in Germany.
Like this isn't a dig or anything. Just pointing out that a German associating the word "Nazi" explicitly with the alt-right isn't like, mealy-mouthed or vague, he elaborates on what he means and points out that the con's actions are largely symbolic. Not because, as you try to argue, it doesn't exist within the fandom (and thereby drawing attention to a non-issue) but because it does, and he doesn't like it, and he doesn't want them to be welcome at his event. So, the symbolic ribbons and the refusal to allow 2 Gryphon a stage.
I'd dig that 33% of the words in the article reviewing the con was spent talking about the thing that he felt should have 0% of the attention thus exasperating the "problem".
Weird, it's like when you want to tell people you don't like something, you have to talk about that thing.
Gee whiz, what could Eurofurence rejecting Nazis have to do with simultaneously rejecting former guests on their stage who promote a hate group where Nazism is a feature, not a bug?
Someone who calls nazis "all sorts of people talking about everything", while they cover up being self-labeled alt-right trolls and Holocaust deniers who recruit for hate groups?
In Germany? Shocking!
Why do liars think it will work if they pretend "alternative facts" are just reasonable debate?
I had considered splitting it off on its own but decided against it. Yes, I think it shouldn't have been an issue but the simple fact is that it happened and it was a major aspect of the convention that people were talking about the entire time. To write about the convention while ignoring that would just not have made sense.
"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~
First off, I did not argue here, nor anywhere else that I can recall, that Nazis don't exist in the fandom. Just that they are a tiny minority that is not deserving of the attention they are being given.
Secondly, how he as a German associates the word is not the problem. The problem is that he did not articulate what he meant by it so all we can do is speculate. It is not a clear message to say, "This event is not going to welcome X but I'm not going to spend time saying what X is and isn't." That's a recipe for misunderstandings.
Third, the ribbons were donated, not from Cheetah and not everyone who was wearing them was Cheetah. So even if he associates the word as you say, that doesn't mean that everyone else is using it the same way. The evidence suggests that they are not. I've seen people say that telling a racist joke is enough to make someone a Nazifur. I've seen others say that Nazifur just refers to people who promote discrimination due to race, religion, sexuality, gender etc. Even then, that's very different to what a Nazi is.
Even looking back to WWII, many of those that fought the Nazis believed in racial, sexual and other forms of discrimination. None of that is diagnostic of being a Nazi. Plenty of that occurs from groups that, in modern times, were or are very much anti-Nazi. These simple labels do not capture the diversity and messiness that politics actually entails.
As an example, most of those calling people Nazis are activist leftists. I think you'll find that often overlaps with people that support Palestine. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's good to remember that Palestine and many Arab countries are often fiercely anti-Semitic and extreme anti-Semitism was the most dramatic form of hatred propagated by the Nazis, to the point of trying to exterminate them along with gays, gypsies and others. What is then strange is that that anti-Semitism is seeping back into the left now. There was a pride parade in the US where gay Jews were asked to leave and stop displaying their cultural heritage. This is why it messy. You've got discrimination between groups that were both discriminated against.
The other problem is that, as discrimination in general is not specific to Nazism, is that the term Nazi is being diluted as the meaning expands. When I asked an Austrian colleague of mine what she thought about the situation in the US a year or two ago, she said that people in the US just don't understand what the Nazis actually were. That might have a grain of truth to it. Trump's separation of families at the border was terrible but to call it genocide and use it as an example of how his administration is similar to Nazism... There is no comparison at all. If you think that is even slightly similar to Nazism then you have no idea what the Nazis were actually doing. That comparison is completely out of touch and incredibly disrespectful to those that were victims of the Nazis.
"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~
*Ask Rakuen*
Q. How much attention should they be given?
A. None, wait until they have ruined cons, driven away minorities and hurt people. Then it's ok to wring your hands and say "how could we have seen this coming." Until then ignore them.
Q. If these fit everyone, how do you identify nazis?
A. Heiling, presenting genuine 1940's Nazi Party membership cards (beware of counterfeits, only accept ones signed by hitler), fashionable black skull encrusted uniforms with swastika armbands. If they don't show membership cards it's just edgelord jokes so ignore them.
Q. Did you know Arabs are defined as semites?
A. Leftists and semites and anti-semites and nazis are the same thing so ignore them.
Q. You've never been to the US or a pride parade and don't know anything about leftists, do you.
A. I have a very high IQ and googled a youtube video
Q. Did you also become an expert on kangaroos because you have an Austrian colleague?
A. I'm an expert on everything, would you like to discuss how age of consent is a scam
Q. Is separating families at the border actually the fault of people who say this is a bad thing?
A. It's like you read my mind.
I probably shouldn't respond but I've got to ask. Do you not know the difference between Austria, a small, landlocked European country where Hitler was born, and Australia, a massive island in the Southern Hemisphere where Kangaroos live?
"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~
*whoosh*
Another one of Rakuen's greatest misses
It is not a coincidence that you live in Austria, a perpetual student there because SA back home is a "sh*thole third world". You indeed aspire to be just like Hitler, as your reputation precedes you for years now, in your handling of the furry fandom back home.
However it is clearer now that you're in the furry scene for the politics, of which you basically wrote a whole "con report" of.
This should carry the TL:DR label because it tells me NOTHING of the conference, but everything of your political leanings and all the political crap that went down that you thoroughly enjoyed obviously. This kind of report is sufficient to make many think twice about actually attending EF.
This is also why I take a dim view of this website too, its like reading the national paper. All about politics. This obviously ceased to become a hobby for most a long time ago, but it used as a veil, or avatar for politicians-in-the-making.
Oh, yeah, this was a well thought out comment.
Tantroo McNally 2020
What is wrong with you people? This is exactly what I was talking about. You automatically assume that anyone with different pollical beliefs than you is a Nazi and refuse to listen to them when they make it clear that they are not and have done nothing to show otherwise. And you intentionally misinterpret everything they do in order to demonize them. Your toxic and hateful behavior is just as bad as the people that you imagine you are fighting against.
Nazis and people that support them are bad people, but your treatment of people you don't agree with is sickeningly hypocritical.
Nazis are evil because they hate. We should try to be the opposite of them and love everyone instead. Let us all clear the hatred from our hearts and encourage everyone else to do the same. Don't even hate Nazis. You should pity them for hating instead, not hate them back.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
You are doing the exact thing I just said you shouldn't be doing. You are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying to make me sound bad. Bad is bad, and good is good. Nazis are very bad. People like you are also bad because you act like Nazis while condemning them and refuse to listen to reason or treat others with respect.
Nazis didn't use just words, man.
Didn't you just say calling people who are not Nazis Nazis (or 'Nazi-like') bad? Now you're doing the same? Guess that means you are a Nazi!
Shit, man... people are playing too much Ultimate Werewolf at these cons...
First of all, I didn't call anyone a Nazi. Once again my words are being maliciously misinterpreted. I said that acting like a Nazi is bad and that some people here are acting like Nazis.
Second of all, of course Nazis didn't just use words, but that doesn't really matter to me. Evil thoughts and words are only a few steps away from violence. Hitler and every other mass murdering tyrant accomplished what they did by telling people that the evil thoughts that they already had were ok and that they should act on them. All it takes is a strong authority figure to turn people who are a little bit evil into people who are truly evil. If a person already hates somebody, they always will try to harm them if they can be made to believe that doing so either isn't wrong and that they can get away with it. That is why it is wrong to hold any hateful thoughts. Hateful thoughts tend to lead to hateful actions, and even when a person doesn't act on those hateful desires, they can spread hatred to other people who will act on them.
Hatred makes you unable to tell the difference between people who are truly evil like Nazis and people who are less evil or not evil at all. It makes you unable to think rationally about other people or recognize your own flaws. That is why politicians are so toxic. They are completely blind to the good in people on the other side.
radicalcentrism.jpg
You are making a false comparison and you know it. I absolutely do not believe that a person who believes oppression is bad is the same a person who believes oppression is good. Oppression is completely wrong. I firmly believe that.
What I have a problem with is that a lot of people who say that oppression is wrong are hypocrites that want to oppress people who don't agree with them because they hate them.
"I firmly believe something I am going to contradict in the next sentence" - yet *other* people are acting like unreliable politicians? LMAO
You still are making a false comparison. I never said anything good about white nationalists. They are horribly misguided and hateful. It is absolutely wrong to hate a human being. How many times do I need to say that before you will believe it?
And how is what I said a contradiction? I cannot understand how what I said could possibly be a contradiction.
TL;DR:
You haven't answered my question. Explain yourself with words please.
You:
Explain with words why what I said was a contradiction. You are not doing it.
In this thread: toddler plays the "but whyyyyyyy daddy" game
If you refuse to explain what you mean then I will have to assume you either were lying or don't know what you are talking about and don't want to admit it. And saying the F word is just rude.
Thank you for editing your comment to remove the F word.
I can see that you are refusing to explain your reasoning because you think it means you win the argument.
Fuck off
Oh noes the f word *clutches pearls*
I was being sarcastic.
"Why won't you haters accept my alternative facts, that's just like the nazis"
Circular "but whyyyyy" repeats infinitely
I am saying that they are like Nazis because they hate, not that they are exactly the same thing as Nazis. There are several different types of evil, hateful people
Nazis and other hateful groups = extremely evil.
People who hate others but think they are against hate = evil.
People who hate absolutely nobody = good.
There are also several other types of people but I won't list them all. All of them are some degree of evil except for people who hate nobody.
"I like eating chocolate"
"Ok but what if we replace chocolate with baby, oh look now you're evil like a baby hater"
Nothing you can ever say or do will give you a point that opposing nazis is "hate". LMAO stop wanking.
I never said that opposing Nazi is hate. I said the exact opposite. I already explained several times that they are different things.
Fighting against Nazis is good. Hating a Nazi is evil.
I see, you play this circular game of contradicting yourself because you're a glutton for punishment :)
Nazi is not an identity or "different opinion" and one can't be a nazi and a "hate victim" at the same time.
You:
When I talk about hating people with "different beliefs", I am not not talking about Nazis. I am talking about the difference between liberals, conservatives, and all the other non-hateful political beliefs. Hatred is wrong because it hurts innocent people and divides those should be on the same side.
It is wrong to hate Nazis because it causes you to hate people that aren't actually Nazis. It is just like during the Red Scare. People hated communists so much that many people who actually weren't communists had their lives ruined by the hate. The same thing is happening now. Conservatives are being treated unfairly by liberals who think Nazis and conservatives are the same thing because of their hate. And liberals are being treated unfairly by conservatives who think that liberals are the same thing as all the other groups they hate. Liberals and conservatives both need to stop hating people they don't agree with.
The problem isn't that Nazis get hurt by hatred. The problem is that innocent people get hurt by the hatred of Nazis because people who hate Nazis cannot tell the diffence between people who are and are not Nazis. So we have to fight against Nazis without hating them so we don't hurt people who aren't Nazis.
Why don't you say what you really mean, without gushing out windy rhetorical bullshit?
That is: "I refuse to read a ribbon that says Nazi Furs Fuck Off because I'm too cowardly to actually say nazis are bad, not even for one minimal second out of my day, without larding a heap of made-up bullshit on top."
Now write "nazis are bad" and nothing else. I dare you. Post that by itself. Just "nazis are bad". Bet you can't. :)
nazis are bad
I can believe that Nazis are terrible people without hating them. Can you believe that?
Haha, you couldn't do it :)
I can't wait to see you post more circular bullshit to extend the "debate me" game you lost.
The stuff that Hitler did was both stupid and extremely evil. Fascism is an extremely bad way to run a country that goes against almost all of my beliefs. Racism is utterly wrong and I don't even believe in the concept of race. I think that it was made up by elitists looking for an excuse to put themselves above others. Skin color and ancestry change absolutely nothing about a human being's value. And people who people deny the holocaust are probably liars or delusional.
Isn't that easy? Now address it to the people who want to turn it into a "debate". Or just ignore others doing what's right if you're busy. That's easy too! A simple matter-of-fact ribbon isn't going to hurt you, and it doesn't say things besides what it actually says.
So what you're saying is that words should not be protected by the 1st Amendment and that any form of hatred/anger in one voice should be a crime someone is put in prison for?
Pro 'thought-crimes' are we?
I also didn't say any of that. Punishing people for their thoughts is wrong because it has far too much potential for abuse by an evil authority figure. I don't even like the idea of punishing hate speech very much because of the potential for people to be punished unfairly.
What we should be doing it teaching people to love each other no matter what and reject hate. That isn't what we are being taught right now.
Oh look, rejecting hate
Still another false comparison. I never said we should be friends with people who hate or tolerate their evil actions. Tolerating their evil actions only teaches people that their hate is right. I am saying that we shouldn't hate them back. We should feel pity for them for being evil. And if they have done evil thing we should stop them from doing more evil things.
2 Gryphon says:
The Southern Poverty Law Center smacked this down when I asked them about it:
Except the Southern Poverty Law Center hasn't exactly got the best reputation these days. They targetted Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz who both fight against Islamic extremism by labelling them as anti-Muslim extremists in 2016. Maajid Nawaz sued them for defamation and finally this year the SPLC apologised and paid out over $3 million as a settlement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/18/southern-poverty-law-center-set...
"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 something I never understood about the scoring system here. My comment has 2 votes, both 1 star. What is in the comment?
One line of opinion, not particularly extreme in any way.
Two sentences, both of which are verifiable facts.
Links that back up the above sentences.
What are people voting against? They don't like the verifiable facts? This is not a major opinion comment, you're basically voting against reality. It's really confusing considering my time in science is all about facts being the final arbiter.
"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~
Consider the fact that you've used the phrase "genetic fallacy" against someone else in this very comment section??
Right, if everyone agreed to do that then yeah, things will be fine.
But we have to create rules and candor because people don't all follow those rules.
And Nazis don't want to follow those rules, and as much as you want to help those in those groups, those at the highest positions have the ideology too ingrained into their identity to change. And for every one person you help out they'll replace them with three more.
It's a cycle that will continue and we have no control over other than to be vigilant about their intent and look out for one another in a world in which those people exist.
Exactly: two-facedness is the very core of what they are. Their game is to get *you* to follow rules that *they* only give lip service. Whether it's big hate group or small, "just trolling" online or posing as "legit" while simultaneously crypto.
Here's Hitler "disavowing" *Goebbels* LMAO.
"Racketeering" is a formal word for the tactic where for every one person you help out they'll replace them with three more.
But every recruit they make gets them knocked back by 3 and more when "Nazi Furs Fuck Off" is the default (the same standard the world has prospered from since 1945).
I never said not to fight back against hateful people. You can fight against an enemy without hating them. We should feel sorry for our enemies even while we are fighting them. Currently their is so much hatred in politics that it is driving us to fight with people that we really shouldn't be fighting with and making allies with people that are worse.
TL;DR "I have nothing to say but gosh darn it I'm going to keep saying it"
You still are saying things about what I said that are false. It is very disrespectful.
"No hear me out guys, what if neville chamberlain was a dragon"
And now you are spouting non sequiturs to distract from the conversation.
*indefensible premise*
*"but whyyyyy"*
And he calls it "conversation"
That isn't an argument. All you are doing is making fun of my views. You haven't done anything to prove me wrong. You keep intentionally misinterpreting me to force me to explain myself.
Thinking you can explain yourself out of indefensible bullshit if you throw more words at it.
Debate me debate me debate me debate me debate me debate me de*
*slam* fuck off
Alternative facts aren't views and nazi is not "a different opinion"
I do not believe either of those things and I never have said anything to imply that I do. Stop making false accusations.
I can't understand why you are even arguing with me. Are you seriously trying to say that it is acceptable to hate a human being?
Nazis are horrible people but it is wrong to hate them because hatred is inherently wrong. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them either. We have to fight them to keep them from destroying us. But if we hate them then we are allowing evil into our hearts.
It would wrong to hate somebody even if they murdered everyone you know and ruined your life. It would be right to punish them, but only to stop them from doing it again and to make an example of them. Punishing them out of a desire for revenge would be evil.
Hatred is evil. Hatred is evil. Hatred is evil.
It is absolutely unacceptable to hate anyone. You can fight against them and oppose everything they stand for, and even kill them if you have no other choice, but hating them is wrong. Keeping hatred out of your mind is the only way to have the moral high ground over your enemies. Any hatred whatsoever can lead to corruption and turn you into a murderous monster just like what you are against.
Just to be clear, I don't think you actually are saying it is acceptable to hate a human being, but that is what you sound like right now. Tell me that I am wrong.
LMAO there you go with the chocolate > baby tactic
nazi > human being is a fake sleight of hand :) Nazi is not an identity or "a different opinion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Piling fancy words on a bullshit indefensible premise is like trying to polish a turd, it's still a turd.
LOL at your "firm stand" on nazis, it's mushier than hangover diarrhea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
Can you stop being full of shit yet?
You are still misinterpreting me and saying that I said things I didn’t say. You keep saying I have an indefensible premise, but you haven’t actually told me what you think my premise is. I think you are just trying to confuse me because you think it means you win if I can’t figure out how to respond to a nonsense argument.
All I am trying to say is that people who claim that they are against hatred shouldn’t hate other people for having different political beliefs because not every person with a different belief is a monster like Nazis are and hatred warps your perceptions so that you can’t tell the difference between people who actually are monsters at those who aren’t. Keeping hatred out of our thoughts protects innocent people from being falsely accused of being Nazis and keeps us from becoming like Nazis. We must fight them without hating them.
What is it that you even disagree with?
I am trying to criticize people like conservatives that think all liberals are evil totalitarians and liberals that think that all conservatives are evil fascists, simply because they have different beliefs that they hate.
YOU CAN'T PRETEND NAZIS ARE "HATE VICTIMS" AT THE SAME TIME AS BEING NAZIS, YOU SPINELESS, MUSHY MOUTHED WINDBAG.
NAZI IS NOT AN "IDENTITY" OR A "DIFFERENT POLITICAL BELIEF"
YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING REAL OR CONSISTENT, THAT'S NOT "MISINTERPRETATION", THAT'S YOU DOING SLIMY EQUIVOCATION SO YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH HOLDING TWO CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS AT THE SAME TIME AND SWITCHING BETWEEN THEM FOR CONVENIENCE, THEN FEIGN VICTIM ABOUT BEING ACCURATELY TREATED AS DISHONEST.
"DIFFERENT BELIEF" MY HAIRY RAT ASS.
When I talk about hating people with "different beliefs", I am not not talking about Nazis. I am talking about the difference between liberals, conservatives, and all the other non-hateful political beliefs. Hatred is wrong because it hurts innocent people and divides those should be on the same side.
It is wrong to hate Nazis because it causes you to hate people that aren't actually Nazis. It is just like during the Red Scare. People hated communists so much that many people who actually weren't communists had their lives ruined by the hate. The same thing is happening now. Conservatives are being treated unfairly by liberals who think Nazis and conservatives are the same thing because of their hate. And liberals are being treated unfairly by conservatives who think that liberals are the same thing as all the other groups they hate. Liberals and conservatives both need to stop hating people they don't agree with.
The problem isn't that Nazis get hurt by hatred. The problem is that innocent people get hurt by the hatred of Nazis because people who hate Nazis cannot tell the diffence between people who are and are not Nazis. So we have to fight against Nazis without hating them so we don't hurt people who aren't Nazis.
Okay, so what you're saying is, it's okay to hate Nazis just so long as you actually hate Nazis and not not-Nazis. Got it. Clear as coal.
Theoretically that might be true but it doesn't work that way in real life. Hatred messes up your ability to tell the difference between people who are members of what you hate and those who are not. If you hate people who are gay, you probably hate people who you think are gay but actually are not. If you hate Muslims, you probably hate people who you think are Muslims but actually are not. And if you hate Mexicans, there is a good probability you don't actually know what Mexicans even look like. So naturally, if you passionately hate Nazis, you probably will also end up hating people you think are Nazis but actually are not. I have seen examples of all of those things happening in real life.
But no really, tell us how you really feel about nazis.
The stuff that Hitler did was both stupid and extremely evil. Fascism is an extremely bad way to run a country that goes against almost all of my beliefs. Racism is utterly wrong and I don't even believe in the concept of race. I think that it was made up by elitists looking for an excuse to put themselves above others. Skin color and ancestry change absolutely nothing about a human being's value. And people who people deny the holocaust are probably liars or delusional.
Did you say denying the Holocaust? Supporting racism and fascism?
Some like to spin circles of rhetoric around that, others address it without BS.
It's actually extremely easy and worthwhile to oppose Nazis without the irrelevant rhetorical bullshit you're ladling out by the bucketful.
I absolutely do oppose Nazis. I am criticizing people who claim that everyone they disagree with is a Nazi or some other thing that they hate. When they do that it hurts people who aren't really Nazis and it sets a bad example.
If one can't say "nazis are bad", which is the issue here, then they're 1000% part of the problem.
It's really easy to do that, and extremely hard to be "mistaken" for a nazi if one doesn't spend any amount of time serving their interests or doing apologism for their toxic existence.
Trying to cook up a tug-of-war about that won't get anything but looking dumb at best.
I already have said multiple times that Nazis are bad, long before you even asked me to say it. You are displaying the kind of intolerant behavior I am trying to fight against.
This is not and never has been a debate about whether or not Nazis are bad. They are bad and we all know it. This is about the toxic and disrespectful behavior that people on the left and the right have for each other and how obsessing over Nazis and other extremists is contributing to that toxicity.
HURF DURF DURF you're not fighting against shit. You're wanking yourself into a frenzy over a rhetorical nothingburger.
There are no "toxic extremists" saying nazis are bad - that's a simple matter of fact.
However there are plenty of slimy, spineless apologists who want to cook up a fake "debate" about that, the actual, central issue, not the bullshit you're ladling on top. I document them daily.
If one doesn't have a problem with saying "nazis are bad" then there's nothing else to say.
Yes there absolutely are. There are fanatical liberals out there who violently attack anybody who is conservative and refuse to listen when people try to tell them that conservatives are not all racist or fascists, and don't recognize the irony of their behavior. And there are plenty of the same kind of people on the right too. And the worst thing is that a lot of politicians are encouraging this behavior or only condemn it when the other side does it.
I want people on the left and right to be friends and accept each others differences. I am not asking anybody to be friends with Nazis or other extremists and I am not apologizing for their evil beliefs.
Giant heaping gobs of rhetorical windy bullshit.
There are no "differences" about saying "nazis are bad" and there's no reason not to.
I'm the only "side" that has linked real examples in this one-sided "debate" vs. circular mush-mouthed wanking.
"Violently attack anybody who is conservative"? LMAO, that has never happened in the furry fandom. However there is an organized, maliciously-motivated group of nazi-apologists here. A tiny one yes, but it has shut down conventions. We'll keep on topic about that until you give up wanking about "both sides" that don't exist.
I completely agree with you about that. People who defend Nazis are completely wrong. Nobody here is defending Nazis. We should always be fighting against them. Is the idea of fighting against evil people without feeling hatred towards them an alien concept to you?
There you go again, contradicting yourself :)
"Nazis are bad" is a matter of fact and nothing you can say can make it "hatred".
You are still not listening to me. It isn't hatred to say that Nazis are bad. I never have said that, anybody who would say something like that is dumb. You are inventing a contradiction where there is none. It is completely possible to believe that a person is an evil monster without hating them.
You're still not saying anything real :)
I wasn't talking about people specifically within the furry fandom. I was talking about everyone.
There you go again stating that something I said is a fallacy and then not properly explaining it.
I haven't changed anything about what I am saying. I have been repeating the same things over and you keep finding different ways to misinterpret it.
If anything what you have been doing this whole time is making a straw man argument. I keep saying "this and this" and then you say "that and that is wrong" and then I say "I didn't say that and that, I said this and this" and then you don't listen to me and I have to say it all again. Ever single time I say the exact same thing, you respond by arguing against something I never said.
Show me a single place where I ever contradicted myself.
You: "please prove my bullshit rhetorical nothingburger for me by giving more explanation, despite my complete lack of substance"
What you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You haven't dismissed anthing I have said this entire time. You are only dimissing things you are imagining I said because you either cannot or refuse to understand my beliefs.
You can't articulate any belief without immediately contradicting it, and there is no "hatred" in saying "Nazis are bad".
I literally just told you I agreed with that. You are still using the straw man fallacy.
Are you incappable wrapping your mind around the idea that I can believe Nazis are horrible that we should fight against without feeling hatred?
I literally just told you I agreed with that. You are still using the straw man fallacy.
Are you incappable wrapping your mind around the idea that I can believe Nazis are horrible people that we should fight against without feeling hatred?
To sum up everything you posted here:
I will take that answer as a yes.
Talking to yourself isn't healthy, dude.
Then answer my question.
Are you incapable wrapping your mind around the idea that I can believe Nazis are horrible people that we should fight against without feeling hatred for them?
That isn't real and you're full of shit. Nobody rejects nuisances or tells nazis to fuck off for "hate".
So then you do not believe I can think Nazis are evil without hating them? Is that what you are saying?
can you speak english
I believe that it is absolutely evil to hate even a single human being no matter how much of a monster that human is. Because of this I have chosen to hate nobody, even though I know and accept that there are lots of awful people on this miserable and unfair hell of a planet. Human being are disgusting and cruel creatures, but I am also a human being, so it is completely pointless to hate another human.
Do you understand?
Nazi is not an identity and illegitimate belief will never equal "human being". There are zero "hated" nazis. Just like nobody "hates" dirt when they take a bath, or plaque when they brush their teeth, or poop when they flush it, or CO2 when they exhale it. That's just what normal people do. The both-sides BS won't fly.
I can't understand you. Are you saying that Nazis are not human? Your argument makes no sense.
I hate what Nazis believe and the things that they do, but I refuse to hate them as people because I don't want to sink to their level.
Do you speak english? Nazi is not an identity. There's no such thing as "hated" nazis, just rejected ones, like disease isn't "hated" when it doesn't succeed in infecting. "Nazi furs fuck off" isn't "hate" any more than a vaccine is.
How can they be welcomed? Choose to stop doing what they do. How can people avoid being mistaken for apologists? Say "nazis are bad" by itself without equivocation.
Half of your arguments are complete nonsense and the other half is arguing against I didn't say.
I never said anything about beliefs being the same thing as people.
I do not understand what you are talking about when you say that Nazi is not an identity. And i never said anything about if Nazi is an identity
If you think there are no hated Nazis then there is something very wrong with you. I think that you probably hate Nazis from the way you talk about them. All hate groups have people that hate them back. And a lot of them hate each other far more than they hate anyone else.
And how could you deny that their are horrible people on both the left and the right?
And there is no way you can deny that there are hateful people on both the left and the right who are ruining everything for the few of us who chose not to hate anyone.
And all the other stuff you said is a false compairison.
All human being are of equal value, and all humans have the potential for evil. So what is the point of hating a human? Hating a human doesn't make you better than them.
I think you are deliberately trying to confuse me because you refuse to understand what I believe.
Ignore the fourth and fifth paragraph in that last post. I messed them up.
I mean fifth and sixth.
Do you enjoy tossing word salad all night? Have fun talking to yourself, meanwhile the majority of this social group will continue being normal people who say "nazis fuck off" with complete clarity.
"Nazi" is an illegitimate belief, not "a different opinion" or a type of person that can claim being politicized or dehumanized. Shutting the door on them will never be "hate" and trying to twist that to other topics won't work.
Well you have completely failed to disprove anything I have said. You have done nothing but try to confuse me and made straw man fallacies this entire night.
If you hold hatred in your heart, then you are one step away from being a murderer. It doesn't matter if the people you hate are evil. They are still humans and all humans are worth the same.
You've been wrestling and failing to grasp basic ideas, here's a little help for what you've done wrong every time you post:
Your train of thought goes off the rails every time you try to put "nazi" and "humans" together. This is self-negating. The concept of "crime against humanity" was invented for what they represent. "They are still humans" is the cliche that stops you from connecting to any point.
One day you might get it. Until then, don't bother trying to "debate" anything, it failed before you hit post.
You are completely wrong about that. Nazis are human beings and any human can become a Nazi, because all humans have the potential for great evil, including you and me.
What is the point of hating a human when all humans are have the same potential for great evil like the Nazis? Hating them doesn't you better than them because you are still a human and still have the potential for great evil.
Hating them doesn't make you better than them because you are still a human and still have same the potential for great evil.
And what's the point of putting a thief in jail since everyone has the ability to steal?
This law thing makes my brain hurt, just get rid of it man.
Once again this is a false comparison. Punishing a person for doing something evil is not the same thing as hating them. We didn't punish the Nazis because we hated them. We punished them because it was the right thing to do.
so close but so far from understanding
nazis don't get "hate" they get earned rejection
But just because they hate doesn't make it right to hate them. We should punish them without hating them. Can you not understand that?
Also, I do not even understand what you are talking about. This whole time you have been mocking my beliefs and treating me extremely rudely. I don't even understand what your beliefs are or why you are arguing with me. I agree with you about a lot of things, but I can't see what is the point you have been trying to make with all of this.
Do you believe that it is ever acceptable to hate a human? I still have not gotten a straight answer about that. If you would explain your beliefs clearly I would understand you. The reason why I have argued with you for so long is because you have ignoring everything I have said about what I believe and refusing to say anything understandable about what you believe. I have been trying to understand you but you have made no sense. If I understood what you belief I could accept that our beliefs are incompatible and be done with this argument. If you would explain yourself clearly or would stop refusing to understand me this could have ended a long time ago.
If you think that the things I have been saying are thought terminating clichés then why haven't you disproven them? You have repeatedly used the straw man fallacy against me and done nothing to attack the actual premises of my arguments.
you're not getting what you want because you don't understand that "they're human" is no defense for people choosing to misbehave, and "humans are equal so don't hate" isn't a premise for whether they should have consequence for it.
It isn't two sides or different opinions it's a problem of you haven't made an argument.
aka half baked
This is another straw man fallacy. You are arguing against points that I didn't make.
I didn't says that "they're human" is an excuse for them to choose not to behave. And I also did not say that there shouldn't be consequences for their action.
Nobody should misbehave and anyone who does should be punished. I am saying that hatred itself is wrong. You don't need hate somebody to punish them.
everyone is supposed to assume you have examples of 'both sides hate' except you wont give any.
you also wont give any example of how you say people are using a broader definition of nazis than what they are actually specifically talking about.
then you pretend that 'hatred' is somehow a different and bad thing from what everyone has already thought about the subject since world war 2 ended.
then you claim nobody is "disproving" the invisible things in your brain.
it makes no sense and then you say other people aren't listening and go around in a circle back to the start.
take your pills
Ok you do have a point there. I was deliberately avoiding giving specific examples of anything, because I didn't want to make this more complicated, but now I see my arguments are weak without them.
I think I have lost the argument about the problem with hatred on both side. I still believe it but I see I am not capable of winning it with the arguments I am using even if my core beliefs are solid.
I am still really annoyed with all of you for constantly using straw man fallacies against me. It felt like you all were making personal attacks on me by assuming I believed things that I did not.
I disagree with what you are saying in the third sentence but it would just start the same argument all over again if I explain why and i am getting tired of this.
From now on I will try to keep thoughts like this to myself unless I can give stronger arguments that people won't misinterpret so easily.
You're seeing life too much as a game to win instead of just being something to enjoy.
Maybe the gamification of philosophy is the creation of this antagonistic political discord that you abhor?
Deliberately avoiding specific examples of anything, making broad sweeping statements, and thought that would get taken seriously? WTF?
You weaseled and weaseled and weaseled with a very untrue claim that "hatred" is the same thing when nazis experience reactions to themselves, as when they exist to give it. If you refuse to get real or back up huge broad claims, really don't pretend misinterpreting isnt your fault.
I guess.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about. You were not saying it clearly enough before. The stuff you said before made no sense but this does.
I agree with you.
"Nazi" is an illegitimate belief, not "a different opinion" or a type of person that can claim being politicized or dehumanized. Shutting the door on them will never be "hate" and trying to twist that to other topics won't work.
That is all true.
But all the other stuff you said still does not make any sense.
And you're doing that here because...?
...because there's an open, anonymous-friendly textbox and no moderation, I know.I am having this conversation here because I don't use any social media websites at all and because on other websites the comments are five to ten times more toxic and dumb.
Hurray for us.
Hey don't mind me, I'm just over here wondering what the hell you're talking about
My point is, Cheetah does not have to waste time interviewing people to determine whether the message applies to them. For one, German law sets a standard that someone's unlikely to break just for the sake of a furry convention, and for two, those who feel they are being targetted by the ribbons, probably are, and they feel unwelcome, which is the point, neatly accomplished.
For the sake of not going in on another 1200-comment argument so soon, I'm not going to address most of the rest of...that...but I do find your deference to an anonymous Austrian layperson's view of the US and the German Nazi Party, while being critical of Americans', to be...to put it mildly...a strange view for you in particular to hold.
This discussion needs to be stored, and put on display as a great example of what is WRONG with the furry fandom today
Oh there are a lot of stored discussions here.
I would title the above as:
"Being Woke: Does not mean having a circular argument with some anon on the internet at 4 in the morning."
It really is circular but at least Patch looks more and more ridiculous with every comment he posts so I guess that's fun to watch.
"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 literally checked Flayrah before I went to bed last night and work up with 55 new messages on this article...
I have never seen it go beyond 25 before and that was when I was a way for days at a con.
I'd be a bit happier if, again, the conversation was interesting and if it went past the first section of the report. You at least mentioned the vegetarian stuff. It's like people stopped reading at the first part and came to rage in the comments. Or didn't even bother reading and came to rage in the comments.
"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~
Ooh, we could argue about the vegetarian thing, yeah, that'd be a nice change of pace. The article doesn't give much to work with though, just a silly generalization with a naive implication...
I would love to have another argument, but not as long this time. The last one dragged on for way to long and the people I was arguing with kept forcing me to repeat myself.
Yeah, uh, they're pretty much all this long, but the good part about being in control of your own actions is you can technically duck out at any time, so stick around and I'm sure there will be another one soon. Especially if I get around to finishing the thing in my drafts before it's no longer timely...
It is very difficult to duck out when your arguments and personal beliefs are being misinterpreted.
Makes it easier tbh
You got what you craved- ATTENTION. Now suck it up and stop being a whiny little furry.
Or go rather pick on lesser furries on your little forum and let the adults debate things here.
Dude. Shut the fuck up.
Not addressing you... am addressing the Fire Dog
I know who you were talking to. You're going around to a bunch of different articles just to make drive-by potshots at him and telling him to leave so the "adults" can "debate". What you don't get is that he's been here nearly a decade, we like him, and you're the anonymous person being a dick and not making anything resembling a "debate" in any single comment you've ever made. Don't do that. Fucking lurk more.
Awww! <3
You should just ignore him. He's a known troll, he even bragged about trolling some sites. He's been banned from four or five sites (and those are just the ones I know of). He is full of paranoid delusions 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~
Who is he that you refer to? Not banned off of any sites I know of personally but then again you cannot be sure can you, because like you, we also hide behind many layers of anonymity.
"We" are not one person. Refer to us as "we" and we will give your our attention... That ego of yours needs cutting down to size.
As for paranoid delusions, that'd be you. The truth is whether you like it or not, justice is going to be served, and its your own doing.
Like is a strong word for me, more plutonic than anything.
So you're saying he's your rock? That's a little PDA, man.
It's a bit quaky.
"We like him"
Bwhahahaha dear child, do you like him, or do you like the fact that he is into some disgusting shit that you also happen to enjoy?
Fucking animals is never cool, nor is the several attempts he's made to justify child abuse over the years (and for which he has been banned on at least one platform)
Oh, honey...
Ten years ago I was saying Lupine Assassin and Crusader Cat were assholes, and people told me that saying that made me "everything that's wrong with the furry fandom".
I was proud to be "everything that's wrong with the furry fandom" in 2008 and I'm proud to be "everything that's wrong with the furry fandom" in 2018.
I would say that this whole comment thread kinda gobsmacks me, but I'm not sure it actually does. There's an awful lot of "I refuse to see the other person's point" and an awful lot of snark that...doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. (I am a really snarky person sometimes, and I love sarcasm a little too much, but it just seems to me that when the exchange is you and The Other One saying essentially the same thing more than, I don't know, four or five times in a row, you've reached the point where the first one who walks away from the computer without responding wins.)
For the record, though: look, folks. I don't want to speak for each and every self-identified liberal on the entire planet, but I feel fairly safe in saying that most of us left-of-center folks, when we say "Nazi are bad" here, now, in 2018, we are not using "Nazi" as a clever, coy way to say "Republicans" or "conservatives" or "evangelical Christians" or what have you. Did some liberals call some Republicans that in, say, 2006? Yes. Were we using it metaphorically then? Yes. Could you rightly accuse us of exaggerating unfairly? Yeah, probably.
But you know what?
In 2018, we have real fucking Nazis, and in 2018 when we say "Nazi," we mean real fucking Nazis.
I would love to go back to the carefree politics of the mid-2000s, where the leftists can be using "Nazi" as wantonly and stupidly as the rightists still use "Communist". But we're not there right now. To get back there, you know what needs to happen? We need to get rid of the real fucking Nazis.
So if you want a discussion about whether "Nazi furs fuck off" makes anyone uncomfortable, it'd better be about whether the word "fuck" is what makes you uncomfortable, not "Nazis." If you come back and say you'd be okay with "Nazi furs get lost," fine. I'm not sure I agree with your worry over making the phrase more polite, but we can have that discussion. But if you come back and say that still makes you uncomfortable, then you're saying you want Nazis, not Republicans or conservatives or evangelicals but real fucking Nazis, to be more comfortable in our fandom.
And if you're saying that, then you can—you know.
— Chipotle
*mumbles quietly in the background that he did think the language was unhelpfully strong but otherwise agreed with the sentiment, and, also, not actually the stone in this glass house he needs to be throwing anyway*
Neo-nazis have always been a thing. They're called neo-nazis. Strikes me as naïve that they'd be any more dangerous in 2018 than in 2014 or 2010. Particularly in a fandom about cute walking animals.
I don't feel threatened in the least.
Setting aside the fact that THERE IS A HUGE REASON YOU WOULDN'T FEEL THREATENED STARING US ALL IN THE FACE, maybe you're feelings aren't the only possible one people may experience.
"A fandom about cute walking animals"
Becoming a pariah to own the libs
Edited to shrink images for mobile viewers.
I haven't seen crackers telling such immature jokes since those Cheez-It commercials.
Hahahaha! You could at least scale down the screenshots, for the sake of the website.
Knowing you spend your free time lurking & screencapping the group makes it so much more fun to troll there. It's like you're begging for it.
For the record I disapprove of you uploading offensive material here in a news site. Not that you would distinguish between journalism and shit posts, it's all the same to you.
You know, around the time Zootopia came out, I started getting this gut feeling that you know, this Mike guy is a weird fucking asshole, but I couldn't put a finger on why. Imagine my shock that it's revealed that yeah, you're a weird fucking asshole, but you think it's okay because you're a two-faced, weird fucking asshole.
Yeah well, you know, some people like to do shitty banter on the internet, others like to physically assault and harass people.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." — Kurt Vonnegut
— Chipotle
That is a good respond. There are a few things I disagree with but none of them are important enough to start another argument over.
In hindsight, my arguments are not as relevent as I thought they were because the type of people that I was trying to criticise are a tiny minority. It is a very loud minority with a lot more influence than they should have, but still a tiny minority. The arguments about Nazis were getting me off topic.
Please define nazi and then point to any nazi on the furry fandom. Just one. ONE nazi.
I believe Nazi would be defined in the modern era as follows:
Nazi(n.) - An individual who wishes for the state's power to be utilized to provide an ethnic state that is favorable to Aryan (or white) race and/or culture and works towards implementing governance that works toward those ends.
A furry that can be defined as that?
Len Gilbert:
1) Identifies as a Nationalist and admire some Middle Eastern hardline leaders.
2) Wishes for the fandom to be used to recruit kids into his fantasized race war.
3) Leads the group that these guys (2 Gryphon and Mike Retriever) joined and thus why the label has been projected onto the others within this group.
You can read more assessment of this individual on my article here: https://www.flayrah.com/7362/f-word-without-n-word
Under the section Len Gilbert - A “Nationalist Populist” in his own words
You're replying to a nazi there. Besides Len there's the fact that his altfurry chat was made as an attempted offshoot of Richard Spencer's altright.com, by a self described nazi.
if you don't believe it, read it for yourself, Ctrl-F search for altright.com https://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/01/neo-nazi-furries-trump-latest-alt-right-supp...
The section I reference on the article I wrote referenced that article ;P
just an FYI comment and not a dig, the article is bizarrely edited and extremely hard to parse, but you did thank you
Oh no worries, it's not my best work.
Post new comment