Animation Source Forums

JC, do you even READ THROUGH some of the thread links you post? A lot of those are not appropriate to be linking to on this site...

I'm not ready to crucify Coaster. I'm speaking my mind, ok? Lemme just say this and I'll leave. Take this or leave it.

As to point #1: Go to an actual furry convention and talk to these people in person, you'll know what I mean. In person, they're totally cool with most people. Bring your camera, too, the fursuiters will drop whatever they're doing and pose for you! I don't spend my time on those forums. I spend my time talking to the good-natured furs I've met in person. They all describe the Fur Affinity forums as just a bunch of trolls arguing. Judging by the topics you posted, that seems true. Maybe the online personalities on forums are different than their in-person identities. Maybe I'm a bit naive and surrounded myself with the more upstanding members of the community (whom I, once again, know and originally met, in person). I don't know what the case is, but I speak from the experiences I've had. This is another reason why people have misconceptions about the fandom... they take most of their information from the Internet, onto which anyone can type just about anything and receive little to no real backlash.

Point #2: The subject matter of that topic is far from off the wall. There are things far more off-the-wall than drawing explicit adult situations. Perhaps I should have been more clear about that. Plus, if you find something distasteful on the internet, it's not too hard to close out the window and go somewhere else...

Point #3: The distasteful stereotypes come about from the weirdest members that the mainstream media tends to focus on. They're there, but when you talk to, you know, real furries who actually do things outside more than on the internet and possess common sense and halfway decent social skills, you'll see that very few of them are like that really weird guy that the news chose to interview and base all subsequent assumptions of furries on. The media generally wants to find something that'll get people to watch, sometimes at the cost of accuracy. As much as we'd like to believe the media is unbiased, let's be honest, they generally care a bit more about making money.

Point #4: I don't mean they're the same. They're two groups who were/are misunderstood for differing reasons.

Point #5: Then I'll specify: The one major overarching interest that furries share is this: "Anthro animals are cool." Things after that are extraneous information, but that one core interest is what draws them together.

Secondly, Just because it's there doesn't mean it's a significant aspect of the fandom. I mean, the Anime fandom has Hentai, but that doesn't mean that all anime fans read that. There are adult comic books, but that doesn't mean that comic book fans all read and enjoy those. I could go on, but that list would go a long time.

And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4GVphA8wDg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI4SIcem ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGXhZJd ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNQPJwQ ... re=related
Past two to three years. Relevant enough?


Point #6: Again, you're looking at people on the internet. Talk to actual furries, you know, IN PERSON and you will see. Don't judge by internet forum attitudes. I used the term "normal" because that's the term that was initially used. Just for the sake of consistency.

Point #7: Oh yes, because everyone puts their thoughts about any given topic into public databases for everyone to see, and of course "opinions on furries" is a required field! I should've checked the "What I think on Every Given Topic" database... silly me! Honestly, there isn't a place where you can find a reliable statistic about how people percieve the fandom

Point #8: I didn't say it wasn't a furry term. I just said that when it's used, furries generally don't actually believe that the adjective "mundane" in its dictionary definition, describes them accurately.

Hey - the door was opened. Quite a while ago, and more recently. I don't know how it is suddenly inappropriate to point out something to contradict statements which are meant to deny the veracity of earlier claims. And after all, as Swords himself said in his latest reply: "if you find something distasteful on the internet, it's not too hard to close out the window and go somewhere else..."



Well, pornography (especially beastial pornography) is most definitely considered "off-the-wall" by the mainstream of society. All modern societies of which I am aware. And since the quote I drew, from your reply to Coaster, was in response to his earlier point:



...I must therefore assume we're discussing what almost everyone finds a distasteful aspect of certain segments of the furry fandom...beastial pornography. Or "yiff"...or "yaoi". Things of that nature. Perhaps you had something else in mind?




Well,

a. Anyone who believes the media (of ANY nation) is unbiased is living in a delusional dream world. ANYONE.

b. I have seen statements on those furry forums which seem to imply that more furries are into beastial pornography than is generally admitted or even willingly realized by furries themselves. Of course, being an outsider, I have no data to back that statement up. I only go on what I have seen stated by furries themselves. Perhaps those statements were made by furries who are in that so-called "weirdest members" segment you referred to. Perhaps not. We cannot prove OR disprove that. But I will agree that the media does love to focus on the most extreme elements of ANY fandom. The way it has had a field day with Star Trek fans, role-playing gamers, pro wrestling fans, Twilight fans and LARPers is an ideal example. Star Trek fans most famously. After all, there are countless people who love Star Trek who fit quite well into the mainstream. But it hardly makes for good news reporting, television or mockumentaries for the media to present them. Rather, covering Trekkie conventions, which are largely attended by the kinds of fans which William Shatner infamously mocked back in the 80s on Saturday Night Live (that infamous episode for which he has since apologized), makes for more entertaining stuff. And why not? Some of those people are on a very disturbing fringe, and they bring it upon themselves. Like the lady who famously went to jury duty years ago, dressed in a full "Starfleet" uniform every day, in order to bring the "morals of the Star Trek future" to the American judicial system". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekkie#Trekkie_in_the_news; a picture of the super-geek here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/star-trek/5284858/Star-Trek-the-superfans.html)



Actually, in the various interactions I have had with furries online, and the conversations I have had with them in private or in the open, I have seen that the truth would be closer to the following:

1. In spite of the "one major overarching interest" you describe, which I cannot deny, the rest is not "extraneous information" at all, but varying interests of individual furries or groups of them. And each furry (or group thereof) considers their interests to be legitimate, perfectly normal, justifiable, and utterly defining of what "furry" means.

2. No one furry has managed to create THE end-all, be-all definition of what a "furry" (or the "furry fandom") actually is. Each views it in his or her own way. Sometimes that concurs with what some other furries view themselves (and other furries) to be, and sometimes not. That is hardly new to any form of fandom or pastime which is not part of the "mainstream".



I hardly see anything in those news reports which say "jeez, you mean old non-furry people...you should stop dissing on furries! And boy, have we media people been wrong in our views about them! Gosh, it's penance time!" What I see is neutral reporting. Neither pro nor con. And, as someone experienced in the media, I can see them subtlely throwing out both in those reports by their intonation, the clips used, and things they said. Am I going to go through each video and pick out things to quote and translate? No. Not really that interested. But that Sam Conway? Are we supposed to believe, from that contrived reaction to the question posed by the one reporter (who covered the Anthrocon), that the "rumors" of a sexual aspect to furry fandom are baloney? M'yeah...sure.

Besides, you do not know what the comments of those reporters and news staffers may (or, in fairness, may NOT) have been once the cameras stopped rolling, and they were driving back to their stations (or were on a commercial break). And really, my own view is that, if people dressed in fanciful and goofy-happy anthropomorphic animal costumes came up to me on the street and started that touchy feely stuff with me (or especially with my kids), I would not only be disturbed, I might also be offended. I don't want some adult stranger in such a costume (who is not employed by a theme park, where he or she is under professional scrutiny) doing such things to me or my family members...they could possibly be dangerous...could be pedophiles (and then again, maybe not. But it is a FAIR caution).



Firstly, people tend to be less inhibited on the internet than they are in person. Because they have no fear of repercussions...and don't have to FACE the people they are interacting with. Whereas, when interacting with people in public, we tend to be far more reserved.

Besides, following on the mindset of many furries, I may well have already interacted with people who are furries without knowing it. And I haven't lost any sleep over that. If they aren't doing that "meet & greet on the street" stuff with me in their costumes, like in those videos, or trying to introduce me to furry stuff (in which I have no interest), then I have no problems with them being into whatever floats their particular boats.



Okay...I got nuthin' is my best answer here. Because I am really not sure where you were going with that particular tangent.

Just because it was opened, doesn't mean you should walk through this metaphorical door.
This is a kids site. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out.
Meaning a young person could click it, read it, and not know what they are reading, yet use it in the real world [it happens].
Just fix them please.

I will not "fix" them. There is nothing to "fix". How is it that, all of a sudden, you are that worried about what people have to see on what is a FURRY forum? Are there secrets you don't want people to see? lol Don't want people to see that furries can be just as prone to flaws as the rest of society? That they occasionally are prejudiced, immature, volatile, profane, and otherwise unpleasant? That's iiiiiinteresting.

As far as I am concerned, people have a right to see it for what it is.

And that whole "it's a kid's site" nonsense not only fails on Animation Source repeatedly (despite best intentions), but it even fails on that "Fur Affinity" site, where the rules and the mod staff seem to want to encourage "kid friendly" behavior and posting in a place where kids have no business anyway.

AFTERTHOUGHT: You know, Roi, you probably are really disgusted with me for being stubborn and thorough in these postings, and putting stuff up that you don't personally like, or don't want to see posted here, given that it shows furries in a negative light. However, I have no personal grudge against you, nor is this an attempt to engage in a flame war with you. Don't push so hard that it becomes personal, okay?

Nevertheless, I have to wonder why you decry the "danger" to the kiddies (who are actually quite minimal in number on this site, if the scuttlebutt holds any water) from linking posts to the rant board of the "Fur Affinity" forum, and yet your "Source" profile features a few screen caps from cartoons with rather bloody and violent images. That comes across as a double standard to me.

Come on, man, people in general are less inhibited on the internet! Go to 4chan, if you want to see what lack inhibitions really looks like.

And does it ever occur to you that there are furries who, you know, don't post on internet forums? Especially the FA forums which have a reputation for being full of trolls and drama llamas?

And as for the media, when you compare it to a majority of the articles that have been written/televised about them from the 90s to the early 2000s, it's positive by comparison. You see it as neutral, I see it as slightly positive, maybe it's just perspective. There are, however news broadcasts where you can tell are pretty negative. And let me say this... if you were in Sam Conway's position, and were asked about the one thing that has made your group seen in such a negative light by the general public, would you really have replied in the affirmative? Especially after you've been working your tail off to try and change the media and general public's perspective on furries?

I don't want a reply, just think about it.

And I'm outta here.

Personally, JC, I don't think your opinion has any merit - at all - because you have zero personal experience with the subject matter. ZERO. By your own admission you want nothing to do with them. By definition, that means that you are unwilling to get to know them, to go to a furry con to see what it's all about, or even to be objective about them.

Anybody can go to any online community and find posts that indicate intolerance, deviance, pretty much everything you linked to. I'll say that again - ANY site. ANY community. Any group of people, whether online or in real life. Those same intolerances can be found right here on animation source. That's because furries are just people, like everybody else. If you weren't so completely adverse to having an open mind and actually LEARNING something, you might have the fortitude of character to actually go to a furry convention and make an effort to get to know some of them before pretending that you have a valid opinion about them.

As it turns out, most (note the word I'm using - most does not equal all) furries are very cool people. And in fact, since being furry is seen somewhat as deviant behavior, thanks to shows like CSI that air episodes that only show furries as sexual deviants and nothing else, most furries are very tolerant of other people's beliefs, likes and dislikes etc. because they know how it feels to be persecuted by simply being associated with a group. They know that the term "furry" carries a stigma with it and that most people are unwilling to learn the truth since it's easier to simply believe the worst.

I have room to talk. I have been to furry conventions, a lot of my good friends are furries. As I said earlier, just like with any large group of diverse people you are going to get some bad ones every once in a while. But they don't represent the community as a whole, or the fandom. The reason those news station interviews and articles are so positive in general is because furry conventions are almost always a very positive experience for everybody - even the people who are there for other reasons and have nothing to do with furries. Most fursuiters go out of their way to make people feel comfortable around them, and to engage them in a positive way.

Your arguments are akin to saying people who go to Disneyland are perverted deviants because if you look hard enough you'll find things that those people have done or said online that would corroborate that. And yet those things have nothing to do with Disneyland. Right? Or hey, just substitute "animation source" if that makes it more relevant. I could easily use your logic and make the argument that animation source is full of deviants and miscreants, by using the same methods you did. And it would be just as accurate a claim, i.e. not accurate at all.

So if you would like to educate yourself further on this subject by actually making an effort to get to know some furries, that would be great. But until then, your opinion is essentially worthless on this subject.

Oh and don't bother trying to claim you're not biased - I mean look at what you said here:

"Following back to a place you furries have mentioned repeatedly, I have searched the forums of (eeeekh) "Fur Affinity"

"You furries"? Wow. I'll tell you what you can do with your superiority complex. You really have no leg to stand on when lecturing anybody on being tolerant.

I expected that. And this is not 'all of a sudden'. I've been keeping an eye on this topic wondering beyond measure why Steet would allow it open, or heck why he even started this topic. It's a very touchy one and started many an argument.

But you know what? I really don't care anymore. Say what you want. God knows I can't do anything about it.

-


I'm trying hard not too. You make it difficult however with the constant contradicting.

-


Woah someone actually bothers looking at my profile. Well I haven't touched that in a couple years. And I never go on the actual sites much anymore. I'm always on the forums and even my time here has decreased greatly recently. Believe me I've been intending to fix it for a while.

Aaah yes...I was wondering when you were going to get involved. ROFL

I have had plenty of conversations with furries. And I have said that I have probably interacted with others whom I did not know were furries. Clearly you missed those two statements. I suggest re-reading with a less-prejudiced and temperamental eye, hm?

To wit:





----------


Don't glaze over things before throwing out blatant exaggerations and misrepresentations. Because I said that very thing, genius:



----------


As I said, I have zero interest. And here's a lesson in life, old bean: one need not be well-versed and intimately immersed in something in order to have a valid opinion about it.


No no. Nope. All stereotypes, be they good, bad or indifferent, have at least SOME measure of truth to them. They all originate in some degree of truth...greater or lesser. That is a fact. And while NO one in this topic has said that "all furries are sick, perverted freaks and not really über-cool people", the stuff I linked, as well as ANY furry outlet anywhere on the net demonstrates that there are a large number of furries who most definitely ARE into perversions and unhealthy proclivities. Even one hardcore furry who recently left this site was said to have admitted to sexually abusing his own dog. I find that utterly and wholly contemptible, and worth prosecution. That poor animal has suffered greatly under the abuses of someone who most definitely IS a sick, perverted freak and an animal abuser. And certainly HE must be part of a miniscule percentage of the entire furry community who would be into such horrid things. But I am not going to go all politically-correct in my opinions just to suit your tender emotional insecurities.


Goodie for you. And more power to you. And as I said and implied, there are lots of furries, no doubt, who are little different than anyone else in life. Get your head out of your...well, yeah, and be a little more judicious in your responses before castigating based on over-generalizations.


Well, since I didn't mention Disneyland, your statement is ridiculous. And, once again, highly inaccurate. I said that ANY employee of a corporate entity is under professional scrutiny. Therefore, it is easier to seek redress against one who might do something harmful to a child. Some random individual running around the streets of a city in a goofy costume and patting a child on the head and hugging them (or putting his or her arm around them for a snapshot or whatever else) is another thing entirely. COULD just be a happy-go-lucky person looking for attention and fun. COULD be a pedophile. Or something else. Or NOT. That, Sherlock, is what I said and implied.


No, what is worthless is the kind of blatant over-generalizing and misrepresentative responses you (and others who respond as you) have made.


An opinion. I am entitled to it. Get over it and move on, skippy.

As I SAID in an earlier post:



----------


A. "You furries" was not meant as a condescending statement. Since there is no context in text, it's your own piddling insecurities which brought about that interpretation, and that falls squarely upon you.

B. Since nothing I wrote in here qualifies as a "lecture", but rather discussion, debate and opinion, your statement there has no merit either. lol

You need to work out these personal issues, Zak. M'yeah. Trying to incite another flame war simply because you cannot tolerate the fact that someone might have a different viewpoint and opinion than yours is really not healthy. And could cause this forum and its staff another round of frustration which, frankly, nobody is interested in or patient with.

Sorry, none of what you said actually changes anything. You don't like furries, you don't want to get to know furries, you have no interest in learning more about furries, yet you have a negative opinion of them. And of course the requisite name calling in your response to me, since you don't appear to be able to address criticism without name calling. Or address it at all, actually.

Everything you say about furries here is one giant hypocritical mess. You don't know anything about them, yet you have a strong opinion of them. If that's really how you want to roll, that's your choice. But don't assume nobody is going to call you on it. Your opinion on furries is not valid due to lack of experience, lack of information, and lack of willingness to learn about them. It's pretty much that simple.

The only reason you're even here arguing about it is because you're so contrarian that you'll get into an argument just to do it. Not because you care about what you're arguing about, or even have any idea what you're arguing about. "As I said, I have zero interest." See? So what makes you think your opinion is worth anything on this topic?

Also the disneyland thing was a hypothetical example. I didn't say you mentioned it. The fact that you didn't understand that is a good example of why you shouldn't be in this conversation.

You're the one making this personal, not me. Read your response to me again and ask yourself if you couldn't have been more diplomatic.

It's time for everyone to calm down, this is getting a bit too far.

i want to say the same thing for all of wolf a boos here e_e"

furries aren't devils, stop with your "yiff in hell", yiff isn't all of the furry community ! Stop with your "furfags", not all of the furries are like that ! Stop with your "furry drama on fur affinity" not all of the furries come in this forum, god !

I'm a furry, and i'm proud of it.
I'm not a furfags, i don't say "MURRR NUFNUF" or anything strange on yiff pictures !
I'm only 14 years old and all of the french furries i know are so kind with me.

Remember : furry aren't zoophile-faggot-evil-pedobear

thanks for the understand, you all wolf-a-boos

I think furries are a bit... Scary.

Agreed entirely.

Ditto. Agreed again. :/