The Good Clown, the Bad Clown, and The Furry Con
Midwest Furfest has come to learn that being the largest furry convention in the world comes with its follies as news broke of an infamous alt-right provocateur, Milos Yiannopoulos, setting his sights on the gathering. After he went public with this, and word started to spread around, the pressure was on for the convention to make a decision on the matter of this particular would-be attendee.
In a statement released by the convention they said that his presence would not be appropriate for the goal of giving attendees an enjoyable gathering experience.
Self-registration for our event does not imply a given individual’s presence is condoned or appropriate.Our full statement is below, along with a link to our Code of Conduct: https://t.co/bf78xOGSOo pic.twitter.com/0CnTi6AbYt— Midwest FurFest ???? (@FurFest) September 16, 2019
In return there have been statements by the banned individual that they plan on showing up to the event anyway. With this debacle covered by many outlets outside the fandom such as the Rolling Stone, it has inspired other far right political actors, such as the Proud Boys, to claim they’ll try and be disruptive of the event as well. Convention security has been working with the venues and law enforcement to ensure that precautions are taken. Furs have been informing other attendees to take necessary steps and be aware when attending this December’s gathering.
It must be noted that non-furries of note crashing furry conventions is nothing new. There is Johnathan Hills who crashed AnthrOhio in his Buddhist caricature, Ice Poseidon who stumbled into Texas Furry Fiesta, Strange Aeon at Furnal Equinox, and of course the Good Mythical Morning guys found themselves in Sydney’s Harbour City Fur Con at their fursuit photoshoot.
And of course, bringing it back to Midwest Furfest, there was one other celebrity who crashed their festivities. So with that I present to you a story of two clowns, one good and one bad, and their differing interactions with the furry convention Midwest Furfest.
The Good Clown
Midwest Furfest 2018 had a surprise guest, who was foreshadowed when a viral video was released around Anthrocon in the summer of that year. It featured a name that, unlike the examples above, people of my age may recognize. In the video, covered here on Flayrah, the Insane Clown Posse headliner Violent J was co-hosting an informational segment with his daughter, Ruby, about being scammed by DHGate into buying a crummy fursuit knockoffs.
Six months later, in Rosemont, the clown had arrived. And while the press had made a big deal about this event when word got out of his presence, there was no red carpet nor fanfare. He arrived just as any other furry fan, through the front door. Except for— those that take the sky bridge— you know what I mean.
View this post on Instagram Furry gang! A post shared by Violent J - The Duke (@violentj.icp) on Nov 30, 2018 at 3:28pm PST
The Good Clown had prepared for this excursion. He had his own fursuit designed. He went around with his daughter and took photo ops. He immersed himself into the experience of the celebration and didn’t steal the show, but shared it.
The celebrity could have made a big deal of going to MFF prior to his attendance, he could have announced his pending arrival from on high, but that was never the Good Clown’s way. He's certainly no Kanye, whose recent acts of using his celebrity to crash churches, has inspired some regular Sunday attendees to walk out. Violent J was not going to transform Midwest Furfest into a Juggalo fan meet and greet. He just wanted to head down and see the chaos in its natural state. He was a guest with the distinguished manor of a statesman, despite having the attire of a jester.
But in essence the Midwest is his home, it has had rough times, probably some of the toughest in the nation. Never recovering from the recessions of the 1970s fully, taking on the brunt of the opioid epidemic, and whose territory probably feel they have been abandoned by Democrat and Republican alike. The Good Clown stayed and tried to make the most out of what they had been left with in the home they were dealt.
The Bad Clown
It is when you understand the acts of the Good Clown that we can best define the actions of a bad one. A person who announces that they will be present with the blow horn that is social media. One that informs all their non-furry fans that they will be around and should show up if they want to do a meet and greet.
This has been the actions of Mr. Yiannopoulos. Whose acceptance by the automated registration system of the convention's space was shared around social media heavily on the 13th of September. That Friday, while faced with an unlucky decision, it was not long debated among the board as on the Monday following they had revoked the attendance given out by computer.
So, the bad clown, like the good, got media coverage. But this clown got angry at the jeers and laughs as he wiped off the lemon meringue pie of rejection. How dare people laugh at him! So he has indicated that his own posse would descend upon the gathering, but not to spread music and an outlet of frustration in a healthy manner as the Good Clown would, but for simple and petty revenge.
And while as a political provokator he claims to have the best wishes of the future of humanity in mind, he cannot see the needs of others beyond the front of his nose. These is no political benefit to anyone, other than himself, for giving a threat of trespassing a furry convention. He doesn’t care for the Midwest, it isn’t his home. He doesn’t care for America, it isn’t his home. He does seem to care deeply, though, about his personal power and image. Anything that questions those things are his enemy and will be the wrath of his posse, according to this behavior.
And of course he has to rely on those unsavory social connections to push against the fandom, because he has spent all his kiss-up to governmental authority money. Some capitalist, eh?
A con of ideology to protest the con
In the final point here, it should be pointed out that the greatest of ironies here for those that empathize with Bad Clown’s plight of not being allowed to be an attendee Midwest Furfest, is that they are typically individuals who are nationalist and believe that it should be a nation’s sovereign right to be able to reject a foreigner from coming into their country due to the history of their behaviors. In essence it is the same group that celebrates Trump when he says America is closed and wants to build a wall to shut out outsiders, who are the ones that are crying foul when furry conventions are not implementing an open borders policy when it comes to individuals such as the Bad Clown.
The difference must be emphasized, however, that if the Bad Clown shows up as an "illegal immigrant" to Midwest Furfest, the board does not have the power to indefinitely detain him in an over-crowded jail cell. It does not have the power to separate him from his children to never see them again. It does not have the power to make him "disappear".
Let no liberty conscious individual with fear of overreach of institutional power be distracted from the fact that only our governments have the capacity to utilize such violent ostracization tactics as those noted above in a manner that would not lead to arrest. If you truly fear being shed from society, you should fear those institutions, not the decisions of a furry convention that only has power over one convention center for one weekend of the year. Yes, even if the government that has those powers is lead by someone you think is on your side.
Furries are welcoming to outsiders generally, we welcome those that wish to come in and enjoy the arts. To discover it and themselves. However, individual conventions do reserve their right to assemble and to be able to assess the background of an individual with a history of disruption of assembly. Especially when the behaviors of said "immigrant" of drawing attention to themselves pre-convention indicated their intent with the convention was selfish all along and would make themselves a public charge through their presence. It must be noted that Midwest Furfest was not the first institution to reject this particular immigrant on those very grounds, as he was barred from Australia.
If it was not their goal to cause a fuss: then would the Bad Clown not have behaved in the manner of the Good Clown?
About the author
Sonious (Tantroo McNally) — read stories — contact (login required)a project coordinator and Kangaroo from CheektRoowaga, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, writing and finance
Comments
I am very worried about people attending MFF this year. With the Proud Boys getting involved, I can’t help but feel violence and mortal harm is inevitable.
Can you imagine measuring your masculinity by how badly you can beat up cartoon animals
The hotel usually doesn't want a disturbance either and could easily forbid him entrance, then it would be trespassing and thus arrestable. As it is, without a pass, he would not be able to hang out anywhere but the room or main hotel lobby. Any push into one of the con rooms would also be trespassing, correct?
Those who fear those who disagree with them are the ones who are the true bigots. There's nothing wrong with people from any set of beliefs enjoying a furry con so long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. To disallow those you disagree with makes you intolerant and worse than the things you claim to stand against.
There are not people with "beliefs". They are abusive exploiters and a violent street gang. They do not have any legitimate place at the table.
Dismissing these things is not "fear" or disagreement. It is good responsible management.
How is it not a belief? The way I'm seeing looks very clear that's it's a belief definition wise.
These are people with fallacies, hoaxes and dogma they use to excuse hateful attacks on others. Those are not legitimate beliefs. "Whataboutism" in these comments isn't legitimate either, so don't even start.
I'm not sure if you're on my side or not. But I might give a couple of examples.
"Banning someone because they have had a history of violence, worrying that they will do the same at the con with no evidence of threat." Is an example of reasoning based off fear.
"Banning someone for a history of violence, and banning the person for that out of hate without worry about safety." is not fear. But it is hate and disagreement toward the idea of accepting the person as a human for the con.
Milo, in the Furry Raiders chat (which was Linked in original article):
Based on this would you still state that the board's decision was not for the safety of the convention goers, and the venue?
Well then it might be fear then, but regardless I will likely defend the idea of banning someone who is making a threat toward such a furry con, even if it wasn't mentioning such an exact con but the threat broadly included it. Maybe the person did change, but if this was very recent then I can be more tolerated toward such fear based reason with banning the person. XD
The thing that is interesting about that message is that it is from after the convention ban.
So if he was going to try shut the convention down originally and is still going to try to, then the board decision has not made a difference in terms of safety.
If he wasn't originally going to try shut the convention down but now is out of anger and revenge, then the board's decision was actually negative in terms of safety.
While the board's decision may have made the convention feel more welcoming to some people, it doesn't seem like it will have benefited safety in either scenario.
"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 called a "Double Bind", it is a tactic of abusive individuals.
Here is a Youtube from a logical atheist (I know how much you like those guys) covering those very tactics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnSiJOOdo30
You cannot take a narcissist at their word, they like to narrow the choices of others to a binary and then punish their target no matter which choice is made.
In this case, only Milo will be liable for any damages done if he chose to show up. It makes any negative repercussions caused by his presence crystal clear to the venue that the gathering's goal is not to stir trouble with the venue.
It may not ensure the perfect saftey of every individual con member, which is impossible even without hostile individuals showing up, but it does save fave for the convention itself and the safety of its future as being a fun-loving gathering of artists and crafts-persons and not a focus on individuals who want stir up political whirlwinds.
I mean, if Trump's greatest allies are busy sassing furries, I don't see how that is going to help his dear leader. If he's not already impeached by MFF. He should be flying off to Ukraine to look for those Hillary servers or something.
Whether it was a tactic or not, I think engagement still would've been a better option. By bringing up the concerns the convention had with his attendance and working with him to find an agreement where he could attend and they would be satisfied would not only have the possibility of preventing any trouble (however slight) but, if he refused to engage in such a negotiation, Milo would then show that he is not operating in good faith. It would be a winning move for the convention because it would move away from the supposed binary choice.
"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'll step in here, though I won't make any target for trolls by using an official con account, the above commenter is right. These aren't "beliefs" any more than putting poop in your mouth is "food" or mutilating yourself with a rusty steak knife is "surgery". There is no disagreement or "fear" to have about that. They're simply illegitimate. We won't allow them and there will be no debate about it.
The idea that they are "illegitimate" therefor we need to ban them, IS a belief. I am having the debate because your claims are weird so far from reality for the purpose of the definition of both "fear" and "belief". And it's a fear.
And even if such an act of banning was outside of fear and belief was the case here, we can still debate that the act is "no reason" and that is debatable likely.
And again, if this guy is very high of a risk with recent history, I wouldn't exactly have much of a problem with lawfully banning the person from the place.
Nobody "fears" debating whether the earth is flat or not. We discard that falsehood because it is illegitimate. Now STFU, Diamond Man.
Just tell me, why on earth are you even comparing the debates here with that? *clap clap* many people don't care about the debate of the earth flat. But there are, I don't kn*BURPS*ow, a lot of controversial debates that a LOT of people fear.
1 star for reading comprehension, Diamond Man
Why am I even bothering with you? You're just a fart after all.
.
Youre just a fart after all was a cringe moment
So what if degenerates who ruin this fandom want to pretend I can't have an opinion, if defending LOVE and TOLERANCE and *gasp* equality is cringing then you can just have a crap fandom then.
Oh it is? Yet, making "STFU, DM" and "SHUT THE FUCK UP, DIAMOND MAN" and spamming "." isn't? I wonder if you're just another part of his gas?
Also, it's disagreement I think. One is basically arguing that we disagree with people entering that are so-called abusive exploiters and a violent street gang. I mean sure ban someone who is threatening a fur con (and maybe someone who is at a very high risk with evidence for protection reason), but assuming they will do the same when there is no concrete evidence, and not a lot proof that isn't considered concrete that they will commit a bad act at a fur-con is by fact, "fear". And giving me one-star won't change that. It's also disagreement to someone as a person for the fear.
It's fear mongering all over again, and it's sad (but unsurprising to me due to recent stories I've read) to see a lot of the "fandom" adapt such a thing.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Doesn't look like fearmongering to me.
Looks like a legitimate threat.
We don't accept, racists, homophobes or pedophiles and we sure as fuck don't accept people who make terroristic threats.
Stop defending a person you clearly know nothing about.
"We don't accept, racists, homophobes or pedophiles"
You clearly admitted you are part of the problem of the fandom then.
For the first two, I'm not for homophobia or obvious racism, but to ban them because they have different beliefs than you is pathetic. So-called "loving and accepting" my ass.
And as for pedophiles, that really depends. Pedophilia is a mental thing inside one's own head, which is logically not victimizing alone (and can be controlled alone regardless of past), and to go around acting like an anti against the people alone for something that hell, they didn't even ask for (regardless if this is a born thing or not) is even more pathetic and suggest a selfish belief that likely said "I OWN THE FANDOM, I DON'T ACCEPT PEOPLE THAT I DO NOT LIKE!". Keep your political government trash outside of this fandom.
And just to be clear, I know the difference between people, action, and personality that leads on to hurting other people.
I am defending the idea that anyone should be allowed to come in the fandom (which is a basic right that no one can really stop) or a lawful furcon regardless of belief, past, sexual preference, status other than clear threat and/or worse, and political belief. I'm mainly against the degenerating concept of "Anti" and typical "SJW".
And as for Milo, if he made a threat, then I think it's fair to ban him from the fur con.
Ah of course I get 1-stared by degenerates who makes this fandom look like a shitty joke. On a comment that is about defending LOVE and TOLERANCE and *gasp* responsibility and equality. HAHAHAHAH
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwZsJGZey-A
Flayrah is not the government and there is no free speech on someone else's site :)
The idea that anyone should be allowed to come in the fandom is a basic right that no one can really stop, and lawful commenting should happen regardless of belief, past, sexual preference, status other than clear threat and/or worse, and political belief.
If a website allows me to have my opinions on here, and such speech beyond is protected by the US Constitution, then within the USA, it actually IS free speech because the website allowing it is aligned with it.
You are not the website owner.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers had the same idea: if you give people enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
What do you mean?
If I ran a home, that ran a table with opinions that were protected speech, I am protected by the USA constitution. And if I allowed others to give their own protected speech away at the table, then I am advocating protected speech since I am the owner and allowed by the USA constitution.
My point is: If a website owner is protected by the USA constitution to have protected speech and the owner allows others to practice it too, then no other person has the authority to take that away. Only the owner (in this example, assuming you) can decide to allow it or not.
________
Also off topic of this comment, I forgot that my guest comments were also attached to an email. There was a person who was trying to pretend to be me.
You sound like 5 years old... The only thing you defended was your opinion
So let me nip this fallacy in the bud, because I've heard it my entire adult life.
"You can't say you're loving and accepting group if you don't accept person X into the group"
Person X has a history of being unaccepting and unloving.
Therefore if you add them to the group, can you say that 100% of the group is loving and accepting?
Isn't it therefore impossible to create any group that is 100% accepting and loving by that logic?
A) If you decline a person who is unaccepting and unloving into a group, then the group is accused as being unaccepting and unloving as a result.
B) But if you accept the person who is unaccepting and unloving, without any stipulation of changing their behavior, then you have an individual who behaves in an unaccepting and unloving manner within the group, then the group becomes in part unaccepting and unloving.
The thing is, if Milo put forth efforts to redeem himself and they were genuine and he slipped in without making a show of it, furries probably would have been "cool". I mean there are furries who don't know who this guy is, as we have seen in the comments here. But that's not what happened. Milo wanted to use this as a Spencer on Dancing with the Stars moment. Back in my day, politicans weren't stars, they actually had an office job.
The point I am trying to make is that "loving and acceptance" means accepting the person, regardless of what they've done, and has in their head and where proper responsibility exist. It just means accepting the person without accepting the bad stuff. I.e. accepting with proper responsibility.
For example: A person is a homophobic alone, or even a pedophile, but these people in this example does not desire to actually act on any immoral desire, and just wants to go do something that is lawful and completely innocent.
You have shown a thing containing a threat from Milo right? If something is so very high risk, especially when it comes to a threat then I would be fine with banning him. Just for the sake of safety and due to the levels of risk it has.
I don't think anyone on here really knows if several furries would be cool with it. Not all furries believe in forgiveness, and this especially goes for the type of people that are considered controversial alone. (e.g. a person with a convicted sex offense). Since the topic here was mainly reacting to someone who includes way more than just Milo.
Though no matter how logical and understanding I try to be, I WILL likely get down-voted by those who hates love and tolerance (and probably thinks they are but isn't really). Just a heads up for those who are open, don't let the ratings get to you.
I did not understand a single word
If Milo or any other person is a person who is homophobic alone, or even a pedophile, but these people in this example does not desire to actually act on any immoral desire, and just wants to go do something that is lawful and completely innocent, like attend a legal furcon, it is hypocritical to ban them for thought crime. The Flayrah bullies who want to down-vote my lawful opinion are not going to stop those of us who can independently think for ourselves.
IDENTITY THEFT ALERT
Or it's a glitch with the comment system. I do not remember commenting after this comment.
You are correct, the above comment is not yours
1) The default fading is the default shade which means the anon address has no downvote history, yours kind of does as your comment pointing it out is faded by default and their's is not.
2) The comment is way too articulate for your writing style
Guess you should just stay signed in yes? These guys don't play around when it comes to trying to argue their points through other people to let them take the fall.
I wish the owner could beef up security. The only reason why I hate signing in a lot when commenting is because it's 100% proven that there are degenerates who hates me, logic, and physiologically which causes them to emotionally abuse the rating system effecting that one part of my account. Of course ratings don't matter here obviously.
If I logged off again, then I have no other choice but to use a "promise" doctrine style saying: "This is my last comment for now, I will not comment between X or X." but I don't think that will work very well.
I hope the admin will delete the false identity comments.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Someone here (Yes, I'm the original Diamond Man) is actually rating my comments exposing identity theft, and rating false identity comments five stars, or leaving them alone entirely.
One of my comments recently has gotten about 4-5 votes of 1 star within ten minutes and I still see some of the theft comments be left alone or sometimes rated five stars.
There might be a person who is trying to vote more than once for the wrong reasons and is using is (maybe) to censor comments exposing who might be the criminal here.
The criminal I think is abusing the abusive system and I (the original Diamond Man) need a justice solution according to the actual pattern of who is at the bottom of this, including all free speech comments that are being censored.
"Diamond Man (Not Logged In) (visitor) — Fri 4 Oct 2019 - 20:05"
Not the original diamond man.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Sir this is an Arby's
God, I hope not. Wendy's at least has a somewhat-viable tabletop gaming system.
Anyone have more info about the Proud Boys discussing MFF attendance? I can only find a few references to it online, but none of them has a source. I'm worried.
PSA: If you see Milo, some Proud Boys, or any other hateful presence at the con, and they happen to be recording, get someone with a speaker and blast copyright-protected music! Then you can get their videos ContentID'd into oblivion. Disney music works well for this; they're really anal about it.
You lost me at "alt-right provocateur". He's a gay jew with a black partner; the actual "alt-right" HATES him. And people like August Wilder in the comments here are the ones who fan the flames by acting like he's some kind of evildoer, and the samenwith the Proud Boys. If you're concerned about violence and mortal harm, then Antifa is the group you'd ban. But - for some unfathomable reason - violent revolutionaries are fine so long as they're communist ones.
Seriously. The only bigots here are the ones who screeched to have him banned because they were told "edgy gay man bad because we say he is".
Well Trump, a person his supporters call a nationalist, has been eliciting help from foreign countries to help his 2020 campaign. This in principal is a globalist behavior. Thusly you have the Proud Boys, an alt-right organization going to bat for a 'gay jew with a black partner'. It's the same principle.
This is because the foundation of these men such as Milo and himself is that of hypocrisy. They tell people to do something, yet their behavior conveys the opposite.
It's a way they can cheat the system, to put an expectation of those they exploit to behave in a loyal, controllable, and moral manner, while they behave in a chaotic and immoral manner.
Words have meaning. The "Alt-Right" means an alternative to the right, it is those that rejected the moral principals of the Republican party for a more secular and godless one. Which is why some traditional anti-God leftists such as Bill Mahar, or 2 Gryphon actually like them more than some of their colleagues on 'their side of the aisle' who may back their beliefs with morality, especially if it is of a religious foundation.
The left needs to be careful what they wish for (the right to be more 'secular') because they just may get it. They're still televangelist, who as Phil Collins notes have a "do as I say, just don't do as I do" mentality. Only for the televangelist, they couldn't attack you directly in your home if you critized them and turned the channel. Thanks to the internet, the new secular televangelists can harass you through the screen if you are a disbelieving heretic that their man is a god.
A "gay jew with a black partner" can be an alt-right bigot the same as cops can break laws, religious people can be unholy, or bankers can embezzle. Take your fake sophistry and stuff it where it belongs.
Surprising how people are coming to Milo's defence, a man banned from every major social media platform for hateful rhetoric and inciting violence, bafflingly on behalf of the alt-right, to lend them credibility and the ability to say "See? We're not against gay people it mixed-race couples. Here's one in our very ranks!" He is absolutely an alt-right provocateur.
I might be missing something, it's because it's questionable to ban someone out of someone's mere past where it's not as high risk in connection to such place.
If Milo recently had some issues at the convention then that would be more fair.
Instead, I'm seeing the future where part of this insane fandom use "fear" as the answer. The furry fandom isn't the only one that has fear mongering issues.
He was banned from the entire country of Australia. Stop defending him, it's a bad look
"Stop defending him, it's a bad look"
Oh here we go with the "bad image" usual crap.
If defending a scumbag who was banned from a entire country and has made terroristic threats is the hill you want to die on be my guest.
Sure you can just jump on the SJW band wagon if you want, but I have a capability of independent thinking some of you seem to lack around here.
If you are capable of critical thinking you would know threats are not a protected form of speech, not even from the government.
-Please ignore any "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" or similar comments that were found to be in between 6:10 AM to 6:50 PM USA central time. Someone is pretending to be me.-
What's the point of you claiming it's a threat when arguing toward me? You kinda did (or maybe even clearly) admitted to using fear mongering as an answer or some other personal reason having nothing to do with large enough evidence or threat of bad behavior toward other types of individuals.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Fandom members are not coming to his defense. Trolls are.
You people need to grow up. I'm sick of people acting like Milo is Hitler, Stalin, Attila the Hun, and George W. Bush rolled into one person. He's very mild as opposed to many other social media personalities. I'd much rather have Milo at any con that I'd go to than 3/4ths of the featured guests. At least having him there would be intetesting.
Exactly. The people managing these cons are the types who consider mainstream leftists to be alt-righters. It's crazy that we let the crazies take control.
I honestly think the furry "community" is filled with so much crazies. I've been seeing some con owners take the opposite stance of being open and accepting of others and ban others out of fear and hatred. Now for Milo case, I've heard evidence suggesting that the risk is too high to trust and I would ban such person too, but still I've heard stories involving banning that based off 'fear mongering', 'hatred', and/or because another is 'offended'. Same goes for several furry media websites.
You can also see the example here on Flayrah due to 1-star rating attacks out of emotion, someone trying to impersonate another while the main owner of the website allows it, personal attacks, and insults just because someone has a different careful opinion.
Jesus, wwwarea, you are desperate. They're not going to completely change or just do away with the comment-rating system just because you don't like it. Either stand by your convictions in that these horrible people you're defending are WORTH defending for some reason and deal with the inevitable backlash, or let your desperate need for approval and acceptance overwrite your desire to be a pathetic edgelord and shut the fuck up.
Now go ahead and 1-star me while justifying how it's NOT out of emotion or how you're feeling offended, and accuse me of censoring you. I'll wait.
"Jesus, wwwarea, you are desperate. They're not going to completely change or just do away with the comment-rating system just because you don't like it."
Can't change? What's the point of that argument? I'm not gonna change on my thoughts expressed calling out bad behavior just because people like you don't like it.
"Either stand by your convictions in that these horrible people you're defending are WORTH defending for some reason and deal with the inevitable backlash, or let your desperate need for approval and acceptance overwrite your desire to be a pathetic edgelord and shut the fuck up."
Just because clowns like you hate it when people like me defend people as human beings, doesn't mean you get any right to shut me up you degenerate. People like you are part of the reason why I HATE our damn planet in general. I get it, you are offended by me fighting for equality and tolerance toward people as people, but that's not a valid argument against me. Get the f*** over it.
"Now go ahead and 1-star me while justifying how it's NOT out of emotion or how you're feeling offended, and accuse me of censoring you. I'll wait."
I don't think I'm rating your comment 1-star because of emotion. It's because your comment is pathetic and poor. :) By the way, 1-star ratings is a tool for censorship on here because when a comment is rated down enough, the comment becomes more hidden. Flayrah is supportive of censorship. I even had a couple of stories desired to post but it was denied because of some fear of "image" likely, and/or some other reason. Now as you excuse me, I might use multiple proxies to rate my comment higher as an attempt to fight against censorship and against abuse of the mind.
Actually the main reason I did not edit your articles is 2 reasons, both having to do with the disclaimer notes you put in them. Each of these points from the quoted text will be put in bold for emphasis.
1) You stated that you can delete these articles. Your articles from a quality stand point would require hours to edit. If I wanted to waste hours for the risk of nothing then I would go to a casino. Hint, I don't go to casinos.
2) You basically threaten legal liability of 'copyright violations' on your other disclaimer. Which, if you want to have full ownership, then you can feel free to post them on your own sites. We don't work for you, we work for the fandom.
I will add a note, this is not personal, this is business. I don't care if your name is Majira Strawberry, Samuel Conway, or Boozy Badger. All have to go through the editing process, and all have the capacity of being declined. Heck even when I was putting in stories from 2010 to 2016 I also went through this same process. Some were declined, but not too many. I didn't bitch about "censorship", because if you want a website with articles of quality, of course there is going to be "censorship". But we call it "curation", sir.
Those of us that become better don't make the assumption that our work is rejected because 'people hate me', we look back on our works objectively.
If you don't trust Flayrah to do your story justice to the point you would drop disclaimers and notes longer than the actual articles themselves, then maybe it's best you not write for Flayrah.
If I didn't trust an institution to that point, I would certainly not be wasting my time by providing them content. When you claim that we didn't post your because it would harm Flayrah's "image", I have to ask the obvious follow-up question. By writing those articles, was that your intent?
Actually I think I was just stating the Copyright thing because I remember someone acting like I cannot at all be in control of an article just because mine was edited. I was mainly trying to remind that I would still have Copyright toward anything that is still written by me (as long as Copyright law allows it), and even given an extra message saying that I won't be able to have it Copyrighted by me if it's edited so much that it means I can't by law.
Besides the article would still be under a type of Creative Commons, which is considered irrevocable unless the license was violated.
When I was referring to the desire to delete the article, I think I was mainly aiming my desire to ask the website owner that I could delete it. I was able to ask a person to no longer have another article exist on the public, and the person agreed with me and hid it.
And I think the whole reason why some of the disclaimer were there was due to a situation involving another editor getting very mad at me for having an article deleted and accused me of breaking something that doesn't exist. I asked the owner of the website (I think) to delete the article because things went way off with it, then the article got deleted. This time, I wanted to put a "disclaimer" mentioning the chance of a deletion to avoid another unexpected event.
__________
I was just saying Flayrah supports censorship mainly, because it does and as oppose to the idea that Flayrah might seem more "open" when it's not. This is simply showing that the website does not allow a free flow of opinions that are lawful, as 1: It has tools to prevent that. and 2: Articles would get denied due to "unacceptable" reasons.
I don't think the reason behind disclaimer would be enough to be considered true censorship though because the reasoning behind that doesn't fit the definition of censorship I don't think.
This is not to say it's not within the right. If you are allowed by the owner of the website and it's lawful, then you can, but I can still say it might be censorship, even if an a type of censorship doesn't violates any basic human rights.
__________
By the way, one of my articles wasn't edited (or posted?) due to some image thing. It wasn't by you, but from some other editor.
Granted, saying "some other reason" might of been too broad as it might include things not censorship so my bad on that part I think.
You have the right to delete the efforts of editing staff, just as editing staff has the right to focus on articles that won't be deleted.
The end results of there being no article are the same, so there isn't much room to complain.
As I said I think, you might have the right to not edit it.
But I can probably still point any refusal out as censorship if any reason behind it was based off finding it "unacceptable" for any personal reason including for example, refusing to share a news story about Discord banning specific content in favor of some "image" that some people might think about. I might also call it out as simple removal for a reason outside of that was too far fetch. Was yours too far? Probably not, but I still want to say this.
I am mainly pointing it out because it seems (though from my experience, not that surprising) Flayrah, which is what I thought was more about allowing people to express their own lawful opinions. Seeing refusal of stories due to any personal reason based off "I don't agree with this." or "I don't want people thinking of us as _insert harmless and non-threatening group here_, and/or hiding good debating comments out of hatred is definitely worth pointing out I think.
If this was a religious website where acceptance of homosexuality was forbidden, I would be way less surprised to see an article supporting gay rights be denied by the owner for a "I don't accept this." reason. It's censorship probably, and it's disturbing, but I would likely be less surprised by the result the moment I know the website's agenda.
So for people who are curious: the story was about Discord banning cub porn back at the start of the year. This was absolutely furry news; I would be down with a good article on Flayrah covering it.
But this wasn't it, at least not yet. It combined the facts with a kind of train of thought, which had some promise, but also awkward wording which would have required polishing and probably some more context/links added by editors for more comprehensive coverage.
I didn't personally have the time to do that; at the time, I was deep into updating WikiFur's convention coverage... as well as coincidentally dealing with the drama of Discord banning cub porn on Inkbunny.
Now I look closer it has the same disclaimer Sonious was taking about in the other story, which combined with the need for editing may have discouraged him from taking it on.
By the time I did have time to look at the new story feed, the story was no longer news. I'm sorry about that, because you did identify a timely issue that impacted a segment of fandom and was reported outside of it and we should have had an article about it.
I don't agree with the concept that we shouldn't talk about things because they might make the fandom look bad (any more than we might give the impression that we all have fursuit sex, are zoophiles, etc. just because we do a story about someone who is or does). At the same time I sympathize with the wishes of individual editors who might not wish to edit such a story, especially when it is likely to require research for complete coverage. The concern that you might just want any work done deleted later on probably did not help.
Perhaps some retrospective story about whether it had an impact beyond the original announcement might be more suitable at this point? In practice I suspect the change ironically has had relatively low impact on Discord itself because private servers in which images are shared between friends tend not to be actively monitored, only looked at if reported. The effect seemed wider to me inasmuch as it triggered a resurgence of anti-cub discussion, notably on Twitter. But I don't know that for sure, as I'm not a particularly active user of Discord.
For the second paragraph, that wasn't exactly the concern here I was giving out. Someone refused to edit it (and/or post it, whichever is more true) because of some image thing. It looked very clear in the message sent by one of the editors that were added onto the article. Any other person refusing the edit it is not being accused of anything from me as I do not have any messages being admitted by any other person. Just this one person.
As of now it is old news, so it probably wouldn't feel like news anymore. It would be a bit odd to use that as "news" when it's not very well... "new" anymore. I mean that's how I look at it at least. So not having it up at this time would probably be more rational but only because it's old news.
To be honest, I don't think being a zoophilia is even bad on itself, especially since I don't even know what it means anymore (Like, is the sense of being into another being not human enough?). It's even more confusing when those who really want to do it to non-human animals I've heard puts human-like feelings over them, though I don't know. I certainly think an example of bad would apply to an act that resulted into a suffering of any living being though. There was an interesting article from another furry blog site that talked about those who were zoophilia.
I think I deleted it partly because the result of it being edited looked very off, and was mixed with drama due to comments. As of now I probably would of wanted to replace it with a better and clear example of what is fair when criticizing a lawful work if any exist. Thought I wouldn't compare me deleting an article that was under my name even though I did not do all the work.
If I were to look at the history of the ban, and then gave my thoughts on it, then I think that would be a bit more acceptable as a non-news type of article.
Dronon made the response in that he didn't feel how Discord was treating cub was pertinate to the fandom, and for those that it was they would have already been aware at the time.
I, like GreenReaper, disagreed with that; however, like GreenReaper I felt it was too 'personal' and not enough of "the facts of what happened".
From my understanding Discord had banned anime loli and shota. Those who were into that art pulled a "whataboutism" with cub and Discord was like. "You're right, that's gone too."
You article was focusing more on the 'whoa is artistic expression' and less on. "These pro-artistic expression people are quick to through it under the bus if they can get other people's smut banned in revenge."
I was probably busy at the time as well. Work has these coming and going moments.
I hope the person doesn't get mad for me posting this:
This feels like an image thing out of personal opinion. Some already do know, but not everyone, and plus I wanted to have my thoughts attached to it as well. If I were to make a separate article with an opinion showing such news, it would probably still be against the personal opinion about the image.
The main reason I assume is that when it's on a fur news website, it could look like to some people that's what the majority of the fandom is like, but that's still another personal opinion trying to be in favor of people's misunderstandings, especially in fear of thinking the fandom is something that even broadly included people that isn't doing anything morally wrong. What about many articles that talk about obscure things? So adding that, and still not accepting a news for a personal negative "image" thing was a very "I don't accept this." attitude.
___
For the GreenReaper part, I guess. Though I don't think I heard about the personal part.
I think the purpose of the article was to give out a news, but to also write a concern where I wondered if this included some adult characters just because their mature age is below, say, 10. (e.g. 3 years equals 40 for one species)?
________
Whatever the case is now, I don't really much care that the article isn't posted as much as I did before. I will thank you and any other person for the statements as to why it wasn't edited.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
What I've said to the other editors roughly 24 hours ago, in respect to an entirely separate matter, is that while such "opinionated analysis" (in the literal sense) can be done, it should be done well; hence, with adequate editing to develop and polish the point - harder when, as crossie noted, you have trouble figuring out what the submitter actually meant.
In my view it's often better to write the story as a pure factual summary and then post your opinion as a comment, especially if the opinion is not the thrust of the story but just tacked on at the end. This might have been the approach I would've suggested if I'd taken the piece up for editing. There was a straight news piece there, and the priority should have been to publish that by itself - optionally with illustrative quotes from those affected - rather than intermingle the opinion of the submitter with the story.
I've often done this by posting a comment just after publishing the story - or even before. Print newspapers and magazines don't tend to do that, but they also don't have instantly-visible comments attached to every story; and often people writing their commentary have relevant expertise, making their opinion exceptionally pertinent. (This can be the case here for e.g. a convention organizer or website admin talking within their speciality subject; but generally, story submitters do not have unique knowledge of a topic, but rather report on those who do.)
As I see it, doing this would also decrease the risk of you wanting to withdraw a story, because there is none of your opinion within it to begin with. Ultimately this issue led to the same end: not having a story at all.
Not sure where you're reading comments, but typically that is not the case. Mostly they usually consist of.
1) Someone who clearly read the headline and not the story so they were misinformed.
1a) Someone telling that person that they are misinformed.
1ai) Someone then realizing that the headline writer is at fault for having a misleading headline.
2) Someone who want to make it about their political enemies having power that they shouldn't have, even if that individual was not involved in the story.
3) You can earn $1,000 a week by working from home. Here is how!
I think he's talking about journalists writing their commentary into the story.
Yes, and to be clearer: mainstream news publications tend to get people who have relevant experience to write commentary pieces; thus others may be particularly interested in their opinion, which may justify its inclusion in an otherwise factual story. This is not necessarily the case here; and so the general comments is probably the most suitable place for the commentary of our journalists on the news.
Yup, my eyes skipped over the word 'don't' when I originally read the comment somehow.
Sorry I didn't reply.
Personally I'm more used to adding a comment within a news stories like a lot of journalists do.
While I appreciate the suggestion to help discourage me from wanting an article under my account name, I feel though that sometimes part of the reasons why I post news articles is usually me having an opinion thing, and I feel that it would be better to have it as part of an article. Maybe I could try the comment thing, but drama would likely exist regardless and if I could remember right, part of the reason why I wanted that article gone was due to drama in the comments.
I also note that I think I remember seeing one Flayrah news article have an opinion attached. It involved Further Confusion not mattering on the person recently, and was in favor of those with specific past offenses in favor of a specific group being offended instead.
______________
That being said, I want to make clear that I am not very mad at many people not editing any of the recent articles under my account name outside of that one reason that was from someone. I felt like pointing that out.
The debate I've mainly had here without counting that other drama on here was mainly clam. Only time it wasn't was when you-know-who acted like a total brat with the personal insults and the other guy who I replied to where I mentioned censorship.
It's not a copyright issue. Actually, we have about the same policy as a wiki (I think exactly the same as Wikipedia), so, basically, no articles are copyrighted; this is the the license we operate under. Furthermore, nobody's getting paid anyway, so copyright is kind of beside the point. If you want attribution, you already had that.
The thing that you're getting from this, when I said I took some "ownership" of the article in question by editing it, I didn't mean in a legally binding way; I basically meant what you did was rude. That's the rule you broke (and seem incapable of comprehending); a social rule.
It's like don't sneeze all over people on purpose; there's no law. The cops aren't going to come arrest you if you sneeze all over me. It's very, very rude because you disrespected me; in the imaginary case of sneezing, you disrespected my desire to not be covered in your germy snot and spittle. In the real case of deleting the article I edited (and bluntly asked you not to delete), you disrespected the time and effort I put into it.
The thing you need to understand is that your actions there weren't wrong in any legal, moral, ethical, or, fuck it, religious (why not?) sense; it was merely rude. The "rule" you violated was purely social; like sneezing. I don't want to get sneezed on; you don't want to get sneezed on, so we don't fucking sneeze on each other. Unless there's an accident involved, and then you apologize.
So, technically, you did nothing wrong deleting the article; socially, however, since I literally told you "if you delete this article, the consequences will be I will get mad at you", it follows that once you deleted the article, I got mad. And, of course, there were other consequences; when other editors came along, they saw what happened to me when I tried to help you, and they decided, "yeah, you know what, fuck that" and ... didn't go to a casino, if I'm following Sonious right.
The rule you broke was "don't be rude." The rule you broke was "try and be nice." The rule you broke was "don't be a fucking asshole."
Okay, so that's this season's attempt to get you to understand basic human interaction; umm, you're going to try and defend yourself now. That's fine. But I wouldn't waste your time; you suck at it.
Do something else.
And, honestly, you just need to understand this; editors here don't change your stories to change the opinions you express. If anything, your opinions are, at worst, naive. Why you get edited so much is because you're just a terrible, terrible writer.
Copyediting alone took over an hour on that piece; that's just fixing mechanical aspects of the piece. There are multiple rules of English grammar you are just apparently unaware of. It's very hard to understand what you are trying to say sometimes. Structure is nonexistent. Cohesion of ideas; decent flow; nowhere to be found.
I suppose it could be said you have a style, but, umm, that's more which rules you flagrantly ignore than anything commonly associated with what is thought of as style.
If you want to write, you're going to need to improve your basic writing. Or get edited.
Your prose ain't ready for primetime.
I don't think you know exactly how Creative Commons licenses work in general. A Creative Commons 4.0 is a license under Copyright, and can even be revoked regardless of contract agreement (I should of mentioned that... my bad) in specific ways according to the Copyright section 203 of the US federal law. https://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html
It's even generally sad because I've partly learned this through another article, and yet another one.
There was an attitude where you acted like you could be the only one to decide the article deletion, didn't you?
But wouldn't it be rude to force a person who started the article in the first place to keep it up against the desire? I mean... that's kinda like sneezing first on someone.
I also think I was pointing out that there were no law, nor agreement alone (regardless of law being part of it or not), and therefor the idea of me being "called out" for it would likely be based off a subjective standard that not everyone has.
I mean, sure, you can say I was being rude, and I've called out a lot of bad crap (e.g. A furcon discriminating people like Growly by not mattering on change) so I have used arguments against things that were probably legal, but the situation with me and you is a bit more difficult to compare because of one wanting to force the article to remain.
Am I really the rude one? Or are you? Or is it both?
You can be mad at me. But debate wise, you've completely acted like a dick to me out of nowhere in comments because of that if I'm remembering right. I can in fact call that out in favor of the "Two wrongs don't make a right." argument even though what I did wasn't wrong. But you might know what I mean. You said I was rude, so you thought it was alright to be rude back.
The problem with the "rule" thing that comes from you is that it's completely subjective and if that is the case, I can always use a similar rule against your behavior. If you can a subjective rule, I can have it too.
________
For Other Replied Comment
You have changed an article where there was a bunch of pictures spread in places that I've never seen before on several articles. It didn't look very intentional from the original idea in general. I know you apologized (assuming you don't mind of me saying that), but I just wanted to point that out since you've claimed editors don't change the opinions as if they all don't when one or maybe more does.
If you think I write so bad, then I want to see those grammar rules. Granted, I'm not perfect, but I don't think I was that bad. I've seen people write stuff in their own style and looked pretty much fine and basic enough to see as a proper structure.
STOP TALKING ABOUT LAW, YOU STUPID FUCK.
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING LEGAL MATTER. YOU FUCKING MORON.
Okay, done shouting.
Rules being subjective is okay, Diamond Man. Perfectly fine, perfectly normal. Don't think you've won a point there by pointing that out or that I wasn't aware of that. That's one of those "naivety" things; it's so fucking obvious that it's basically assumed when talking with people of normal intelligence levels.
Now, for grammar and usage; see, actually your first paragraph is grammatically correct and so free of your normal weird phrase insertions I totally believe you copy and pasted from somewhere else. Hell, even the parenthetical aside is not bad. Until the last sentence. Then, you go off the rails, and I'm basically just guessing what you meant to say; because I don't know.
It's the phrase at the end; and yet another one. Context suggests "one" here is referring to another article; I think that's a reasonable assumption in normal usage. But the phrase is not well connected to the rest of the sentence. Your choice of conjunctive phrase, and yet, connotes that there is more coming then just "another one". But that's all we get; yet what? "Yet" implies a contradiction; "this is this, yet that is not". Basically, what I think you're trying to say is you read two articles explaining this; a more correct way to put that would be "I've partly learned this through another article, and also another one."
However, that's ... still shitty. You're using another twice, and honestly there's just a whole lot of extra words and even a whole phrase that can be easily excised with the simple adjective "two." You lose "have partly", "another" and "also another one" by reducing the phrase to "I learned this through two articles."
And, still not great. I mean, honestly, whoopedy-doo, you read two articles. Unless you're going to link to them (I mean, citing sources is great) I don't need to know how many articles you've read. Unless you're implying that it only took you two articles to learn these facts, and that's why it's sad I'm misunderstanding copyright law or whatever. This is also unclear.
The main problem in the beginning phrase "It's even generally sad" is the adverb "generally", and I believe the problem here is that you're just not using that word right, and perhaps don't understand it's meaning correctly. Because you're talking about something "specific";"it", which is a singular pronoun, and therefore not, by definition, "general".
I believe (and this is honestly just guessing), that you're trying to use "generally" as a intensifier of the adjective "sad", despite the fact that's ... not what "generally" does. You're saying "it" (subject) (which I am taking to refer to "my failure to understand copyright law") is sad (adjective modifying the subject); how sad? Sadder than normal. Even as an intensifier is perfectly fine and helps set up the "even ... because" conjunctive formation that is actually correct, so I would merely edit that phrase by deleting generally and adding the intensifying suffix -er to sad, rendering the sentence "It's even sadder because I learned this through two articles." (I might add the adverb "only" before the word "two" to really drive home the point that it doesn't take much effort, but that's "subjective" and many would argue the point is made, no need to beat the dead horse with superfluous adverbs.)
Your next sentence/paragraph is just brutal, and this isn't fun anymore, so fuck it, we're not going to fix that. I'll note you use the word "the" when you mean "their" in the next paragraph; that might be a typo, but confusing an article adjective for a possessive pronoun does feel so "you". However, you also seemed to have hit the return key a bit prematurely in that paragraph, so typographical errors are also kind of you. Then there's this parenthetical phrase ... "A furcon discriminating people like Growly by not mattering on change". Umm, I mean, the first part is merely missing the word "against", but I honestly can't even guess what the phrase "by not mattering on change" is supposed to mean. I'm literally drawing a blank here. (Also, this is pedantic, but that's technically a fragment; it's also a parenthetical phrase, though, so it's probably okay, but, you know, pedantry.)
We're skip ahead a bit ... okay, this one stands out. "If you can a subjective rule, I can have it too." You missed a "have" on the first phrase there; since you managed to include on your second try, you apparently understand it's supposed to be there, which makes it's original non-inclusion even more baffling (unless it's another typo, I guess).
Finally, the line break is ... theoretically okay, but not really necessary, and kind of annoying, because it admittedly would help with clarity. The problem is, you ignore so much of the "rules" of clarity in your actual writing that it's just annoying. Less effort on formatting, more effort in writing, please.
And, oh my god, yes, the "rules" of clarity in writing are totally subjective; most rules are. Hell, even laws are often subjective; that's the purpose of entire branches of the government and the whole point of lawyers. Their job is literally to sit around and try to convince each other that their subjective reading is better than other subjective readings of the way laws were written.
If I call you a grammar Nazi here, can we declare Godwin's law and call the argument a day? ;P
"STOP TALKING ABOUT LAW, YOU STUPID FUCK."
SAID THE PERSON WHO TALKED ABOUT COPYRIGHT AND ALSO POINTED OUT LAW.
________________________
For Other Replied Comment
Because when your rule is subjective, I am not obliged to obey it, and with the additional point as an attempt to make it different than some of my complaints, your rule is so subjective that I can, in fact, compare it (including your inexcusable behavior) with my "rule" where I still did work to an article first, and wished it to me removed, and then the fact that you were (and still is today) a total dick. By the way, you should stop calling your own moral belief a "rule" as unless I'm missing something here, saying "It's the rule. or "It's the rules." is going to naturally confuse many people into thinking that there actually is some rule from the website or maybe even the law (yes, I said it, but I won't censor myself here on that example).
Whatever about grammar. At least I believe I'm getting better at it.
While I think "shitty" is subjective, I will probably think about it.
I think the reason why I used "generally sad" instead of "it's sad" was because it felt dishonest to me? What if I used "kinda sad" instead?
How about this?
"A furcon discriminating against people like Growly by banning the person merely because of a mistake they've made years ago without mattering that the person changed from such mistake or mistakes."?
I also want to stress that when I'm writing in comments, I don't normally put as much effort for writing like I usually do in some articles I make. I went ahead to look at one of the articles I've tried to post, and even I can feel that it looks better than most of the comments I write here.
Also this was somewhere in between some paragraphs, I just want to add this as the last paragraph here:
For the Copyright thing, I thought it was so easy to learn about that I didn't even need to really point out much sources for it? I mean, this isn't the same as claiming something very situational, like a court case proving this, or that happened.
Licenses in connection with Copyright are one of those things that can easily be learned about. It's so easy to learn that it's probably in the typical public schools.
I want a copyright lawyer to come in here and see Diamond Man talk about how easy it is to understand copyright law, how any fifth-grader could do it, duh, it's obvious.
While I'm unsurprising being a little ganged up on here again, let me tell you this:
Saying flat-out that Creative Commons 4.0 is not a Copyright thing also lacks sources.
So which is it?
You want me to give out a link that attempts to show that Creative Commons 4.0 is a form of Copyright? Fine, here is a section from the creativecommons.org webpage:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright
If you want to read Copyright law in terms of license, then go to the Copyright government USA website then.
Copyright law is not always an easy to study, but this particular topic of Copyright was not that unknown. And it's annoying as hell to have to go to this type of length while someone thinks they can get away with so much ignorance.
What's next? Do I need to give out a source by saying that lawful software can be copyrighted?
No, no, you don't understand, I don't care about the veracity of your statement on CC licenses, I just want to see a lawyer read your posts about it, for entertainment.
Where are you Leonard French?
Speaking of which, it seems ironic that a person obsessed with Copyright has Rick as their avatar.
Luckily, Rick avatars away from the hands of their original creatures is a handy way of indicating you're dealing with someone who are at the peak of the Dunning-Krugar effect.
This is sounding more like your old habit of apologizing in a weird clause at the end every sentence; okay, it's sounding like you meant "generally" as the opposite of an intensifier. (Did you perhaps mean "genuinely" and spellcheck fucked you over?) But, in any case, actually the mistake there is that you want strong sentences; if you are unsure about what you're saying, it's likely to come out unclear to the reader.
Likewise, your last sentence in this new comment contains the adverb "probably"; delete that. If you're not sure, find out, or just don't say it at all. If you are sure, just say it.
This at least makes more sense now, though it's becoming a "run-on", and even if it was grammatically correct, it's still long and wordy. Sentences are like races; a long-distance race is going to test the runner's endurance. Likewise, a long sentence tests the reader's endurance. At the very least, I would break it into two sentences, with some other tinkering, if I were actually going to edit it. But, you know, it's an Internet comment from a couple days ago, and I think I've made my point, so we'll spare everyone.
For the second paragraph, that sounds nothing more than stifling a way of me trying to say something. Unless that's not what you've mean.
I was trying to say "that it's probably in the typical public schools" because if I said "that it's in the typical public schools", I wouldn't know, and if I said it without knowing, I expose the chance of being wrong. Not only that, but researching this is unrealistic to me. So what the heck should I say if I do not know, and don't want to expose a chance of being wrong?
For the last paragraph, I do prefer to write in short simple sentences as long as it doesn't cut out anything necessary to say, but even then since when does a sentence being "long" really an error? I mean, some might be alright with longer sentences like that.
I'm not sure how I could of separate it into two sentences since I was using an example.
I tried to think of a shorter example without trying to stifle to what I'm trying to say, but I can't think of one.
Maybe try nothing?
You're not helping.
Though I'm sure Equivamp is being sarcastic, it's not the worst advice; if you're not sure you're right, it's better just to delete that portion than purposely weaken yourself with "probably."
Also, the phrase "I don't know" is both stronger writing and more honest than "probably", but I would stress that I'd save that for an answer to a direct question; there's no need to volunteer ignorance.
Or, I could just use "probably". I mean, that's a word people use sometimes.
For example, "Hey, does IGN have a lot of terrible articles?" "IGN probably does.".
If I were to say "Yes, IGN does." just because I read one article, or has read one terrible article from the website, that would end up being risky. Maybe it depends on what I'm saying "probably" towards.
Maybe I could say "Which I assume is in almost every public school." if it's truly bad to use the other school sentence.
Oh, and 2cross2affliction, you violated the rules for talking like that to me. :)
I can assure you that most don't feel Milo is as important in the anals[sic] of human history as any of the men you just listed.
It's why I posted this on a Wednesday and not a Friday/weekend.
He’s none of the above, just a trouble making little shit the con decided was a liability per their legal right.
Hypocritical taking away free speech is not a legal right I want in my fandom.
Let me spell it out for you: “FREE OF SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE EVENTS”
Not my comment you replied to.
Though the owner allowing my comments does mean it is free speech as long as it's aligned with what is allowed by the USA constitution. The owner can take it away, but as long as the owner allows any protected speech by the USA constitution, and there is no legal contracts taking it away, then it is free speech because the owner is practicing it by allowing protected speech on his private property. I mean it makes sense when you think about it right?
Please ignore the above comment, any "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" or similar comments such as that one are trying to take my identity for the wrong reasons, I (the original Diamond Man) kinda did (or maybe even clearly) said that hypocritical free speech limitations are not the kind of legal right I want in my fandom.
SHUT THE FUCK UP. You hate my speech so fucking badly that you go to the point of hurting other people out of your hatred. This is why many people like myself HATE this fandom in general.
Comment directly replied to some edgy cringy dog is mine, not the reply to my reply. Haha
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You will be ARRESTED for trying to identity theft my freedom of speech
*interesting
Not surprising the alt right trolls are flooding the comments. Hell, I’d be surprised if they weren’t.
Why ban Milo just own it if u ban people they win instead let them in let them do their thing and then do what You need to let's say boo him off. Let this be said also he is not alt right he is trolling you hell he has a black husband(cute couple actually) your letting him win and it's downright hilarious to see yalls outrage so rant and stay in y'all's safe space while the world laughs
We ban people to keep others safe, and him and his followers have proven a legitimate threat. Stop with the black husband BS, it's not a excuse for his behavior
Sounds a little too hypocritical for me
Milo, crying in his bed after the 52nd similar 'win' in a row: "Trump was right, I am tired of winning!"
The Furry Fandom, where "acceptance, and loving" is found to be the biggest lie out of all of them when comparing outside. Right under the lie of "equality and freedom" in society in the United States.
"FEAR IS THE ANSWER! AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, YOU ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED IN MY FANDOM!"
Oh and by the way, social isolation is dangerous. Just saying.
I've lived as a single person for basically all of my life, being socially isolated is only as dangerous as you make it out to be. In fact, a person who is infamous that really wants to make a fresh start can find benefit in getting off the grid and making a real start of it elsewhere.
Just ask some German guys in South America.
Did you get kicked out of fur cons? And many other social areas? Including the internet?
Some people can enjoy life alone, but not everyone can. Being accepted in a society has a lot of benefits.
For example, if my memory serves right, I remember reading an article from a an article on a physiological website stating that social isolation is partly responsible for the risk of offending and reoffending. Social isolation likely lowers the chance of lawful needed help.
Some people really need to be with some other people in their life to be sane. Even if it was possible to be happy alone, I don't think social isolation is really fair generally.
Was the website even credibile?
Who made the website?
Is it professional?
Just because its any type of physicological website doesnt mean its certified. If its out from your memory, it really is gonna lower sone of that credibility and your agurememnt ngl.
And this is why Flayrah has no credibility as a news site, if someone has a disagreement they will get bullied by everyone demanding you to show evidence and not allowed to have an opinion at all.
That's funny. This comment, despite it's identity theft (wonder if this type is criminal...) has five stars and if I was truly the one saying this, I'm pretty sure it will be 1-stared by a troll.
Hmm, I wonder if this person is also abusing the abusive system too, but for the wrong reasons?
The identity theft person is going to get the police called as soon as the admin beefs up security here, that is a promise if this site cares about free speech in any way, and many other social areas including the internet need to start doing this for real.
That one comment there is an example of one of the identity theft person doing a false comment and WE NEED FREE SPEECH to stop this criminal from commenting here for the wrong reasons.
There's no fear here.
A spoiled child is not being allowed to play with the grown ups, and a bevy of opportunistic Veruca salts are screaming, "BUT I WANT IT DADDY"
"Furries are welcoming to outsiders generally, we welcome those that wish to come in and enjoy the arts. To discover it and themselves."
BULL, SHIT.
My god, at this point saying this is just as bad as a pedophile offender offering children candy to trap them in a van. This type of "We are open and accepting to people alone." crap is why some people in the fandom felt it was safe to open themselves up with lawful content, just to be attacked with discrimination as a person and even harassed. Trust me, I've heard some stories. The furry fandom is so closed minded and very political to the point that the likelihood of finding an open minded person and actual love is higher probably.
"However, individual conventions do reserve their right to assemble and to be able to assess the background of an individual with a history of disruption of assembly. Especially when the behaviors of said "immigrant" of drawing attention to thems-"
And people reserve the right to criticize that it's still wrong discrimination wise, and fear mongering.
Besides, most of the discrimination I saw on those stories might have been a "right" too, but does that really change the problem? I don't think so.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Also, this whole "There are bigger problems" thing, like with governments restricting certain ex-offenders from seeing their family, and other discrimination doesn't really address the problem. Social experiencing of lawful things is important too, and we have had certain laws (e.g. No discrimination toward gay people.) I think for what might be a good reason.
A small furry convention may be small, but it could be a dream for some people and as long as it's lawful, it's important. One furry consider furry as a huge important part of their life, and a large furcon could be filled with friends and family that the person may want to see. To ban for unknowing fear can in fact, be a big problem. Not only that, but such a ban could inspire more and more lawful social clubs to adapt the same..
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You're inferring that Milo's intent was to 'hang out with friends'.
One of the things Milo did prior to his being banned is put in for a panel: "Politics and the Furry Fandom". This action probably raised some flags:
1) Most people who are on 'his side' usually say "we want politics out of our fandom", but I've already covered this double speak of applying rules to others that they won't follow themselves, so I won't reiterate.
2) Milo is not qualified to discuss the "furry fandom's politics". This is his first convention. How can he, an outsider, really know what goes on at most furry cons? What is discussed there politically? He can't. He'd be just as qualified to run a fursuit creation panel.
3) Milo is not qualified to discuss politics proper (even outside the fandom). Such as a man who just went finished a high school shop class is not qualified to install an electric panel in your house. He has never held a political office, or had experiences in the running or working in any sort of governmental office. His only experiences in this field has been being a passenger in the back seat, kicking the driver. And sure, we're all back seat drivers from time to time, but there is a difference between one that has a license and one that does not.
Heck Trump is more qualified than Milo in that regard because he ran a successful campaign at least, but unfortunately sometimes a person clearly enjoys the interview process more than the job itself.
That being said, I'm 'just as' qualified to talk about politics. Which is why I, as a furry who has attended multiple conventions and have observed fandom since the early 2000s, doesn't try and run a panel about politics. If I successfully ran for an office, then and only then would I make a panel discussing some kind of resemblance of expertise on the topic. Just as if I go to a motor-head panel, I would hope that the person has worked on an actual car.
Heck, any furry member who has been the member of a convention board is more qualified to talk about "Furry Politics" than either Milo or I.
4) Since he has only been a provokator and not a politician proper, and his only experience in politics has been to be a person who provokes emotional responses and doesn't even have the decency to do anything with emotions generated to do anything constructive, one would see what the board of the convention saw this 'redemption arc' as a South Park "I Can Change" moment. He didn't come to the fandom to shed the dead skin he had upon himself. He didn't come for a baptism. He was coming to do the same thing he always does.
NOTE: I'm actually new to this milo story.|
1)-I'm still not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that the political part is hypocritical because some of those on the side of him broke some rules? What rules was it? Not all rule breaking reverts the belief of "Keep politics out of the furry fandom.". I'm probably misunderstanding something here.
2)
3)
-
Judging by the last two, when you say not qualified, are you referring to a rule at a con involving behavior outside of the furcon? Or are you saying he's not well enough for it due to some belief involving the person's skill?
Man I was thinking what he did might have involved violence, and discrimination? Though you did write that some of the issues was one. If this was just a messy issue about political belief being expressed and wasn't illegal speech, then this honestly makes such a ban even worse maybe.
Sure, I hate the idea of many political beliefs coming into a fandom sometimes (maybe that really depends), but even if Milo did say a few, yet, lawful things that even I disagree with, that certainly doesn't justify a ban out of fear of him breaking the rule. Especially if such a rule being broken was against something usually small (e.g. "I disagree with homosexuals."), though I'm not sure how big the political mess is.
4)-
To be honest, I feel that this is all just generating hate toward someone who has different political beliefs, assuming having some political board of his/her own was the reason why he was banned. Though even if I agreed with the rule at the con, there still could be a chance that he might of wanted to hang out with friends (from a logical point).
And if this was toward someone with a very recent history of violence and the evidence seems very strong, I would be more forgiving if the furcon did ban precisely due to that for now. I just hope it doesn't lead to any fear mongering that is more discrimination.
If this is just about him simply giving out political opinions itself, I likely find it ridiculous. I guess it does depend on what political thing it is, but to ban someone for saying "I think Donald Trump isn't that bad." because it's merely political? I think that's a bit weird.
There is also the argument that pushing the "keep politics out" is an argument against lawful speech and that could be political itself.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Milo is basically a person who worked for Breitbart News, a news organization that puts heavy political spin on news of the day to enact as a punditry for the Republican Party and put all its resources behind the Trump 2016 campaign. In early 2017, Milo resigned after a statement he made about intimate relations with underaged individuals caused his peers to pressure his resignation(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/business/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breit...).
A year later, Steven Bannon, who was Breitbart's head after Breitbart's death, was given a seat on the President's cabinet before he was ousted. After he had had lost favor with Trump, Trump's propaganda outlet lost favor with him as well as Breitbart News kicked him out (Jan 8th, 2018)
So the two things that can get you kicked from Breitbart are being a pedophile promoter and not being into Trump. Given the later is technically seen as a man-child, there is probably some ironies to be found.
I was just reading about the pedophile story, (though I myself am sort of fine with a mere attraction without offending beyond) was confused till it was more about a person defending an act with a 13-year old if I'm reading right.
But was any lawful speech that is controversial followed by some political expression in some other cons the sole reason why the con is banning the person? For having a different belief and with fear that he could spread such a belief because they don't agree with it strongly?
I have heard he advocated the 13-year relationship act while not being sure if the so-called speech was illegal. Even then I'm not the person who bans someone from a lawful con for merely a mistake made with a message.
Heck, I have a lot of beliefs myself that are likely considered controversial, and has expressed them on my DeviantArt profile, heck a lot of my speeches could possibly offend even more people.
Oh, and I'm not really a fan of Donald Trump.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I think they're doing it because they believe he intended to have fun or profit at the expense of everyone else. Much like a non-trivial portion of the media in the last two decades, only with a modern spin on "making news".
Conventions are for like-minded people; the evidence suggests he isn't - rather, he's there to exploit and disrupt. This wouldn't ordinarily be the case, but becoming an internationally-infamous journalist has consequences. (Heck, he's got one up on me; all I got was being deselected from Anthrocon's dealers room that one time.)
Of course, MFF could have just said "we don't want to do a panel on this"; and if other attendees hadn't kicked up a fuss, that might have been the end of it. But they did, and it wasn't, and here we are.
For the Milo case, I'm just hoping he's not banned because he's expressed a couple of opinions a lot of people didn't agree with and just because of an advocate mistake if any.
The idea of banning someone as a human because they disagree with what they've said (even as a person who likely don't agree with Milo on a lot of things) is really childish.
That being said I've been told that Milo posted something akin to being a threat, and with maybe some other things I'm hearing. I would probably ban Milo too if I owned a furcon.
Why was a pedophile luring a kid into a van your first thought? A little sus
You sound like someone who believes in thought crime, because I think about such things and have a different belief from you still doesn't mean you can bully me. Heck you sound just like an SJW about controversial speech but does that really change the problem? I don't think so.
While I did use "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" in some comments, this comment I'm replying to is not mine. I posted no comments between 6:10 AM to 6:50 PM USA central time.
I'm apparently being attacked with theft of identity probably I defended something that isn't wrong which is love and tolerance of people as people. Pathetic. At this point you're only proving this fandom is a dangerous and closed minded place.
I might post a general comment on this article, sadly under my account (for identity protection reasoning).
I might however five star my comment to avoid censorship (in this case, hiding the comment) from degenerates and/or hypocrites who refuse to be open and loving toward people as people.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Anyone who rates my comment I'm replying to 1 star and rating the wrong comment 5 stars is admitting to advocating identity theft online.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Also I want to stress that some comments with "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" (or very similar) are actually mine, I would suggest taking this seriously and ANY COMMENT THAT ARE NOT MINE FROM WHAT I BELIEVE NEED TO BE DELETED IMMEDATELY AND POLICE CALLED to stop this PATHETIC crook from identity theft of my username for now and forever.
Not my comment I'm replying to.
Whoever is fucking doing this should be arrested.
FUCK OFF.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
ALL COMMENTS SAYING "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" ARE HEREBY NOT MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS and I (the original Diamond Man) will not be posting any unlawful comments without logging in any more until they are arrested.
I hope you rot in prison you fucking degenerate.
Thanks for even proving that this website is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A SAFE WEBSITE.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I am also going to post one more time to prove THIS WEBSITE IS NOT SAFE EVER TO USE until this degenerate is arrested.
That comment is not my comment, the real FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not safe to use here.
MFF is NOT the largest furcon. That honor belongs to AC. And I don't think they have to worry about losing it anytime soon.
https://www.flayrah.com/7171/midwest-furfest-usurps-anthrocons-record-and-become...
Stylistically well written article, though too dichotomic / black-&-white. I would hope for a less simplistic / more nuanced treatment of the situation. A same retort as yours can be used but reversed:
It should be pointed out that the greatest of ironies here for those that most speak about the fandom being an open & diverse welcoming community, are those who insist in separating & disallowing people based on political opinions they constantly associate with nationalism & Donald J. Trump. In essence, these same people who want an open borders policy, are crying foul when furry conventions are attended by individuals they identify as morally or politically dark (rather than skin dark).
"It should be pointed out that the greatest of ironies here for those that most speak about the fandom being an open & diverse welcoming community, are those who insist in separating & disallowing people based on political opinions they constantly associate with nationalism & Donald J. Trump."
You deserve a metal for pointing out even ONE example of the hypocrisy of "We are open minded and loving!". At this point, saying the furry fandom is even close to being open and loving shouldn't even be legal because it's like a man luring a child to a van with candy for the purpose of hurting the child.
NOTE: The van thing was inspired by another furry for saying it's not open and loving. I got the van comparison thing idea from that person.
https://www.flayrah.com/7757/good-clown-bad-clown-and-furry-con#comment-77530
.
There is an in between, I call it the Robert Frost or Mending Wall principal.
Having a Trump style wall doesn't help things because it keeps out good people and bad people. It also reeks of the an outdated view of war and defense. All walls, should they wish to be crossed, fall. Ask the French at the start of World War 2, Berlin in the Cold War, or even China. I mean Trump spends so much money on the thing and then gives away all the secret things they just installed when bragging about it.
There are people who are furry raiders who show up to mainstream cons who don't make a show of themselves and guess what, they have been attending year after year and have not been banned. Because they aren't making a show of themselves. Per the Mending Wall, what they do in their own room is their own business, but if they start booking rooms excessively to try and hurt the other convention goers, then it is the con's business.
If they are propagandizing that all of their members are banned from all conventions everywhere, do not believe that, because it is not true.
If Spain wishes to have Milo as a guest of honor at their convention, knock yourselves out, per the Mending Wall it's your country's convention. MFF just chose not to have no part of inviting that who appears to be a self evident wolf in snep's clothing.
If what you're arguing here is that Milo Yiannopoulos should not be allowed because he is a meddling buffoon, a politically charged opposition in the article serves to undermine your journalistic integrity instead of reinforcing your position. It makes it look like you have a politically vested interest in him not attending.
More background information in the article on previous mayhem-inducing behaviour would make clearer if Milo Yannopoulos is a threat to proper convention functioning. So far I haven't seen any of his proposed shenaningans / mischief being an actual threat besides general foolery that harms no one. You think he's a jerk: that's not news-worthy IMO.
I think most furries are against him attending because of this statement.
If his goal is to go and disrupt the assembly, then he cannot be a proponent of freedom of assembly, but instead wishes to have himself be free to disassemble whichever gathering he sees fit.
I'm saying that a person can act better as a person who has a cloud of cult of personality. That was the intent an purpose of the article. If Hillary Clinton had made the statement made in the link you can assure I'd be calling her just as much of a bad clown. But that didn't happen here.
I'll take your statement of integrity into consideration, but put it beside the statement where you appeared to equate judging an individual by the content of their character as being equal as judging a person by the color of the skin cells they were born with:
He's crying crocodile tears about "vested interest" while carrying a grudge for being
banned from the Eurofurence channel for being a racist asshole.
Banning a person for calling them "fucking nigger cattle" is not "loving and acceptance" at all, this is hypocrisy regardless of what he said, because it is his belief and not actually causing the person to be nigger cattle. The person needs to be accepting of what he believes, or even if he is a racist, as long as he doesn't actually act on his lawful and completely personal beliefs.
If something is so very high risk to safety and the levels of risk it has to the whole group then it would be a different story, I.e. if he were causing people to be treated like nigger cattle. But he isn't and treating Mike Retriever as controversial is way more of the belief of the person doing it than it is Mike Retriever for calling them nigger cattle.
As much as I can by logical and understanding about Mike and his beliefs, the down-voting of these hypocrites on Flayrah just goes to show who is the real bigot here, hating my love and tolerance because I don't care if Mike is calling people a nigger cattle it still isn't anything more than a belief.
Even when you believe that skin dark people have a separate place and borders are helping to stop the problem, your controversial lawful beliefs should not get censored for hypocritical politics. I am going to stand with your group if you are the only one saying the truth around here, heck I'm glad I found out, because social experiencing of lawful things is important too.
Nice
The above was the 69th comment, I got it man...
I want to stress that there is an identity theft person here here taking my name, and pretending to be me.
Some comments with "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" (or very similar) are not actually mine. However, some of the exact same guest name is. Please check the IP admin (even though mine was switching between routers). I would suggest looking at the pattern of IP addresses, and see one that has been very different than the original two of the earliest comments that actually are mine (I commented with guest name at around 4:00 AM to 6:10 AM. Central USA Time. ANY COMMENT HOURS LATER AND BEFORE 6:55 PM ARE NOT MINE FROM WHAT I BELIEVE.
This is just sad, this WOKE website now has a crook that goes to the point of attacking me with internet username theft. Pathetic.
EDIT: Identity theft person is back.
Please GreenReaper, please delete those comments.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
"Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" ALL COMMENTS SAYING THIS ARE NOT MINE AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME I (the original Diamond Man) will post any not logged in unlawful comments.
Wow the Lame Boys are coming too? Nothing says "im a badass" like harassing furries
ATTENTION:
Due to identity theft comments, I will for now on use the default name "Anon" when logged off. That way, no one will be able to much tell since "Anon" is the default anonymous name I think.
This partly means I will no longer use any "Diamond Man" names, including "Diamond Man (Not Logged In)" when logged off.
Though, please take any "Anon" comment with a grain of salt if any of it tries to share my belief for the purpose of imitating me. And please report any illegal comment. And please look at any lawful speech alone (I was also the original one using "lawful" and "legal" terms a lot) as an argument alone since even if a imitating speech was there, the speech itself might have a chance of being a good or bad point alone.
If this comments gets hidden, I might try to unhide it.
Also NOTE: This comment is likely gonna get 1-star bombed. Don't let such a trash system dictate how you think of this comment. And please do not blame me for the choices of this person trying to imitate me. Blaming me for the choice that tried to imitate me is victim blaming.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Well I have to say some people can be big hypocrites. One of the funniest things I ever saw is Diamond Man saying he likes free speech and then yelling shut up and he will get someone arrested for using free speech.
Comments that intentionally takes the identity of someone is not freedom of speech...
If it's grey, well it shouldn't be protected then.
Speech that is advocating crime is not freedom of speech.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
.
The crime of someone calling themselves
SpiderDiamond Man? Yes, turns out anyone can do that if they're not logged in.You already have the protection of a unique account. All you need to do is use it.
Now, anyone using proxies to vote multiple times? That's not going to end well for them.
I don't own, "Diamond Man", but when someone is intentionally trying to use my exact name on here, especially with specifically "Diamond Man (Not Logged In) with the purpose of using a similar belief, then it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is completely different and shows an attempt at identity theft, or committed of such a thing if it's already illegal alone outside of the attempted part alone.
I'm pretty sure the proxy thing to upvote or downvote a simple lawful comment stating that banning a bad person is still a belief is way less serious (and that depends?) than the act of someone that is intentionally trying to convince others that the offender is me. And yet, it's really hard to tell personally if such a thing is even illegal because I failed to find any contract forbidding that.
Of course the same could be said for the identity thing, but there might be laws that forbid it anyway.
So things you don't like are probably illegal, but things you do want to do probably aren't as bad? :-)
To be crystal clear: just because something is not forbidden by law does not mean we have to allow it.
You've been told several times that voting on your own comments or with proxies is not OK. Don't try to excuse it.
And I wasn't just talking about you - it applies to anyone trying to game the system and avoid voting restrictions.
As for names, I've given you the answer that applies here: your account is your identity. You don't have to use one, but you don't get to "have your cake and eat it". Those not using accounts are liable to impersonation, as anyone can put anything as a name. It wouldn't be an issue if you hadn't gotten in the habit of not using an account in the first place.
Rating a simple and lawful fact comment by five stars with two different accounts is mainly not harmful, but pretending to be someone else and convincing others that one is real, usually is.
Here is a food for thought (rare on here), while there is no contract that I know of saying that I cannot use multiple votes on the same comment of someone not me, and/or vote my own higher, you deciding that "It's bad, you can't do that." is just as 100% subjective as deciding that identity theft is bad, we need to ban it.
And since they are BOTH not against any existing website rules here unless there is a real rule somewhere, it basically looks like you are considering the mainly harmless side more serious than something way more serious.
"GreenReaper hates double votes, but doesn't mind someone trying to steal someone's identity online.". Regardless of unique rules: Do you really want people to see you like that? Think about it. As a member (well, not at the moment), It is unfair to allow something very harmful, while banning something that's usually not harmful.
People aren't liable for using proxies to vote comments unless violation of contract law and/or some other law.
Offline use and trying take someone's identity may still be subject to laws. And deciding that my username on an account is my identity is no different than saying that for a guest offline name. Since a username isn't my real name unless I use my real name in it.
Besides, someone might make an account and use "Dlamond Man" for the purpose of taking my identity. If this was a normal and safe website, you would forbid guests and members who intentionally are trying to steal people's identities online. Are you seriously gonna allow comments that are pretending to be me?
Flayrah is not safe.
To partly readdress the part from the bottom to the reply I made:
I mean logged off instead of offline.
___
Also, "Those not using accounts are liable to impersonation"
Did you GreenReaper mean that those not using accounts are not liable? Asking because of the main sentence being broad and the general attitude on here in this thread.
I mean, this is clearly not Diamond Man (Green Reaper clearly told Diamond Man to fuck off with the voting on his own comments ... except, you know, without the "fuck off" part, 'cause that's not how Green Reaper rolls), but his impression is improving.
This is not a good thing.
Also, wow, we got Ahmar in the comments; he's kinda taking the neutral stance.
That's worth noting. That's notable.
Cool.
"Also, wow, we got Ahmar in the comments; he's kinda taking the neutral stance."
Pretending I'm a hypocrite for going against speech that shouldn't even be protected is not neutral.
"I mean, this is clearly not Diamond Man (Green Reaper clearly told Diamond Man to fuck off with the voting on his own comments ... except, you know, without the "fuck off" part, 'cause that's not how Green Reaper rolls), but his impression is improving."
While I'm using "Anon", I am Diamond Man: I'm the person who uses the account using Diamond Man, and I am currently the same person logged off behind the computer.
The man who was trying to impersonate me with the specific name with the style shows that he was trying to convince people that he's the same person behind the computer.
If someone was using "Anon" without the intention of trying to convince others that he/she is another person, even if the person liked "Diamond Man" and used "Shiny Diamond Man", then I don't think that's a form of trying to steal someone's identity online.
Not my comment. Proof that this is not me (the original Diamond Man) is the false identity theft person is talking about himself as a "man" and has just given away beyond a reasonable doubt that they know who is doing it and if they were actually responding to a false identity they would not know if it was a man or another he/she person that they also wrote below the part where they messed up and gave away the truth about who is stealing my identity online.
You know, troll, it's gonna be p-r-e-t-t-y hard for you to prove that you're me when I specially said on my account that I will only use "Anon" in the guest part of commenting. :)
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Just to prove it here is me, the original Diamond Man, leaving my comment and saying GreenReaper can suck my diamond crusted dick for allowing bad people to intentionally convince people that they are me through guest use. He would rather focus against something that has little to no harm instead and letting the SJWs and Antifas to run the fandom.
Gee, I wonder if you're using multiple accounts to hide/censor my comment with your 1-star ratings. Maybe I can fix that. :)
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
What a wonderful way to show that if you give people enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Flayrah is a Woke and SJW website that wishes death on free speech users to hide/censor my comments and even lets them get away with using multiple accounts if they do it to me, the original Diamond Man.
Wondering if the actual person who uses the Green Reaper account will change his mind now...
By the way, that wasn't me and before the impersonator might try to tell that it was, don't forget to look at the hidden email address admin. :)
By the way, if you don't want to do anything about the impersonator then please delete my Diamond Man account, because I think that Deviantart is a much better place for me that cares about more free speech than this one ever does.
Gonna post this against since my comment is hidden:
Wondering if the actual person who uses the Green Reaper account will change his mind now...
By the way, that wasn't me and before the impersonator might try to tell that it was, don't forget to look at the hidden email address admin. :)
The identity theft person STILL HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND ARRESTED and Flayrah is not taking a neutral stance like a normal and safe website, they are treating a guest as me (using the name "anon" above in an unlawful and false treatment as if they are me) and members who intentionally are trying to steal people's identities online are doing something that is traditionally very harmful to me, the original Diamond Man.
Pretty sneaky, but you can't fool me - the real Diamond Man would remember when I specifically showed him where he could read that voting on your own comment/on the same comment multiple times is against the rules here!
All you showed was that GreenReaper didn't like that and expressed to not do that.
DeviantArt, YouTube, Furaffinity, and Twitter for example usually use rules through agreements to register members. In some cases there are rules without even going through a direct agreement, but even that is likely different than not having a page at all, where an admin says "Don't do that." or something similar.
Not only that, but an admin who said "Don't do that." to someone isn't even clear that it applies to all people technically. If there was a page of rules (e.g. "Terms of Service") that applies to all users (including guests) that explicitly forbid it, then, you have an actual clear rule on the website.
Feel free to believe that I'm not Diamond Man though. In fact, that's probably what "he" wants since he's hated by almost every active member on this page. With that, some people probably won't abuse the rating system out of hate.
Do you know what it makes you look like when the owner/lead admin of a website says, verbatim, "Those are the rules here," and your response is to ask, "Well, how am I supposed to know if those are the rules here?"
It's very unprofessional to say "These are against the rules." to someone when you don't even give out the the actual rules to everyone. Also, did he say what consequences there are?
The false identity theft person is trying to pretend that I (the original Diamond Man) think that GreenReaper didn't like that and expressed to not do that but the REAL AND ORIGINAL DIAMOND MAN is not gonna let rules of technical and fundamental unfairness stop me from commenting lawfully and within legal action of defending myself from bad people who wish to be abusing the rating system out of hate.
Hey impersonator, if you're the same person who said you're not a troll. Welp, you've clearly proved yet further hypocrisy.
___
Welp, it's probably safe to say that GreenReaper allows people to intentionally convince people that they are me through guest use. He would rather focus against something that has little to no harm instead.
The furry community after all is filled with garbage, SJWs, and Antis. And it's not rare.
https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/art/Love-and-Tolerance-More-like-SJWs-a...
https://www.deviantart.com/wwwarea/journal/Good-God--815632310
As a furry, I'm disappointed.
Flayrah in a nutshell:
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Funny!
And when we are gone, it'll still burn on and on and on and on.
Every time when someone comes in and gives a different thought!
That's Flayrah!
If anyone has any doubts that Milo, and those who surround him, are not a clear and present danger to the convention, the fandom as a whole, and humanity in general...
Here's a history lesson:
https://crimethinc.com/2018/01/03/how-anti-fascists-won-the-battles-of-berkeley-...
Are you saying they are not a clear and present danger?
i guess i messed up the words but let me restate:
Milo and the people he associates with are extremely dangerous.
Ban the shit out them.
Even if they get banned, I don’t believe that will stop them from trying to come and cause serious harm.
I avoided this topic for a while because it was fairly extensively discussed in a different group I am in and was tired of the whole thing. But it seems to have got a fair amount of attention and I briefly glanced at some comments.
I don't think the convention made the best decision. I'm not interested in whether MFF has the right to refuse people (obviously they do) but whether they should have refused to let Milo attend. Firstly I think not letting him attend reflects badly on the fandom in terms of tolerance and acceptance (though more on that in a bit) but even between letting him attend as normal and banning him there are a whole range of possible reactions. It might have been better for the convention to say something like "Milo, you are a controversial speaker and there are all sorts of concerns about your attendance, would you be willing to make this statement and sign this agreement about how you will conduct yourself." Alternatively and/or additionally, he could've had an escort of one security member at all times to make sure he was not causing trouble. Such actions would show an openness on the part of the convention to make a good faith effort with all people. From a pragmatic side, and given the later threats which were made, this might've mitigated further drama. But the long term effect still remains to be seen.
Then I saw one of the comments said something about how letting a bigot in would be against the principles of tolerance. I would disagree. From my side, I would say that tolerance means treating all people equally and with a basic level of respect, not only those you agree with. Tolerance is actually particularly important for people with whom we disagree. There is no need for tolerance if you are in agreement. Tolerance is directed more at a person than a belief. You can be tolerant of the person while intolerant of their beliefs. The examples I used in another discussion were as follows.
"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 know, I actually think that the people who demanded MFF to ban him ~~or they wouldn't feel safe~~ are straight-up liars or experiencing symptoms of some kind of mental illness (like an anxiety disorder) that the convention doesn't really need to respond to, and that's separate from my thoughts on whether they should have banned him anyway, but it's really hard to agree with your "they shouldn't have caved" stance when you're supporting it with ideas that are just...awful.
Like, dude. Racists aren't banned from MFF. There will probably be a lot of them there. Mrs. Smith wouldn't be banned, and I'm sure if Mike announced he was planning to attend, nobody of any importance would give a shit at all. But this isn't any random racist. Are you really prepared to defend the idea that there's no significant difference to be considered between your hypothetical random person and the non-hypothetical person that was banned?
Plus...I mean, your idea about giving him his own personal escort just weakens your argument. If the odds that he or his presence will disrupt the convention enough to have to dedicate limited security resources like that, well, that's the exact moment it becomes better for the convention just to ban him and have done with it. ("I want to eradicate Islam" is also not exactly strengthening your live and let live argument.)
I wouldn't say the people who said they wouldn't feel safe are lying. From what I understand, he does attract some unsavoury people where he goes. And he is more of a "celebrity" than most other attendees. So its not wrong to think that his presence could have a negative impact and might need to be approached differently to the standard attendee.
While I understand why you would think having his own escort would weaken the argument because it agrees with the possibility of disruption, it could also have been the easier option. Even after his ban, we know that further precautions are being taken. So it's not the ban has made things simpler or used fewer resources.
"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~
Now the grown ups can get back to talking
There are other options MFF could take if he does show up since they took the steps of rejecting outright. I'm sure that their treasurer has been keeping track of security expenses since the conventions inauguration.
If they have those numbers, and he does show up and cause issues, which causes the venue to increase security they actually have a catalyst for this change. This is different 2014 thing whose situation is still caused by unknown forces.
This would line up Milo and/or the Proud Boys, if they show up, for litigation where the convention and/or venue can sue for the damages + legal fees.
To be fair I discriminate based on level of competence. I don't attend MFF, but I read Flayrah regularly, so I'm more concerned about the quality of the writing on the site.
It happens to be that lately bad furry journalism correlates with political indoctrination. Sonious provides here a moderately refined sample of political indoctrination.
Based on your bans from EF and all those n-bombs you do, it's a lot more than discriminating against people more literate than you ;)
Do yourself a favour and read my homepage.
If it was worth reading you wouldn't be begging for notice. Squeezing out last year's expired Cheez Whiz does not make one a chef ;)
I guess we should all just stop promoting our own stuff on social media accounts like Twitter than?
How do you distinguish between advertising new articles and 'begging for notice'?
Obviously the fact that the last article at the home page was posted in 2018 is not inspiring that the source in question would be an alternative to Flayrah or DogPatch.
It's kind of like the "GoodFurNews" group that had gone through creating art and things for their site only to have it be a two months and done kind of thing. Which is unfortunate.
I must be really bad at it, because I don't recall telling people who to vote for.
Which if I were to be politically indoctrinating people, I think would be an important aspect of this.
Perhaps he's confusing you with me?
"From my side, I would say that tolerance means treating all people equally and with a basic level of respect, not only those you agree with."
You are correct I think. If anyone in this "fandom" can't do that, then they don't deserve to be called "open" and "loving". Being open and accepting of others is about accepting all people equality, even if you hate them.
It doesn't matter what they believe in, what they've done in the past, and what attraction they have in their head. There is no exceptions, period. This is why the only banning I'm in favor of is if the person who is being banned is connected with a high enough threat to cause disruption and I'm in favor of banning someone from MFF who did cause disruption at the place of the fur con. But anything else (examples, banning person because of a low risk sex offender register for fear or hate reasoning over something 10 years ago, banning someone who was racist in the past for being racist in the past, and banning someone because they have a controversial opinion.) doesn't sound like "loving and acceptance" likely because there is no equality. It's only "loving and acceptance" of SOME people.
Acceptance and loving other people is important for everyone, and so is keeping people safe. It's possible to achieve both.
As for Milo, I have heard he is a high enough threat. So would banning him be hypocritical? Well if someone is attached to a threat, then the only banning reason is fair if it's for safety. This isn't about hating a person as a person, or stopping someone from having a lawful interest, it's more like stopping someone from committing a crime.
Any updates on the situation? Are the Proud Boys still coming?
Or was it all just to get into our heads?
No updates on it one way or the other, sorry.
My best friend is going to attend MFF despite the current Proud Boys threat. I would go to pieces if he were attacked.
I know the con has high security and strong ties with law enforcement, enough to keep anyone from causing harm. However, that doesn’t mean the Proud Boys won’t try. So what I need to know is, can they keep out 40 or so people who may or may not have weapons? Can they prevent one attendee from being assaulted without provocation?
I doubt anyone can guarantee that, at an event likely to have ~12,000 attendees. But the chance that any one event will impact a particular attendee is relatively small - and I'd be more concerned about people off their head on drink or drugs than hate groups.
To be frank, there are far better targets for such a group. Furry conventions are still way out there, and someone attacking them would themselves be ridiculed. I mean, what does it say about someone that they can't take being turned down by furries?
If furry conventions are, as you say, "still way out there," then why threaten to show up at one anyway?
If attacking a furry convention means being ridiculed, then why try anyway?
Going out and doing things in this world means risks, both seen and unseen.
There have been records of at least one fur who died going home from the convention in a car accident.
Statistically, furs are more likely to die in an automobile, or by and automobile, than by a right-wing provokator.
This does not mean that you look the other way, of course, it means we do what we can to empower ourselves with knowledge to mitigate the risks.
Maintain a buddy system when walking the streets. Have a spotter if you're in fursuit. Be sure to have an app/link on your phone where you can send information to con security if needed to keep them informed and know where con operations is located.
Do not engage with the individual(s) if it can be avoided. If it cannot, then if you use the buddy system then do the following.
1) Designate one person as a 'choir leader', they should have a smartphone with a live streaming ability/ability to record to the cloud.
2) The rest of the friend group will begin singing a carol. Deck the Halls, Carol of the Bells, Oh Holy Night, etc.
3) You start to record your friends singing the song while their group tries to engage with you.
They will either back away, or they will continue to hound and troll. If they do the former then they are out of your hair, so it will be a success. If they do the later, well then we can diseminate them attacking Christmas carolers and ask the general public why the Proud Boys/Milo have declared a war on Christmas.
Here's the thing. MFF is a private event and can refuse membership to anyone for pretty much any reason. If they specifically refused to allow Milo and his cronies, that means the hotel won't allow them either. If they show up anyway and trespass, they will quickly find the Rosemont police don't give a crap about their politics or internet cred or anything else. They care about the money the convention makes their town and they will do what's necessary to insure events at that location run without interference by troublemakers.
Even though the threats to Midwest Furfest have been reported to the authorities, the FBI, local law enforcement, and the con itself have made no statements about it... and time is running out. Seg has already said that Milo and his compatriots are “extremely dangerous” and I don’t doubt that at all. Somebody else irl told me that the silence is an indication that the threats are not viable. But, I don’t think others would agree. If the threat of Milo and the Proud Boys is not properly addressed soon, there may not be a fun time to be had....
Post new comment