Furries in the playground

[Sartharina]

Not everyone is afraid of/insulted by being associated as a Furry. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to go to any cons (And don't want to deal with con crud anyway). But there are a lot of awesome artists out there, and I wish I could work on my own drawing skills to properly express myself.

It's not even remotely Furry. :/

Actually - it features anthropomorphic animals. Furry enough to count.

I'm saying furries shouldn't try and elevate their fandom by claiming amazing works like Maus as being a "furry" work of art.

There's nothing to 'elevate'. The 'fandom', as it is, is what it is. Maus is furry enough to count.

Also - I found this, and it made me laugh:

Spoiler

Show

[t209]

So I just came here to ask about which media have settings with both Humans and Furries.
- Two Kinds
- Tale of a Questor
I think that's about it.
In my opinion, many furry works tend to creep me out, especially the one that is too "realistic".

[Lhurgyof]

{Scrubbed}

[Sartharina]

{Scrubbed}

It doesn't matter what he likes. I don't think Lauren Faust is happy with all aspects of the Brony fandom.

If he didn't want furries to like his work and include it in what they like, he shouldn't have featured content furries tend to like.

[Lhurgyof]

{Scrubbed}

[Teddy]

{Scrubbed}.

You seem to operate under a very well defined definition of what "being furry" means. It would be considerate of you to explain what that definition actually is, because I can't tell. Something about intent?

[Zrak]

The objection has always been "it's hurtful" with attempts to express why in a manner you'll accept.

I would accept "it's hurtful," and "it has been used with the intention to be hurtful often enough to have unpleasant associations." These are perfectly valid reasons. Neither of these was the reason given. Jaycemonde drew a comparison to "science fiction fandom," which is often called that without offense or hurt feelings; as I said, he is reading connotations which are not present in the standard use of the term. You said anything that implies a "subgroup" is inherently deligitimizing which is troublesome since "furry community" or even just "furries" would also denote a subgroup. Neither of these objections help me understand the problems with the term or, really, even the fact that the term is hurtful.

"That's mean" is a perfectly valid reason. Being unable to express why is also perfectly valid. You're requiring a dissection of why something is oppressive, and we don't have that for racial relations which have been around for longer and studied more thoroughly; why should this thread and these people have to jump through your hoops? They're just asking for you to respect terms you, as we've established, don't have an equal vested interest in. It baffles me that a unified logical prescriptive definition is more important than accepting people have baggage and you may be dancing on it.

I would argue it's pretty easy to trace the history of why some terms are preferred and are considered oppressive or antiquated but broadly inoffensive with regard to race relations. Or, to take another example, some people object to being called "homosexual" because the word has origins as a diagnosis rather than benign descriptor. This, pretty clearly, impugns the identity being described in the sense that it defines those who identify as such as somehow unwell on the basis of that identification. Fandom establishes nothing of the kind; rather, it reflects a community of people who like a certain thing, in this instance a type of media. As such, being unaware of any history of the term's use as a community-specific pejorative in this context, how am I to be aware that this is the case.
In other words, the issue is not that someone needs to express why something is mean, but express that something actually is mean; words are very important to me, and I do have a vested interest in being able to use them without undue restriction. It's one thing if a word has a history of offensive use and clear contextual connotations, as Lhurgyof's use of the term and your comparison to "Social Justice Warrior" make it clear that the term does in this case, but there are plenty of labels people object to out of a pompous self-regard that I feel no need to respect. The author who insistently writes "speculative fiction" rather than "sci-fi," for example, can be shelved amongst the science fiction authors without any crisis of conscience.

[Jaycemonde]

{Scrubbed}

Yeah, you're right. It's not like we already have amazing work of our own, huh? That'd be crazy.

How about these pictures?

I don't think so. They're more proto-furry, from when people everywhere thought cute talking totally normal-looking partially clothed Aesop-style animals were cute. Actual furry stuff has a lot more variety and definition to it. Refer to the twenty or so links above.

The objection has always been "it's hurtful" with attempts to express why in a manner you'll accept. But that's where emotional intelligence comes in; it's a problem for reasons you could puzzle out, especially with people trying to help you; it doesn't fit the word you're using anyway; you are not the judge who must make a ruling based on how well an explanation fits your technical parameters.

"That's mean" is a perfectly valid reason. Being unable to express why is also perfectly valid. You're requiring a dissection of why something is oppressive, and we don't have that for racial relations which have been around for longer and studied more thoroughly; why should this thread and these people have to jump through your hoops? They're just asking for you to respect terms you, as we've established, don't have an equal vested interest in. It baffles me that a unified logical prescriptive definition is more important than accepting people have baggage and you may be dancing on it.



That's just offensive. :-/

SiuiS, stop being so perfect. It's unfortunately not having any effect here.

If he didn't want furries to like his work and include it in what they like, he shouldn't have featured content furries tend to like.

{Scrubbed}

Yes, Lhurgyof. The Holocaust. You got it right on the money. How you aren't head of the world right now I will never understand. Furries love the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with the fact that Maus has talking animals in it. How could it?
(For the record, no. I don't like Maus much. It isn't really to my tastes as far as historical literature goes.)

Jaycemonde drew a comparison to "science fiction fandom," which is often called that without offense or hurt feelings; as I said, he is reading connotations which are not present in the standard use of the term.

I'm not a he, thank you very much. No comment on the rest, I'm done arguing with someone who only cares about pedantry.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Let's get this back to a more civil and relevant place. Please report rather than quoting problem posts.

[Zrak]

I'm not a he, thank you very much. No comment on the rest, I'm done arguing with someone who only cares about pedantry.

My apologies, the gender icon looked like the mars symbol on my teeny tiny screen. Also, just because I care a great deal about pedantry doesn't mean I don't also care about other things.

[Jaycemonde]

Sheriff: Let's get this back to a more civil and relevant place.

Well, I for one am totally capable of thinking of furry stuff without having to argue about every tiny detail of the vague history and wording! You can count on me.

Has anyone here read up on HC SVNT DRACONES yet? The new system looks pretty interesting compared to the tired-out d20 set. I hope they include plenty of options for customizing personal transports.

My apologies, the gender icon looked like the mars symbol on my teeny tiny screen.

Fine.

Also, just because I care a great deal about pedantry doesn't mean I don't also care about other things.

In lieu of asking if any of those other things are at all relevant to the topic of the thread (or if that's the only reason you're here), I'll just say this. Let's not talk about the pedantry here, since all it does is cause problems. Let's talk about other stuff. Like the aforementioned game. Or some popular artists everyone likes. NOT from the late 80's.

[Asta Kask]

I don't think so. They're more proto-furry, from when people everywhere thought cute talking totally normal-looking partially clothed Aesop-style animals were cute. Actual furry stuff has a lot more variety and definition to it. Refer to the twenty or so links above.

Ok. I think I'll leave you to your thread then. Thanks a lot for answering my questions and I hope I haven't been too much of a bother.

ETA: I couldn't access those pictures - I think my anti-virus doesn't like them. Ah, well.

[Sartharina]

Ok. I think I'll leave you to your thread then. Thanks a lot for answering my questions and I hope I haven't been too much of a bother.

ETA: I couldn't access those pictures - I think my anti-virus doesn't like them. Ah, well.

Nah. Just gotta double-input the URL (Click, select, then hit enter). Furaffinity doesn't like direct links to its image hosting service.

[Jaycemonde]

I couldn't access those pictures - I think my anti-virus doesn't like them. Ah, well.

They're links to online pictures. The most likely reason you can't see them is that FurAffinity (where they're all being hosted) is blocked wherever you live. AV software has nothing to do with it.

[Asta Kask]

Ok, now I've seen them. I'm not sure I get the difference, but I've really taken up too much time here. Maybe I'll understand more in a few weeks, when the "guys downstairs"* have had time to work. That's often the case.

*i.e., in the subconscious

[Teddy]

Has anyone here read up on HC SVNT DRACONES yet? The new system looks pretty interesting compared to the tired-out d20 set. I hope they include plenty of options for customizing personal transports.

It sounds interesting, especially after I went over to their tumbler and actually found out how the 8-10-12 system is supposed to work. I would consider giving little brother the rules book for his birthday, but that would be $90, and that's a little bit above what I'm entirely comfortable with paying both for a book, especially if I only get half an hour to think it through...

[SiuiS]

I would accept "it's hurtful," and "it has been used with the intention to be hurtful often enough to have unpleasant associations." These are perfectly valid reasons. Neither of these was the reason given. Jaycemonde drew a comparison to "science fiction fandom," which is often called that without offense or hurt feelings; as I said, he is reading connotations which are not present in the standard use of the term. You said anything that implies a "subgroup" is inherently deligitimizing which is troublesome since "furry community" or even just "furries" would also denote a subgroup. Neither of these objections help me understand the problems with the term or, really, even the fact that the term is hurtful.

I would say that if I'm arguing about how a thing is hurtful and derogatory, that is sufficient grounds to say my stance is "X is hurtful and derogatory".

I doesn't matter if people do use a word, Coidzor, it matters what the effect is. Insisting on 'fandom' is a form of delegitimization.

Practically, by insisting on the technical usage you're arguing to continue the delegitimization.

The word doesn't depict much reality, it only depicts an external snap judgement, and one that is inherently derogatory because of the emotional impact of colloquial use.

This seems very clear to me, but my arguments are interaliased. Fandom does not fit; fandom when applied to a culture can be derogatory; this is a culture; insisting on fandom is therefore insulting.

You can find similar trends by looking into whether the word tribe is inherently racist. You could have checked the scrubbed posts for how the emotional effect of 'fandom' leads people to believe the culture is a lesser thing ("elevated by association", etc.). Seeing this in the wild is sufficient, I believe.

I would argue it's pretty easy to trace the history of why some terms are preferred and are considered oppressive or antiquated but broadly inoffensive with regard to race relations.[/QUOTE]

The comparison was that racism is a well known thing and couldn't be handled in a single post, so expecting me to handle a less well-known thing with fewer objective and agreeable references with the same skill is asinine.

My apologies, the gender icon looked like the mars symbol on my teeny tiny screen. Also, just because I care a great deal about pedantry doesn't mean I don't also care about other things.

Youre a generally swell person, yeah. I attribute our disagreement to lack of resources for education and lack of similar communication tools. I was, for example, always speaking of emotional reaction, not the logical dissection you seem to have wanted.

Ok, now I've seen them. I'm not sure I get the difference, but I've really taken up too much time here. Maybe I'll understand more in a few weeks, when the "guys downstairs"* have had time to work. That's often the case.

*i.e., in the subconscious

I don't really either. At least not on paper; it's a thing one can grok easier than one can understand or explain.

It sounds interesting, especially after I went over to their tumbler and actually found out how the 8-10-12 system is supposed to work. I would consider giving little brother the rules book for his birthday, but that would be $90, and that's a little bit above what I'm entirely comfortable with paying both for a book, especially if I only get half an hour to think it through...

Ooh, tumbly rules~
Gonna have to search for that.


My interest started mainly at age six, when a chance flea market encounter revealed to me that someone I was related to write comics. Sexy comics. About animals.

Never did end up buying a copy though. I'll have to get the omnibus or somesuch...

[t209]

So is there any Furry media where they have both furries and humans?

[Sartharina]

So is there any Furry media where they have both furries and humans?

Lots.

As for fandom vs culture... I considrr Fandom to be less marginalizing than culture. Culture implies unity while fandom merely indicates shared interests. Those that are offended by being called Fans need to get their persecution complex checked.

It is very much a broad fandom like Sci Fi.

I happen to be part of Furry Culture as well as Furry Fandom.The term that causes derogatory reaction is "Furry", not Fandom or Culture. As for "elevating" the fandom by claiming Maus... that's like accusing the Fantasy fandom of elevating itself by claiming the Iliad.

[Jaycemonde]

So is there any Furry media where they have both furries and humans?

Metric buttloads. This one I posted earlier [ http://d.facdn.net/art/pyrosity/1367...y_web_file.jpg ] is just one example. (Look at the tank crew. Pyrosity/Petuko's canon says that there are human and non-human settlements and countries that coexist and form alliances for assorted wartime reasons. It's not a black-and-white "us vs them" thing, realpolitik is a major theme in his stories.) The game I linked to as well is specifically referred to as "post-human", implying that humans once existed but died off. My own stories are usually like that as well. Kishniev's novels are about a post-nuclear world in which transhumans/talking animal people live aboard giant flying cities and the UN controls most human life down on the ground. It's really common for established "furry literature".

The term that causes derogatory reaction is "Furry"

I'm a self-described EXTREME YIFF SNAPBACK ULTRAMAGNUS ROBOTF**KER EXTRAORDINAIRE HEYKIDWANNAYIFF furf*g and I say "furry" pretty damn often, and that's an attitude that a lot of [adult-age, at least] furries seem to share. I went through the obligatory "but it's not 'furries', it's 'anthrowsjfonmsapoyinhapiwesrujologists'" stages, but I outgrew it when I realized there's nothing wrong with adopting labels for your own use. So yeah, I have to disagree there. In my defense, at least I don't use those infurnal furry puns. Furget that. Fureaking furry puns are fur noobs.

Do note that I'm not saying you should call someone something they aren't comfortable with. That's hypocritical in the extreme. It's just that lots of people who fit all the criteria to be identified as furries are fine with that term.

Those that are offended by being called Fans need to get their persecution complex checked.

I don't really either. At least not on paper; it's a thing one can grok easier than one can understand or explain.

Needless to say, I agree with everything you've said so far, but this in particular is worth commenting on. Basically, people, it's easiest to understand what is and is not furry and what makes someone furry by going and making an account on a furry website and just observing for a few months. Forget the Q&A session bull, you'll never get a straight answer out of people that either can't explain properly or are both "on the inside" but keep arguing, since being furry means different things to different people.
With that in mind, I'm not gonna argue about it anymore on here. It's not worth the time and energy that it takes and it's about as productive as filling a sieve with sand. Guy Montague has suffered enough with that proverbial example for all of us, hasn't he? Once again, I suggest we talk about non-controversial things, like fursuiting and artists/musicians/writers/whateverers we like.

[SiuiS]

As for fandom vs culture... I considrr Fandom to be less marginalizing than culture.

Would you believe I considered that? I just needed a word that seemed broad in scope, but thought making a note that I picked it out of a hat to fit the flow would weaken my presentation.

I happen to be part of Furry Culture as well as Furry Fandom.The term that causes derogatory reaction is "Furry", not Fandom or Culture.

Uh, no. The term that caused the sense of derogation here in this thread was indeed fandom. I would be far more hesitant to speak for all people everywhere who consider themselves furry.

On fur suits; I find it odd that the default is an all-encompassing outfit. I've seen some good ones, don't get me wrong; a favorite had automated mouth movement based on the wearer's speech. But the proportions will always be off, that way. Unless you get those springy stilts and go as a cloven hooves sexy monstrosity, but I digress.

I wonder why movie-level makeup and prostheses aren't the way to go?

[Jaycemonde]

On fur suits; I find it odd that the default is an all-encompassing outfit. I've seen some good ones, don't get me wrong; a favorite had automated mouth movement based on the wearer's speech. But the proportions will always be off, that way.

That's an unfortunate side-effect, but no, it isn't universal. Most people just aren't willing to put up with the incredible discomfort of wearing a perfectly skintight and proportionate suit for potentially hours at a time. They do exist, though.

Unless you get those springy stilts and go as a cloven hooves sexy monstrosity, but I digress.

:>
I was actually gonna get a partial suit, like I said--head/neck, arms, possibly legs, tail. Then I can just wear my normal clothes over all that. It's only slightly off-proportion that way.
Also, there's a utahraptor fursuiter out there that I've seen pics of on the ole' Tumblel. I'll post them if I can find them. Crazy realistic and well-proportioned.

I wonder why movie-level makeup and prostheses aren't the way to go?

Reason 1). is because they're damn expensive and really difficult to put on over and over by yourself for constant use. Reason 2). is that those usually don't fit many peoples' character styles. Reason 3). is just...look up "90's furcons." That's why we abandoned the concept for the most part.

[SiuiS]

:>
I was actually gonna get a partial suit, like I said--head/neck, arms, possibly legs, tail. Then I can just wear my normal clothes over all that. It's only slightly off-proportion that way.
Also, there's a utahraptor fursuiter out there that I've seen pics of on the ole' Tumblel. I'll post them if I can find them. Crazy realistic and well-proportioned.

Aye, I think I've seen a Few of those too.

Reason 3). is just...look up "90's furcons." That's why we abandoned the concept for the most part.

That was remarkably unhelpful for an Internet search. The too result looks promising, being a tumblr post discussing relevant things (on google) but my phone can't actually load the exact tumbl necessary... >_<

[Beacon of Chaos]

Don't mind me, just passing through.

Spoiler: Quadsuit Video

Show

[SiuiS]

That's pretty cool, wow!

[Coidzor]

{Scrubbed}

[Jaycemonde]

{scrubbed}

[Iruka]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I missed your earlier post. Is that an Archaeopteryx?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: I gave this instruction once already, but let me be more explicit this time. Drop the semantic debate about the nature of the words "furry," "fandom," etc.

Feel free to discuss the topic itself - civilly and with respect for others.

[Jaycemonde]

I missed your earlier post. Is that an Archaeopteryx?

Spoiler: It's just the suit pictures from earlier.

Show

Spoiler

Show

Blog's here: http://nambroth.tumblr.com/post/9150...con-and-it-was

I dunno. Some kind of dinosaur or bird-dinosaur. I don't really care right now. You can check the blog link in the bottom, maybe the creator says on the site.
I've been [trying] to draw again recently, even though I can't get **** out with my busy schedule. It's basically relevant to the thread, so maybe I'll post it here later.