Furry Acceptance in Today's World

[Troj]

I know kids in and outside my family who know what gay means and who were taught it in school. It's no different from kids learning about black history (which is also being banned in the curriculum in Florida) or women's history. The eleven-year-old in my household knows about gay couples and he grew in a conservative household before he came here.

I can see not teaching sex education geared towards gay students to young children, but teaching kids about the gay rights movement, gay historical figures, and that gay people basically exist is appropriate.

It's vital to keep in mind that since LGBTQ people do not just magically emerge from a vacuum, some children are LGBTQ, while others have LGBTQ family members, neighbors, friends, acquaintances, or caretakers.

If children are old enough to call each other slurs on the playground, they are absolutely old enough to know that other types of people exist and are worthy of dignity, rights, and respect. If children are old enough to recognize their own feelings and preferences---including feeling the same as or different from others--then they are old enough to be given language to express those feelings.

Being LGBTQ is no more "adult," prurient, or obscene than being cishet.

Children don't know the word "heterosexual," but nobody thinks that exposing them to fairy tales where princes woo princesses or Disney movies where the opposite-sex leads eventually pair up is "groooooooooming" or exposing them prematurely to the "het lifestyle."

Also, "sex education" can be as simple and straightforward as teaching children the names of their body parts and teaching them about consent---which is why, incidentally, age-appropriate sex education is proven to increase children's safety and health. Because they have no actual leg to stand on, bigots muddy the waters by insinuating that preschoolers are being taught the Kama Sutra.

As for History and Social Studies, children should learn about the events, movements, "big" people, everyday people, and laws that have made our world what it is today, with the essential key of learning what mistakes not to repeat, and the additional bonus of finding positive role models who inspire them. They're going to live in a world populated with a wide variety of people, so they need to learn about those people and be able to walk in their shoes.

Finally, I'm certainly a fan of diplomacy and civility, but thinking that a) bigots and zealots won't hurt us if we just keep our heads down and b) we invite (and therefore deserve) bigotry and abuse by being too "annoying" or "uncivil" is dangerously wrong, both morally and factually. It blames the battered spouse for "triggering"or "upsetting" their abuser, who is assumed to be a "reasonable" person who isn't wedded to being abusive.

I'd like for us to be able to stop talking about race, sexuality, gender, disability, and the like, but the onus should be on bigots and reactionaries to stop talking about them negatively first! Also, since many people still suffer in countless ways as a result of prejudice, discrimination, and bias, simply refusing to discuss these issues won't make them magically go away; it'll only make the victims of injustice feel alienated, hopeless, and invisible.

 

[Hollowsong]

*not sure if my vote was accurate*

 

[Zenoth]

And last time I checked, QUILTBAG wasn't a slur.

Again you continue to use a phrase you were told my a memeber of the LGBT community told you they found off putting in your replies to that person.
Think of it this way, if someone used a word / phrase towards you, that you told them you found off putting, or offensive, and they continued to use that while communicating with you,
how would you take it.

I don't care if you a, a straight person, finds the term 'quiltbag' to be harmless, not everyone in the LGBT does, so when someone lets you know 'hey that comes across as a slur", maybe don't use that term when talking at that person, it's called courtesy. IF others don't mind it, right on toss it around with them.

 

[Green_Brick]

Can someone explain to me why there was so much vitriol towards the furry community? I never fully understood that. It just always seemed like that there was so much hate geared towards them.

 

[LunaGryph]

When I first started mascotting as a young person, my only knowledge of the furry fandom was based on That One Episode of CSI, and I didn't even know there was an organized mascotting community until later. Everything I knew I had either learned from personal experience or from other mascots at various gigs.

When I got my first fursuit, I just wanted an excuse to mascot outside of formal gigs and not always have to borrow the costume to do it. I didn't even know what a "fursuit" was!

Re: Dicey situations that were not helped by inexperienced handlers, serious problems can arise if there are too many suiters and too few handlers; if your handler is easily distracted; if your handler doesn't understand your needs and limitations as a suiter (e.g., that you have blind spots, that your mobility is limited, that you can become overheated or dehydrated very quickly); or if your handler is conflict-averse or shy.

In one case, the handlers at a furmeet were overwhelmed trying to manage so many suiters, and they didn't notice when I'd been surrounded by a group of teenage boys who started sexually harassing me. (This was when I was committed to silent suiting and had a much more awkward fursuit than the one I have now.) For my part, I didn't report the incident to the handlers until much later, which was my bad.

In another case, I had a handler who was shy and passive and didn't intervene when I got swarmed by a group of children who became more and more physically aggressive as they quickly learned they could get away with it. (Again, this was when I had my old fursuit and was committed to never talking under any circumstances.)

Re: Desuiting and parking, I try to park as close as possible to my target destination, in theory, because I don't want to have to trek back to the car when I'm hot and tired. I used to put a ton of effort into protecting my identity and never breaking the magic, but have come to prioritize safety and comfort over maintaining the mystery. If people happen to see me suiting up in my car, I'll just wave, smile, make polite conversation, and offer people a sticker if I have any on hand. Having a "secret identity" was fun, but letting people see and get to know the person behind the mask has helped me to solidify and strengthen my reputation in the community. This has translated into me actually being invited to suit at events and gatherings, which is a huge honor.

Re: Permission, I'll usually email or DM the person or organization I'd like to suit for, or I'll approach the person in charge before or during an event to ask if I can suit.

Recently, I attended a local children's event that was unfamiliar to me. I first scoped out the scene out of suit, noticed that they already had their own mascots on-site, and decided to err on the side of treading lightly to avoid stepping on any toes. I casually chatted up various volunteers and organizers, and identified one volunteer who struck me as especially nice. During our conversation, I mentioned that I was a mascot, that my suit was in a car from a previous gig, and would they like me to suit. She texted the main organizer for permission, they said "Nah," and I graciously took the L. Later, I helped the volunteers put away the tents and load their cars, and introduced myself to the organizer of the event. It's all about building those connections and establishing a good reputation!

Re: Brents, I don't think there's a set term for a male Karen, and I just picked "Brent" in honor of a minor character from The Good Place. "Chads" are more dudes who are considered "alpha males," by my understanding.

Re: That one jerk, I was nervous when he started interrogating me about who I was and why I was there, and yes, I was definitely offended when he told his children that I was "just a random person in a costume" and that they shouldn't want a photo with me. (It's like, bro, this isn't Disney World; you're not going to be seeing Minnie or Goofy here.) That they totally blew him off and continued to enthusiastically interact with me and ask me questions about myself filled me with a smug, self-satisfied glee. I was polite enough to walk away when they started eating their lunches, though, because I don't like to be a distraction or a nuisance, even to shitheads.

Later, it occurred to me that it would've been funny (at least for me) to hint at being a famous person who was merely dressing as a dinosaur to blend in.

I never knew about the fandom, and I had somehow stumbled on to it when I was younger, and knew of its existence since then. I also never watched that CSI episode, but have read that Vanity Fair article. TBH, I've always wanted to be a mascot though, but since I had never gotten that chance and may likely not get it at this rate, I find fursuiting as a way to have fun, an alternate way of mascotting, especially for those mascot wannabes, like me, and a way to express myself in ways I couldn't before.

Guess tons of these aggressive interactions could've been avoided if fursuiters had spoken, especially if "breaking the magic" thing wasn't such a big deal. It also makes public fursuiting a bit easier, since talking would be allowed, regardless of jaw type. Bet that most of the older generations of fursuiters still uphold this today. What did you do with that shy and passive handler after that? Were they experienced or inexperienced? Did you suffer any injuries from those incidents?

How did you built-up the comfort of dressing-up in front of people? Do you do it yourself or does someone else help you do that? Why does letting people to get to know you out of suit translates to getting invited to events in suit? What's more important to you, maintaining a secret identity or getting to know people?

Where have you public fursuited before? What do you mean by "take the L"? What had happened after you introduced yourself to the organizer of your local children's event?

TBH, never seen "The Good Place" before.

So that time when that jerk showed-up, did you have a handler or were you going solo at that time? What was his goal of asking you all those questions? How did you responded to it? Would've been a funny story if you did, but how would you do that?

What's your favorite part about the fandom? How did you find out about public fursuiting? When you do so, do you feel the responsibility of representing the fandom and/or maintaining (or improving) its image? Have you consulted any guides on public fursuiting before doing it?
How did you get your fursuit? Do you own any others than the dino you've mentioned? Mind if I see how your fursuit looks like?

 

[Minerva_Minx]

Uhm...
I'm going to have to set aside some time to read this. Wow.

 

[PercyD]

Can someone explain to me why there was so much vitriol towards the furry community? I never fully understood that. It just always seemed like that there was so much hate geared towards them.

Welcome fellow Krita user-
The furry community has a lot of neurodivergent, socially inept folks, lol. Not gonna split any hairs.
Mainstream sees it as "weird" and "cringe". Insecure people tend to punch down on these things to make themselves feel better.

 

[PercyD]

So, you don't like the terminology people are using argue there are potential hateful intentions behind it? That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Perhaps there are a few misunderstandings people have and maybe they could have worded their comments better, but fascism is a hell of a thing to imply.

Never saw this in all the what what-

I haven't called any specific person here a fascist. What I am saying is that actual fascists co-op language from our movements to hijack spaces. Its very common. If you are interested, I have a video essay on this topic.

 

[AniwayasSong]

It's vital to keep in mind that since LGBTQ people do not just magically emerge from a vacuum, some children are LGBTQ, while others have LGBTQ family members, neighbors, friends, acquaintances, or caretakers.

If children are old enough to call each other slurs on the playground, they are absolutely old enough to know that other types of people exist and are worthy of dignity, rights, and respect. If children are old enough to recognize their own feelings and preferences---including feeling the same as or different from others--then they are old enough to be given language to express those feelings.

Being LGBTQ is no more "adult," prurient, or obscene than being cishet.

Children don't know the word "heterosexual," but nobody thinks that exposing them to fairy tales where princes woo princesses or Disney movies where the opposite-sex leads eventually pair up is "groooooooooming" or exposing them prematurely to the "het lifestyle."

Also, "sex education" can be as simple and straightforward as teaching children the names of their body parts and teaching them about consent---which is why, incidentally, age-appropriate sex education is proven to increase children's safety and health. Because they have no actual leg to stand on, bigots muddy the waters by insinuating that preschoolers are being taught the Kama Sutra.

As for History and Social Studies, children should learn about the events, movements, "big" people, everyday people, and laws that have made our world what it is today, with the essential key of learning what mistakes not to repeat, and the additional bonus of finding positive role models who inspire them. They're going to live in a world populated with a wide variety of people, so they need to learn about those people and be able to walk in their shoes.

Finally, I'm certainly a fan of diplomacy and civility, but thinking that a) bigots and zealots won't hurt us if we just keep our heads down and b) we invite (and therefore deserve) bigotry and abuse by being too "annoying" or "uncivil" is dangerously wrong, both morally and factually. It blames the battered spouse for "triggering"or "upsetting" their abuser, who is assumed to be a "reasonable" person who isn't wedded to being abusive.

I'd like for us to be able to stop talking about race, sexuality, gender, disability, and the like, but the onus should be on bigots and reactionaries to stop talking about them negatively first! Also, since many people still suffer in countless ways as a result of prejudice, discrimination, and bias, simply refusing to discuss these issues won't make them magically go away; it'll only make the victims of injustice feel alienated, hopeless, and invisible.

I have zero faith in our Public Schools (System) teaching minors anything pertaining to sexuality, including 'Gender Identification.'
Our Public Schools have proven an utter failure at teaching Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. They can't handle the 'Big Three' they certainly aren't qualified to teach anything else.
I'm not disregarding the importance of sexuality or all things deviant from the standard heterosexual relationships most of the world embraces. I believe knowledge is power, and it matters.
Exposing young, immature, impressionable minds to something that falls squarely into the 'Minority percentage' of behavior/perspective is promoting what makes this 'Left/Liberal/WOKE' agenda so utterly reprehensible to the vast majority of free thinking people, worldwide.

You do not demand respect/appreciation.

You earn it.

Leave children out of this theater. They've got more than enough on their shoulders already.

That's my .02 on it, and I've fought against the 'Establishment' all my g-damned life.

 

[Keket]

Hmm. I am not sure. I don't hear any active furry "hate". Actually, someone who lives up the road from me is a furry (fursuiter at that), we have only ever talked in passing, and I am not even sure that they know I am a part of the fandom per se. They must have their assumptions, as they wanted to commission my art - and initially they were surprised that I made anthro art at all. After that little discovery well... naturally they have heavy, heavy suspicions that I am in some way involved with the furry fandom lol. It's never been an actual topic in any of our conversations though.

I feel like the fact that it isn't something I openly talk about makes it harder for me to discern if it is accepted. I live in a liberal area, so a lot of things are accepted around here that may be frowned upon elsewhere. I think every place has its jerks, and I could think of a few people even within my friend group that would crack some jokes if they found out. Even so, we'd still be able to be good friends, and it is not something they would drop me for.

 

[quoting_mungo]

As an aside on the subject of QUILTBAG issues, including specifically the notion that it refers to a small portion of the population so shouldn't need to be mentioned in schools:
Wikipedia mentions one poll concluding the US LGBT population is about 7%. I've previously seen the rough estimate of 10% floating around in a lot of places. Compare this to US racial demographics: just short of 19% Hispanic/Latinx, about 12% Black/African American, just under 6% Asian, less than 1% Native American/Alaska Native; if you were to combine that with Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Native you'd still only just pass the 1% mark. (I mention the combination because they have in common that they are from peoples that natively occupied land now claimed as US soil.) Now, I'm not saying QUILTBAG identity is equivalent to race. What I am saying is that the size of a population being used to justify brushing threats and hardships faced by that population under the rug is hella shitty. And that arguing for doing so for one population but not another, when the two are of similar size, is hypocritical.

Obviously, the answer isn't to brush racism under the rug. That goes without saying, and I should think no one here thinks differently on that point.

But it should also be a given that a gay teacher shouldn't face reprimand (or lose their job) because they mention their marriage when asked by students. And, uh... I have bad news for you on that front. Whether the LGBT population is 5% or 10% or somewhere in between, all but the very smallest classrooms will have a minimum of one student falling under that umbrella, statistically speaking. Even if we accept for the sake of argument the premise that no one develops a queer identity as young as elementary school, it's highly unlikely that no one in the class has an LGBT parent, cousin, sibling, or beloved uncle (etc). What message is being sent to them when books with QUILTBAG characters are pulled from school libraries, or non-cishet teachers are replaced with more "acceptable" ones? Like... a small, vocal minority of parents are putting a whole lot of effort in making sure those kids face trauma, just so their own precious offspring isn't exposed to the idea that sometimes boys like boys or girls like girls (which, realistically, they're going to learn anyway).

A gay or trans* kid isn't going to not be gay or trans* just because they're not exposed to the idea. Not having the word for what you're feeling is not the same as not feeling it. And feeling something you don't have the words to articulate can in itself cause a lot of distress.

And, well, this all does tie back into furries. Like it or not, hostile attitudes towards QUILTBAGs contribute to hostile attitudes towards furries. They don't line up 1:1, but as I recall we've had at least a couple young members here on the forums that have mentioned their parents very clearly connecting the two and using homophobic slurs about furries as a whole. While it's not healthy for other reasons to allow the idea that furries are all gay (men) to stand unchallenged, trying to soften people who connect the two up to the idea of furries by saying "oh, no, not all furries are gay," is just throwing the QUILTBAG (and especially QUILTBAG furries) community under the bus. Some of the language being thrown around in hostility to furries is the same language used to attack QUILTBAG people ("groomer" etc). Standing up for the QUILTBAG community and showing solidarity is, honestly, in the best (self)interest of even cishet furries, for this reason.

It's not as though anthropomorphism in itself is what offends people who have a chip on their shoulder about furries. You ever seen anyone refuse to go to a football game because one of the teams had an animal mascot? No one is going to boycott Kellogg's because Tony the Tiger is the face of Frosties. Furries are not a significant enough target group to justify the Orangina commercials, yet those commercials (plural!) were produced.

I will stand by what I have said so many times, that in most of the world at large people don't actually care as much as furries often seem to think they do. All day every day. But that doesn't mean we can't also look at how the people who do have a stick up their ass justify slinging so much mud at a harmless hobby. And much of that often comes down to either conformism ("weird" being equated to "undesirable") or, frankly, queerphobia. Both of which are attitudes that cause a ton of harm outside of the narrow scope of people's relationship to furry fandom.

 

[Smityyyy]

I have zero faith in our Public Schools (System) teaching minors anything pertaining to sexuality, including 'Gender Identification.'
Our Public Schools have proven an utter failure at teaching Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. They can't handle the 'Big Three' they certainly aren't qualified to teach anything else.
I'm not disregarding the importance of sexuality or all things deviant from the standard heterosexual relationships most of the world embraces. I believe knowledge is power, and it matters.
Exposing young, immature, impressionable minds to something that falls squarely into the 'Minority percentage' of behavior/perspective is promoting what makes this 'Left/Liberal/WOKE' agenda so utterly reprehensible to the vast majority of free thinking people, worldwide.

You do not demand respect/appreciation.

You earn it.

Leave children out of this theater. They've got more than enough on their shoulders already.

That's my .02 on it, and I've fought against the 'Establishment' all my g-damned life.

Perhaps public schools would be able to offer better quality education if they were actually funded properly… or if educators were paid fair wages. Unfortunately, neither of those are the case. The United States education system is a joke… and part of that has to do with our provably ineffective and uneven funding structure.

But instead of addressing lack of resource distribution, unfair pay chasing out higher-quality educators, and overall yearly budget cuts — people just shrug and say they don’t trust the schools to do stuff.

Ok, so, let’s invest into our schools so that we can trust them instead of hand-waiving and using their poor performance as a reason to keep people in the dark about the world around them.

 

[Bambi]

Not going to lie on this, but North Carolina has been an interesting state on and off.

Our state has grown over the past few years and all of the new development taking place is making NC just a little bit faster of a state then it used to be. Discrimination against furries exists, but only on the basis that it's another element of counter-culture judging you. However I've never ran into outright, or outward judgment; I am also not introducing myself as a furry outright, since other things take precedent.

Like going out, gardening, and hitting the beach sometimes. <3 Yeee

 

[Minerva_Minx]

People are mostly awful, selfish, inconsiderate beings that in a group co form to the dumbest denominator and succumb to fear and hostility. Reminds me of MiB when K is telling J about knowing of aliens and protecting them.

By and large, no one cares about furries. They do care about the dynamic we represent: educated professionals with open acceptance. If you are going to sell fear, you need a demographic. Well, we're not statistically significant so being anti-furry isn't going to start a riot or major rebuttal. We do associate with QUILTBAG and openly accept. We do accept minorities. So, politicians and media use this because we can represent something larger to fear.

We are also a majority in the IT world. So most people will look the other way if say, Geek Squad, decides they need a furry day. Let face it, population hates the Help Desk but they won't say it publicly because they need the support.

Again, I used this before, but I was ridiculed at my office for being a furry until they found out I was their Engineer.

 

[Troj]

"Public schools are bad, so let's give up, and let's definitely not teach about those topics I just-so-happen to be ideologically opposed to" plays very neatly into the long-game strategy of a clique that wants to horde education and its myriad benefits for the powerful while keeping the general public ignorant, under-skilled, dependent, and subservient. Anyone who repeats that talking point is either in on the scam or has been taken in by the scam.

Exposing young, immature, impressionable minds to something that falls squarely into the 'Minority percentage' of behavior/perspective is promoting what makes this 'Left/Liberal/WOKE' agenda so utterly reprehensible to the vast majority of free thinking people, worldwide.

[Citation needed.]

Denying factual information and limiting productive discussion of issues pertinent to a not-insignificant portion of the society is not in the true spirit of freethought or democracy. Enacting policies and practices that actively exclude and disenfranchise some people just so that others can continue to enjoy the status quo that benefits them is not democratic, just, or fair. Stirring up "culture wars" over trivial, benign, or especially, totally-nonexistent issues and turning people (including kids) into political footballs in the process in a cynical bid for votes, wealth, and attention is what's reprehensible. (Not to mention, by the numbers, the parts of the country who've got themselves royally riled up about "wokeness" generally have lower populations and less economic power than the perceived "woke" regions of the country, so if we follow the logic of "Majority Rules," then California and New York should logically get to call the tune.)

Nobody's teaching CRT, pole-dancing, anal sex, or the finer points of gender transition to elementary schoolers. Nobody's furnishing school bathrooms with litter boxes for the "furry-identified" students. All of that crap has been intentionally fabricated by a collection of politicians, pundits, and special interest groups who know how to rile up their base for their own personal gain.

So, the people who genuinely won't leave children alone overwhelmingly aren't "the wokes;" they're the "anti-woke" culture warriors.

As for respect: admiration, deference, or awe should certainly have to be earned, but basic decency, civility, and respect should be afforded to all people unless they've done something to lose it--and even then, people are still worthy of their basic rights and dignity as beings. Even the most annoying pink-haired omnisexual polygender teapotkin with headmates is deserving of their rights and dignity as a being, and such things should never be contingent on whether or not they're "likable" or "pleasant."

By and large, no one cares about furries. They do care about the dynamic we represent: educated professionals with open acceptance. If you are going to sell fear, you need a demographic. Well, we're not statistically significant so being anti-furry isn't going to start a riot or major rebuttal. We do associate with QUILTBAG and openly accept. We do accept minorities. So, politicians and media use this because we can represent something larger to fear.

We are also a majority in the IT world. So most people will look the other way if say, Geek Squad, decides they need a furry day. Let face it, population hates the Help Desk but they won't say it publicly because they need the support.

Furries have become a dogwhistle (one among many!) to be sure. Few people care all that much about furries, but they do often care about the things furries symbolically represent--and so, they may either laud or attack furries in order to gesture or allude to those other things.

 

[The_Happiest_Husky]

Again you continue to use a phrase you were told my a memeber of the LGBT community told you they found off putting in your replies to that person.
Think of it this way, if someone used a word / phrase towards you, that you told them you found off putting, or offensive, and they continued to use that while communicating with you,
how would you take it.

I don't care if you a, a straight person, finds the term 'quiltbag' to be harmless, not everyone in the LGBT does, so when someone lets you know 'hey that comes across as a slur", maybe don't use that term when talking at that person, it's called courtesy. IF others don't mind it, right on toss it around with them.

No one cares, QUILTBAG is fine. Find something else to get offended about, there's plenty of actually valid things out there

 

[Troj]

What did you do with that shy and passive handler after that? Were they experienced or inexperienced? Did you suffer any injuries from those incidents?

They were extremely apologetic! They didn't mean any harm, and I didn't blame them for freezing in a new and overwhelming situation for them.

I've never been seriously injured, no. I'm fortunately very well-padded!

Re: Suiting up, I have needed help to get into some mascot costumes and other friends' fursuits. Knock on wood, I currently have only minimal troubles getting into my current fursuit.

"Take the L" means to take the loss--meaning, to concede defeat in a given situation.

When I introduced myself to the organizer of that event I mentioned, they were very friendly and pleasant, and I just hope I made a good-enough impression that they'd be open to perhaps having me suit alongside their characters someday.

So that time when that jerk showed-up, did you have a handler or were you going solo at that time? What was his goal of asking you all those questions? How did you responded to it? Would've been a funny story if you did, but how would you do that?

I was solo-ing at a downtown outdoor art festival.

I'm honestly not sure what his goal was, to the point where I've asked my friends or family what they think his deal was! If I had to guess, I think he was trying to assess whether I might have been an OFFICIAL character employed by the city for the event, or if I was a lowly busker ::::haughty sniff::: who was just performing for money or a creepy weirdo who might have ulterior motives. When talking to his kids, he used the "Don't interact with the homeless person" tone of voice.

So, he might've thought I was going to try to extract money out of him for a photo, like the people in Times Square who buy cheap costumes of copyrighted characters on Wish and then accost people for photos. I surely don't know!

It was in a wealthier area of town, and people in such areas can sometimes be, ah, finicky and prickly, shall we say.

What's your favorite part about the fandom? How did you find out about public fursuiting? When you do so, do you feel the responsibility of representing the fandom and/or maintaining (or improving) its image? Have you consulted any guides on public fursuiting before doing it?
How did you get your fursuit? Do you own any others than the dino you've mentioned? Mind if I see how your fursuit looks like?

I like the creativity, the inclusiveness, and the overall kindness of the community.

I feel a big responsibility to represent the fandom positively and accurately and to help improve its general image, yes! I see myself as an ambassador for the fandom.

I got the fursuit when a friend of mine with multiple suits got the suit and realized it didn't fit properly.

I have an older suit of Stitch from Lilo and Stitch that is fairly worn and a bit of a hassle to wear. That was my first fursuit!

Photo of me by Chatah Spots:

 

[Hollowsong]

Even the most annoying pink-haired omnisexual polygender teapotkin with headmates is deserving of their rights and dignity as a being, and such things should never be contingent on whether or not they're "likable" or "pleasant."

Do you have a problem with systems?

 

[Troj]

Do you have a problem with systems?

Not at all (especially since I think all people are technically systems). I'm just reciting the bargain-bin typical stereotype of the Left/queer people/"woke people" as conceived by the "anti-SJW/anti-woke" crowd. Point remains, it doesn't matter how "weird," "strange," or "annoying" you might find someone or their identities; they're still as deserving of rights and basic dignity as someone who's as straight as a Norman Rockwell painting.

 

[TyraWadman]

Wow.
You really went the extra Miles on that one.

8D

 

[Punji]

Just as a general thing, if you don't have the decency to address me directly when discussing my arguments, just don't at all. Be an adult for once in your life.

*Posts twice to create the illusion of length and scope when everything easily fits in a single post*

1-5 are not government sources. A government source ends in ".gov." News media sites such as CNN are not government sources. Political organizations are not government sources. The only things you included here are previously enacted laws which are supposedly no longer valid and therefore are irrelevant to your argument.

6/7: Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary for the proposed rule says "the Department proposes to revise its Section 1557 regulation in order to better comply with the mandates of Congress, address legal concerns, relieve billions of dollars in undue regulatory burdens, further substantive compliance, reduce confusion, and clarify the scope of Section 1557 in keeping with pre-existing civil rights statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national origin, sex, age, and disability."

This sounds completely fine to me. Where's this supposed repeal? It sounds like they're just trying to trim the fat, not revoke the protection of anyone.

8: The first document mentions the following: "In response to these comments, we are not finalizing the proposal to require explicit non-discrimination requirements in the CoPs and we are instead deferring to the non-discrimination requirements of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act." Literally not an issue.

9: Not even going to bother to read this one, but it seems like yet another case of "my rights are more important that yours." Religious freedom is just as important as sexual freedom. Neither should overrule the other.

10: Not even going to read the actual sources for this one either, they're appreciated but not necessary here. Disability is not related to sexual orientation. It's genuinely offensive to both the disabled and the LGBT to say one is likely to be the other. It diminishes the existing identity of disabled individuals as significant on their own right and implies LGBT people are "disabled."

11/12: Once again this new proposed rule does nothing of the sort. As the document states, "in summary, the proposed rule would: Require grantees to comply with applicable nondiscrimination provisions passed by Congress and signed into law. Provide that HHS complies with applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its grant programs."

Further: "In the proposed rule, HHS would repromulgate most of the provisions of the 2016 rulemaking verbatim. HHS would revise two provisions of the 2016 rulemaking to require grantees to comply with applicable nondiscrimination provisions passed by Congress and signed into law, including legislation ensuring the protection of religious liberty, and to provide that HHS complies with all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its grant programs."

"HHS is committed to fully enforcing the civil rights laws passed by Congress. The proposed rule would better align its grants regulations with federal statutes, eliminating regulatory burden, including burden on the free exercise of religion. HHS is affirming that it will comply with all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its grants programs."

Once again, at best this is an argument of "my rights are more important that your rights." Ironically once again the entire cause of this thread's downfall.

13: And lastly once again while appreciated, citations are not required for this. Argument of "my rights are more important that your rights," not systemic discrimination.

It's abundantly clear you're just muddying the water with excess posts while not responding to anything you can't argue against. If you're just going to waste my time and not take these issues seriously, I'm just going to stop responding and report you for posting politics.

It helps no one to shout over who's rights are more important, as this thread has once again demonstrated. We can't progress in society if everyone is only clamouring for their own goals and devaluing the rights & freedoms and needs of others. Support each other and ourselves, not ourselves over each other.

 

[PercyD]

Perhaps public schools would be able to offer better quality education if they were actually funded properly… or if educators were paid fair wages. Unfortunately, neither of those are the case. The United States education system is a joke… and part of that has to do with our provably ineffective and uneven funding structure.

But instead of addressing lack of resource distribution, unfair pay chasing out higher-quality educators, and overall yearly budget cuts — people just shrug and say they don’t trust the schools to do stuff.

Ok, so, let’s invest into our schools so that we can trust them instead of hand-waiving and using their poor performance as a reason to keep people in the dark about the world around them.

I have a strong theory that this is part of the feature and not the flaw-- basically, that the under funding of education is purposeful.

As we've seen countless times, a more educated population cannot be controlled or persuaded to vote against their own self interests.
An under educated population can be more easily persuaded to accept the scapegoating of other people (QUILTBAG, minorities, neurodivergent folks, the disabled). -- Which ties directly into what @quoting_mungo so wonderfully synthesized.

It all ties back into the furry community's interest in increasing acceptance and decreasing othering (i.e. fascism). Not just for the QUILTBAG, minority, neurodivergent, and disabled furries, but for all of us. People who are educated are more likely to go through the process of considering the other. (More likely, not absolute. But you can at least be more likely to recognize a shitty appeal to fear as a reason to hate someone).

By the by, people keep throwing the word fascist around. I'm using it in it's literal sense. I'm off work (for now), so heres that video btw:

 

[Hollowsong]

It's come up a few times in this thread: what does quiltbag mean?

 

[PercyD]

It's come up a few times in this thread: what does quiltbag mean?

Alternative acronym for LGBTQ+
QUILTBAG: Queer & Questioning, Unidentified, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay & Genderqueer

A lot of Queer folks use it since it's more approachable then LGBTQ+. People also remember it better. And it's fun.

 

[Firuthi Dragovic]

I gotta disagree with you here. Heres why.

My parents are civil rights activists. They had to fight, constantly.
Before them, my grandparents. My grandfather faught in WWII. When he got back, his batillion had to crush a KluKlux Klan group trying to establish itself in NC. Til this day, the KKK isn't very established there. It wasnt "subtle". They literally ran a miltary campaign.

My Great Great Grandmother actually was able to get her 40 acres and a mule. And it wasn't just handed to her. She had to fight for it. Even though my great great grandfather was lynched.

So. This this is personal. You can maybe teach me something new? Maybe. But subtlety aint it. All the subtle people were killed off, lynched, and their communities destroyed by the KKK.

Somehow blaming people fighting for their lives for "lack of subtlety" is victim blaming at its least. And its silencing at its worst. No group has subtlely convinced the majority that they were human beings. These hate groups have zero interest in seeing us as people. Period.
You will subtlety get your ass kicked, as seen by January 6th.

You have to be direct. Intentional. You have to organize. You have to recgonize what power you need to focus on. This is not time to play patty cake with fascists. We already fought a whole fucking war about this. You are utterly wrong.

And here you demonstrate you have NO CLUE what "subtle" is. I would normally walk away from this, but clearing the air on this is crucial.

From dictionary.com:

subtle;
adjective, sub·tler, sub·tlest.

1. thin, tenuous, or rarefied, as a fluid or an odor.
2. fine or delicate in meaning or intent; difficult to perceive or understand: subtle irony.
3. delicate or faint and mysterious: a subtle smile.
4. requiring mental acuteness, penetration, or discernment: a subtle philosophy.
5. characterized by mental acuteness or penetration: a subtle understanding.
6. cunning, wily, or crafty: a subtle liar.

Notice something that isn't in the definition of 'subtle'? Yeah, 'subtle' is not 'passive'. Activists make this mistake all the time. The idea that 'subtle' is about playing nice is completely fabricated. "Subtle" and the refusal to play nice means backstabs, double-crosses, espionage work. Getting inside and destroying them from within.

I actually tried to do a search on "military raids on the KKK" to see if I could find the raid you spoke of, and though I didn't find that raid quickly enough, the first real hit I've gotten so far is one about a Purple Heart recipient infiltrating a KKK murder plot (2015, so not yours). I won't link it here as I do not have full verification on how true the story truly is (it's on military.com, if anyone wants to try and prove whether it's real or not), but if it's even half true, THAT is "subtle" combat.

Let's go one further and put the definition for activism here, from the same site:

activism;
noun
the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.
Philosophy.

1. a theory that the essence of reality is pure activity, especially spiritual activity, or process.
2. a theory that the relationship between the mind and the objects of perception depends upon the action of the mind.

Notice: "sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc." If you're looking for a "subtle" means of vigorous involvement to achieve political goals, well.... how many people go into a courtroom to hear the lawyers, exactly?

"Subtle" and "Activism" are not mutually exclusive things. Stop treating them as such.

P.S. Got some more detail on that battalion crushing the KKK group? I'm trying to see if I can read up on it through a Google search.