End hate against furries on YouTube

[Amepix]

Depends on the opinion.

I can honor and respect "I'm just not into cartoons," I don't care for fursuits," or "The furry fandom doesn't interest me, personally."

When people start slandering or maligning the fandom or the people in it, or joking about hurting or killing furries, that's not just a matter of "agree to disagree"---but, even so, sometimes it is smart to ignore such people.

Yes, it does pain me that people like that exist. I don't understand why we all can't just let people like what they like, or be what they want to be.

For me, I don't care what someone does with their lives. Does a man wanna be a woman or a woman want to be a man? Sure, go ahead, it doesn't effect me. I also don't about who somebody's attracted to, or what they're attracted to.

Like for real, is a guy who likes to draw anthropomorphic animals or wear a fur suit really that big of a deal? Some do draw fetish content, but so do artists who draw humans. I don't understand what the big issue is.

As for someone joking about killing furries: um, that's threatened murder. I don't care if it's a joke, you're joking about killing someone because you don't like the fact they are in the furry fandom. Is that how they act towards others, joking about killing them because they did something they didn't like? I feel like people like that should at least be investigated by the police, because sometimes, that may not be a joke.

Heck, I've shown my art to my grandmother, and she said it looked very good and cute. But have I shown it to my parents? Nope. I already know my mother's stance on furries, so I ain't gonna show it to her. She seems to have the slightly same stereotype of what furries are, and I'm not going to try and change her mind, because whenever I try to with anything else, it never works despite being an adult myself. Oh well, at least I know one person in my family is supporting what I'm doing.

 

[rufe-squirrel]

I agree with rufe-squirrel, with addition that a lot of furries are loud and genuinely cringy - and people from the outside will immediately associate you with them. You just need to be mentally ready for it.

im gonna disagree on this. indeend there are some cringey furs out there, but im not going to let that lead to its common conclusion that some self appointed community trollers start dishing out hate on other furs. Ive seen plenty of blogs by some zealous people who apparently are furs but act like they are the community moral police and wage out social condemnation campaigns against furs for things like having a mursuit or even being nonbinary or otherkin or such things. they act as if they are an arm of the intolerant outsiders applying their scrutiny to the rerst of us from the inside.

Im going to put it this way. Think of the drag queen community, what makes it so amazing is it outrageousnes, its creative liberty. Right now drag is under major attack from the anti-queer mainstream. So should we then dial down on drags fabulous outrageousness and make it less free and vibrant?
Personally me, you see my avatar, I would be content to be known as part of some really colorful and free but very 'cringey' community full of absurd deviants than cave in to the scrutiny and contempt of a society that dislikes us, and act out self policing. If others hate me for being a fur, theyre going to hate me anyways, noting can be done about that. If were not hurting anyone its our freedom to be. So OP, dont let all the trollers get to your brain, fuck them. just make friends with your fellow furs and be loving and accepting, and you will have a supportive community that you need.

 

[Troj]

Minority groups often get stuck apologizing constantly for their existence and even acting as a volunteer "anti-cringe" or "anti-deviance" gestapo in the hopes that the normies might someday be appeased.

At the same time, it's equally harmful to become knee-jerk defensive and protectively circle the wagons even around the genuinely-worst elements of your own community, because that's how the rot sets in.

 

[Fallowfox]

Without reading the thread in a huge amount of depth,
if somebody wishes to spend their free time trying to upset people on Youtube, then I feel sorry for them- because they're wasting their life.

In their future, people who spent their youth trolling strangers online will regret not spending that time playing sport, learning an instrument or simply being with their family.

 

[Punk_M0nitor]

Haters gonna hate. I’ve faced some nasty, downright inappropriate and illegal forms of furry hate from online trolls and some gross assumptions about it irl. Some people do legitimately take the anti-furry sentiment too far.

But becoming defensive or offensive in that situation will only make it worse. They want us to be offended. That’s the punchline. I always take the nonchalant route dealing with them because honestly, I think it’s funny watching them double down trying to get a rise out of you, but if you can’t handle the criticism or hate, best to private your social media or limit your internet time.
(Edit: fixed typo)

 

[Deleted member 160950]

The hate didn't get me down, but thanks for being such a supportive community

 

[rufe-squirrel]

Minority groups often get stuck apologizing constantly for their existence and even acting as a volunteer "anti-cringe" or "anti-deviance" gestapo in the hopes that the normies might someday be appeased.

At the same time, it's equally harmful to become knee-jerk defensive and protectively circle the wagons even around the genuinely-worst elements of your own community, because that's how the rot sets in.

But then who gets to decide 'worst element'? I mean i would define worst as being nazi furs and sociopaths who abuse others, on the other hand i can think of one blogger i saw who scans the cons looking for anyone who happened to have worn a mursuit in public and then out them and try and get them banned or dogpiled out of the comminity. im sure that blogger would see those individuals as a 'worst element'.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Minority groups often get stuck apologizing constantly for their existence and even acting as a volunteer "anti-cringe" or "anti-deviance" gestapo in the hopes that the normies might someday be appeased.

At the same time, it's equally harmful to become knee-jerk defensive and protectively circle the wagons even around the genuinely-worst elements of your own community, because that's how the rot sets in.

The other tendency I’ve observed in many (not all, though; ethnicity groups seem especially resistant to this) groups is the knee-jerk rejection of the genuinely-worst elements as “not a real [group].” I understand the impulse, but I don’t think it’s constructive.

It’s fine to say “that’s not the Christianity/feminism/foo I practice,” but saying they’re not real is just another knee-jerk defense attempting to put the group beyond reproach. It sucks that people do shitty things in the name of the groups they identify with. It really does. But the solution isn’t to try to turn the group into a gated community.

Which is sort of like what you say about people making themselves into the acceptability police. Just… with a bit more cause (ish) and a bit less focus on preaching to the actual offender.

 

[Troj]

But then who gets to decide 'worst element'? I mean i would define worst as being nazi furs and sociopaths who abuse others, on the other hand i can think of one blogger i saw who scans the cons looking for anyone who happened to have worn a mursuit in public and then out them and try and get them banned or dogpiled out of the comminity. im sure that blogger would see those individuals as a 'worst element'.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the general consensus of the community, based on its shared goals and values.

As a general community, furries have already decided that we're not going to tolerate Nazis and other right-wing authoritarians, bigots, unrepentant and active pedophiles, unrepentant and active zoophiles, and scammers. Most cons have opted to frame their rules and policies around these shared "dealbreakers."

Granted, this is an imperfect process, and will likely always be, because there'll never be a perfect consensus about anything (and that'd get boring anyway). So, the best we can do is to reflect on our shared goals and values, and make our best case for what we feel should or shouldn't be tolerated, in the hopes that our arguments are robust enough to persuade others and build a consensus over time.

The other tendency I’ve observed in many (not all, though; ethnicity groups seem especially resistant to this) groups is the knee-jerk rejection of the genuinely-worst elements as “not a real [group].” I understand the impulse, but I don’t think it’s constructive.

Agreed. When people indulge in "No True Scotsman"-ing, that doesn't help us to actually confront and deal with our naughty Scots and their bad haggis.

Certainly, you can say someone violates or disrespects the values or ethos of a given community, and you can also suggest that they're a bad-faith or insincere actor, but that's different from just declaring that everybody you dislike isn't a "real" member of the group you like.

 

[Filter]

The other tendency I’ve observed in many (not all, though; ethnicity groups seem especially resistant to this) groups is the knee-jerk rejection of the genuinely-worst elements as “not a real [group].” I understand the impulse, but I don’t think it’s constructive.

It’s fine to say “that’s not the Christianity/feminism/foo I practice,” but saying they’re not real is just another knee-jerk defense attempting to put the group beyond reproach. It sucks that people do shitty things in the name of the groups they identify with. It really does. But the solution isn’t to try to turn the group into a gated community.

Which is sort of like what you say about people making themselves into the acceptability police. Just… with a bit more cause (ish) and a bit less focus on preaching to the actual offender.

I think it's fair to call out things that run contrary to a group's prevailing culture or opinion. It isn't always a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, as fringe elements are fringe elements. Furry may not have an ideological foundation like a religion or social movement, but there are certainly furries who act in ways that most other furries find reprehensible. Bigots and abusers, for instance, shouldn't expect to be welcomed with open arms.

Things that are obviously harmful to the well-being of group members and survival of the group are a good place to start. The answer doesn't need to involve legalism or thought police, but some kind of basic boundaries must be established for the group to continue.

 

[Kain]

This is essentially the answer some have already given. If I can put it into the context of furry content, then we are essentially entertainers and artists. Perhaps also philanthropists. If there are others, feel free to show that, too. Yes, being a furry can help the rest of humanity, too.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1592138040541069313

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Tiktok - The rabbit hole of the internet.

The internet is the Wonder with a Thousand Assholes, tiktok is merely the largest one at the moment with the added level of being controlled by a genocidal dictatorship

 

[TrixieFox]

Im a furry... on YT... Im stopping it XD

 

[Amepix]

Im a furry... on YT... Im stopping it XD

Good luck brave soldier! We will remember you're sacrifice!

 

[ConorHyena]

The other tendency I’ve observed in many (not all, though; ethnicity groups seem especially resistant to this) groups is the knee-jerk rejection of the genuinely-worst elements as “not a real [group].” I understand the impulse, but I don’t think it’s constructive.

It’s fine to say “that’s not the Christianity/feminism/foo I practice,” but saying they’re not real is just another knee-jerk defense attempting to put the group beyond reproach. It sucks that people do shitty things in the name of the groups they identify with. It really does. But the solution isn’t to try to turn the group into a gated community.

Which is sort of like what you say about people making themselves into the acceptability police. Just… with a bit more cause (ish) and a bit less focus on preaching to the actual offender.

Though I would argue that a lot of people apply the label of 'group' too quickly in respect to furries - 'the furry fandom' isn't a group or community, at least not in the regular sense, it is much too broad. It's more akin to 'everyone who likes cars' which in itself is a shared interest - while communities tend to be more enclosed (like FAF for instance)

Thus the true scotsman fallacity only applies to a degree - to actual communities within this group.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Though I would argue that a lot of people apply the label of 'group' too quickly in respect to furries - 'the furry fandom' isn't a group or community, at least not in the regular sense, it is much too broad. It's more akin to 'everyone who likes cars' which in itself is a shared interest - while communities tend to be more enclosed (like FAF for instance)

Thus the true scotsman fallacity only applies to a degree - to actual communities within this group.

I’d say it applies about as much to furries as it does to Christians or feminists, both of which are groups I’ve seen pull out the “well they’re not a real $group” thing when confronted by people with bad experiences. Not all people within the group will be part of the same churches, organizations, websites, etc.

My point is that there’s no membership card to revoke, and knee-jerk denial of a shitbucket’s identity because you (gen) feel it reflects badly on you is unconstructive at best and counterproductive at worst. Group membership is defined by self-identification; the most you can really say is “most of the fandom would reject that behavior” or “I don’t agree with that person’s actions and don’t feel they align with group values.” Rejecting behaviors isn’t inherently bad. (I’d personally argue that in the vast majority of cases going out of one’s way to find people and behaviors to performatively reject is bad, but if the behavior is laid out at your feet, have at.)

 

[Troj]

The one time I'd feel confident saying someone wasn't a furry was if they struck me as having zero interest in anthro animals, period. I might also suggest someone wasn't a real furry if their dubious, slight, or casual interest in anthro animals was eclipsed by some ulterior motive or other non-furry reason for participating in the fandom.

Of course, someone can be an ally or a friend to the fandom without being a furry, so it's not always an insult to say that a person isn't a furry.

 

[quoting_mungo]

The one time I'd feel confident saying someone wasn't a furry was if they struck me as having zero interest in anthro animals, period. I might also suggest someone wasn't a real furry if their dubious, slight, or casual interest in anthro animals was eclipsed by some ulterior motive or other non-furry reason for participating in the fandom.

Of course, someone can be an ally or a friend to the fandom without being a furry, so it's not always an insult to say that a person isn't a furry.

Oh, yes, there’s definitely going to be the odd case that does warrant skepticism, but generally it’s going to be a good idea to reject the behavior over gatekeeping. We may not like nazifurs (for instance), but saying “yeah, screw them, we don’t like them either” or pointing out how many cons, community sites etc ban them is hell of a lot more honest than saying that they’re not furries.

And I do think it’s better in the long term to be honest rather than defensively trying to save face.

 

[Troj]

Oh, yes, there’s definitely going to be the odd case that does warrant skepticism, but generally it’s going to be a good idea to reject the behavior over gatekeeping. We may not like nazifurs (for instance), but saying “yeah, screw them, we don’t like them either” or pointing out how many cons, community sites etc ban them is hell of a lot more honest than saying that they’re not furries.

Agreed! Toxic, horrid, and evil people can still be "real furries" in the sense that they appreciate anthro animals and like the fandom just as much as anyone else.

I was thinking more about people who smell like they're only in the fandom to troll people or to groom or recruit "marks."

 

[Baron Tredegar]

The internet is the Wonder with a Thousand Assholes, tiktok is merely the largest one at the moment with the added level of being controlled by a genocidal dictatorship

Yep. Its a shame China hasnt had a true democratic leader since Sun Yat Sen, and he was only president for two months in early 1912. And its a shame so many people use the internet to spread hatred and disinformation and like you said just be general assholes.

 

[Connor J. Coyote]

Yeah, it clearly didn't affect you. Definitely not to the point of crying on forums and attempting to witchhunt these users. If I were you I would try to take things a little less seriously and would definitely not feed the trolls.

@Adara Haze Well, he's got right to complain about it though...... even if he did sort of bring it upon himself, (assuming one agrees with the belief that he did so).

The point of postings above (like mine) though is that: when one makes controversial opinions or statements - then negative pushback may happen; and at that point - it comes down to people like the OP, as far as how they respond to it, if at all.

You know...... so called "trolls" are going to happen (given the nature of what the internet is) and it's up to posters like the OP in regards to how they handle it, I think.

*For myself, as a side note: I think the word "troll" is often times way over-used on the internet....... as - someone who simply disagress with someone or has a different outlook on things - isn't necessarily a "troll" (as they may be called) simply because they have a different opinion.

I don't think it's necessary however to semi-criticize him for pointing these issues out on here, with all due respect.

Because in my mind, that's partly what a Forum (like this) is really designed for in a lot of ways; and so perhaps comments (like mine and others) may help him........ and so, if his concerns are addressed on here than that means the thread was useful in some way, and all the better I think that he was helped.

And so given that, I don't see it as a waste of anyone's time to help the OP out or give him some feedback on things if it's genuinely helpful.

 

[rufe-squirrel]

Yeah, it clearly didn't affect you.

Definitely not to the point of crying on forums and attempting to witchhunt these users.

If I were you I would try to take things a little less seriously and would definitely not feed the trolls.

What is up with this? Like no one fur at any point has ever been dogpiled or attacked online and felt bad about it? Are you going to shame someone for having hurt feelings? Like that has never happened to you before and someone online made you cry? Cause I highly doubt that. Now the other user may be wrong in trying to recruit people to help them clap back against the attackers, just another kind of toxic internet behavior, that is true. But aggressively shaming people for being hurt by trollers and attackers, thats also another piece of toxic online behavior too.

 

[NilsTeutschLW97]

It won't end I'm afraid. It's best not to even respond to those morons.

 

[NilsTeutschLW97]

The internet is the Wonder with a Thousand Assholes, tiktok is merely the largest one at the moment with the added level of being controlled by a genocidal dictatorship

Sadly.

 

[Connor J. Coyote]

It won't end I'm afraid. It's best not to even respond to those morons.

Sometimes criticisms need to be answered though, they can't always be ignored.