/fur/ - Furry★

>>49992

I don't buy coffee or soda, though.

>scalies

>dragons

>being different things

>>49995

The funny thing is that I tend to lift a bit less with the arm I I masturbate with than with my other arm.

show us more OP i want to see cats

I think we should make ones for the species that aren't there, like birds, gryphons, cows, etc etc.

>>50003

Well, first, I'd say I wanna fuck that one so hard my dick would peel like a banana.

Then, I'd say they're people obsessed with size. Probably fat fetishists. They want to paint themselves as a stupid farm animal so they don't have any responsibility in an RP or a social situation other than being a slut. They think they're being down home, but really they're just easy to go down on.

Probability of zoophilia: 80%

Does it have one for goats or should I just refer to canines?

>>50008

Goats

What furries think it means: You're headstrong and independent, but also kind to others, and really like to cuddle. You think your voice is cute all the time.

What it really means: You played Undertale and liked it.

Probability of being a Zoophile: 10%

>>50010

Goats and sheep have a history of being fucked. Probability should be at least 90%.

>>49990 (OP)

My fursona was a fairly quick tossin, where I'd doubt it had much real reason behind it that way.

Unfortuantely, I've yet to really do or otherwise get much art of the guy, anyway.

My more thought-out guy's a kobold, but it's not really a 'fursona', more of its own character I've been fiddling with in various daydreams

>>49994

It's more of an issue with the lot as a whole. They lop entire groups together, but for some reason dragons get a specific note.

Not that I mind the specific note, it's just, I'd prefer it to "all scalies are this", as it were. Hell, even dogs is a tighter grouping than reptiles

my species is trash. literal garbage

>>50029

They essentially made the raptors into dogs. I could have accepted this if they had so much as handwaved that they literally put dog DNA into them (similar to how the put frog DNA into the dinosaurs in the original) for whatever reason, but they didn't. They just made the "chaotic evil" antagonists of the entire franchise (the book expounds this by mentioning that raptors kill for the pleasure of it, as opposed to the rexes which are basically neutral-aligned) into loyal pets, with no explanation whatsoever as to how this works.

And then they ripped off HTTYD2's subplot by having them just switch loyalty to whichever is the bigger alpha at the time.

>>50039

Truth be told the main reason I complain about it is, everything but scalies gets a specific lot. Canines, felines, horses, and so on, are all types of mammals.

Reptiles is not.

I can see why you'd want dragons to be seperate, but I'd argue that's why you should do other reptiles seperate.

>>50040

Even if they were literal dogs, I'd still be annoyed at the 'alpha' usage.

The guy that beats you up when you question him, and leads you to food is the alpha.

The guy what rubs your nose and gives you food when you're hungry is something very different.

>>50054

That's wat I mean, though. The theoretical application to raptors doesn't matter. It's not even the actual application of an alpha.

It's just using the term cheaply to something tangibly in the area.

>>50062

I love bugs, and would gladly lay with the mantis qt, but I'm not really sure how you could reasonably have your fursona be a bug.

>>50010

I would say yes to all of that except thinking my voice is cute, too deep and low energy to be cute. Also, replace "liked it" with "gained a borderline unhealthy obsession with it" .

>>50062

You mean speciest?

>>50065

Mine is a bee because I like to box. Also I am fascinated by insects. And based on what Ali said, I had to either pick a butterfly or a bee. And butterflies are girly so I picked a bee.

>>50022

Look at horse, but with more dignity and "special snowflake" attached to it.

Chance of being a Zoophile: 50%

>>50071

Deer don't have big dicks though, though I guess they are sorta symbols of virility too (and my sona has a horse dick anyway so the shoe fits)

>>50093

Pretty sure they were given their own category, mate.

>>50001

>>50103

for someone who boasts about the books he's read he certainly doesn't like to read

>>50096

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee".

>>50054

>Most people only know a handful of reptiles from widely divergent species.

I'd add on to that that that compounds itself since it also makes it less likely for people to pick those uncommon reptiles as bases for characters, so their rarity gives them even less of a reason to get specific in the "analysis".

Even when people intentionally go looking for more uncommon animal species, they'll usually go through mammals first.

Uncommon reptile characters are basically just suffering double from same things uncommon mammal ones are since they're starting off less popular from the getgo.

>>50128

Pretty sure we're talking more generalized groups that most 'sonas belong to rather than specific characters.

As a side note, to me you've become another one of those people on this board that will jump at the chance to post about their character(s) at literally every opportunity and now even when it isn't actually called for to the point that your attention whoring has made me dislike you as a person.

I know you're perfectly fine with people hating on your OC's (you post about it more than often enough), so hopefully you're just as fine with at least one more person hating you for being annoying to deal with, even anonymously.

Sorry about getting offtopic, just wanted to make sure you knew.

>>50139

Have to agree. Even if the OC is relevant, you've added in a bunch of information that is unneeded for the thread's subject.

This is about stereotypes for the species or rather group chosen, not the actual characters. Actual character is irrelevant.

>>50140

Subject: Fursona analysis thread

>What does your fursona say about you Anon?

I'm pretty sure this thread is about posting your fursona and describing what it means to you as a person. It's not about shitposting at anyone who happens to have a fursona. Obviously this thread derailed into hipster angst but that doesn't change the original topic.

>>50094

Nothing is absolute. Sometimes people aren't two dimensional cartoon characters.

>>50103

I was speaking on the stereotype about foxes being sluts in the furry community as a whole, not the single image.

You all need to stop jerking off so much, it's making you hate what you love.

>>50145

If you completely ignore the images posted, as well as all discussion within the thread, by all means, you could make that interpretation.

I don't know where you could get that stereotype other than from the image. I've never heard that take, at all. Everything in the 'furry community' is a slut, in any case. Foxes are historically regarded as 'attractive', so it's no surprise within the furry lot, they'd get lopped into the same 'sexy' type area.

>>50147

It's a bit of an older thing at this point. There have been several iterations of "species stereotypes," mostly typecasting bunnies and foxes as the used condoms of the community, because of the overwhelming amount of pornographic art they get relative to other species. Of course, over time we've gone through enough Flavour of the Month species that it's not quite as bad as it used to be, but the worst offenders are typically canids, often with glowing genitals and radioactive "tattoos" on their fur while being atrociously off-colour.

An older version of the dragon stereotype was that the owner was a self-centered egotistical prick, for example. Of course, I've known people that were extremely into specific animals like wolves or dragons without necessarily being a "furry," but that's almost entirely because we went through a dark age where "furry" effectively meant nothing but porn.

>>50148

I've not heard of it for foxes, but I have certainly heard that they're the popular choice, and otherwise regarded as one of the 'sexiest' types.

I'm just not convinced 'slut' was ever a defining stereotype, beyond that all furries are massive sluts.

Canines are always shit because they're pretty much the bottom bin unimaginative, so people're always trying to figure a way to set their boring mutt apart.

I was in that. Technically still am, given that I tend to run the term 'xenophile' over 'furry', as it's rather specifically towards actual fantasy-tier creatures rather than humanized animals.

Truth be told, I'm only here now because /fur/ has discussion, and I long to expand the typical furry lot beyond an incredibly dull human format with some extra bits.

Though, regardless, I'd point out lustings =/= fursona. I love dragons still, but I'd not want to be one. Too powerful. I like the underdogs myself. At that point, I'd want to be a kobold.

>>50152

Use the word what fits right, not the word what sounds the smartest, mate.

>>50151

>>50146

>They're probably the most likely anthro character where the owner put little to no thought into any meaning in the character aside from being a vehicle for sexual fantasies.

Probably the best way to put it.

The character isn't there to be a character, it's just a mannequin to apply fetishes to.

Furry mannequins just happen to be foxes.

>>50155

Personally I'm not much a fan of the personification to begin with. Encourages yet more of that gay 'human but with a snout' trash.

As to the rest, sounds to me more like 'community' and, though I hate the term, "escapism". It strikes me that if you're in the 'furry' lot just for the animal personification, you're not really all that interested in the prospect of animal people, and are at most appreciative of the aesthetics.

>>50156

Mostly accurate, except that they aren't really meant to be characters, as it is that they're meant to be the face of the person using them.

I don't want to say they 'are' the person using them, as usually they're not much alike, but it's the same area as it were.

>>50157

I think you misunderstand personification. It's not precisely making something more like a human, but applying typically human qualities to something decidedly non-human. Something like Homeward Bound, in all versions, involves personifying the animals. Even in the versions where they don't speak, the writing uses personification as a rhetorical tool to apply human-like intelligence and reasoning to the animals, used as a literary device to make the pets more likeable and relateable. Things like Redwall, Warrior Cats, Secrets of Nimh, Zootopia, etc.. use personification where, even though the animals are otherwise pretty much entirely feral animals (often being bipedal despite hardly changing their anatomy to make it "sensible") they think and speak like humans would. In a lot of these cases, they still also exhibit otherwise animal behaviors or concerns - in Warrior Cats, for example, a heavy theme throughout the book is that of territory, hunting, and tribalism. In Zootopia and Redwall, the underlying sociological concern was the divide of prey and predators.

That stuff is primarily what I enjoy. A world of animals intelligent as we humans are, with different (yet similar) concerns. I think there is a lot more creativity to be found in these sorts of designs - while I'm sure you could write a book about tribal Natives using the same plot as Warrior Cats, it would capture the imagination far less because it would most likely read more like a history novel than a fantasy realm where otherwise 'ordinary' things are extraordinary.

>>50159

I prefer to keep the "human" aspect separate. I do not think of kobolds as of any relation to humans, they are a separate entity. An alien people. Yes, they might be relateable, but that does not make them human. They are their own.

Regardless, though, I assumed it was around the fursona scope, which'd be more of a personification of the creator.

>>50160

Personification is not the same as a persona. Personification pretty strictly refers to the literary tool used for rhetoric. Beauty and the Beast is personification, not just of the Beast, but of all the furniture that move and act like humans. They are still literally furniture and diningware, but they're personified.

A fictional creature that has been ascribed human traits is considered personified, because it's a literary tool. It has nothing to do with making something human in a literal sense.

>>50162

Eh, I'd argue the word is fluid enough to apply to fursonas. At least in the context of, if you will, making an animal personification of one's self as it were. Which was more or less what I was leaning towards, given the context of the lot.

It's more how it is linked. I don't like thinking in terms of "human qualities", or "thinking and speaking like a human would".

Yes, those may technically apply. But I don't like to narrow my thinking in such a way. I prefer to think of how a sapient species in the field would act, would grow, and would function.

Human should not play a part in the lot

I don't understand why furries try to make their fucking fursonas something more than just sex puppets and be taken seriously. It's not like you're creating an independent character for a story, it's just you but furry or, more commonly, an idealized version of you and furry and that's pretty pathetic outside of the usual furry circlejerk.

I think most just get high off their own farts and think their sonas are incredible hot shit and make whole worlds and backgrounds centered around them when in reality nobody could possibly care about it.

>>50164

Because not everyone views their fursona as themselves, but more so, a character that they can act like in a roleplaying setting. I have several characters, all of them being various things I find to be intriguing; all of them have little bits of me in them, but none of them are even remotely close to myself. I find it stimulating to build out from these branches to make something deeper than just a character I use to play pretend on the internet sometimes; because who knows, maybe I'll want to write a novel in the future, and it'll be way easier if I already have the groundwork laid out.

Not everyone has fursonas to just jerk it on the internet with other people, I sometimes just enjoy being not-me for a little while.

>>50164

Personally, I think you, and possibly them, are confusing the term "fursona" with "OC".

>>50168

No, it's just faux-intelligence. People have done this for a long time. I suppose it is a form of art, but it's certainly not new.

>>50169

This.

It's just fancy language to appear smart, rather than simply the best language for what you're trying to say or otherwise convey.

>>50148

Foxes being sluts is nothing more than confirmation bias. It's mostly because there are a lot of foxes in the fandom (and canids in general) and also a lot of sluts in the fandom. It's like going to a club where there's a lot of orgies going on, noting that many participants have brown hair, and concluding that brown hair makes people sluts. But the truth is, there's just a lot of people with brown hair, and you've walked into a place where everyone is a slut.

>>50152

While much of this is technically correct or at least hypothetically correct (contrary to what others have said, as they don't understand), you present it in a very pretentious and self-centered manner. The placing of random nonsense markings on furry's otherwise-completely-generic and non-discernible OCs, because they're always naked (because they're always drawn fucking), is something not a lot of people think about, but it drives the process. The reason is because nobody draws their own OCs anymore; they just get commissions, from a variety of artists. If it's just a single artist drawing their own character over and over, it's always going to be able to be recognizable as that character, because the art will be consistent. But if you get different artists drawing it, then it will never be able to look like the same character, because unlike humans, animals don't have discernible faces. So they just slap something on there, like purple paws or spiral markings on their shoulders, or a "tattoo", so that no matter the art style, no matter how much the character doesn't look like other drawings of it, it's still recognizable. It has become, at this point, little more than a nametag on their body that reads: "Hi, my name is 'X'".

>>50166

If a fursona is not part of you then it's not a fursona, it's just a character. If you created a furry character with a few traits you can relate to that doesn't make it your fursona. I could relate and roleplay as Geralt of Rivia but I wouldn't call it my witchersona or whatever the fuck.

>>50167

I know the difference but would you mind explaining yourself? Maybe I had it wrong.

>>50168

A lot of motherfuckers try to look intelligent in this anonymous furry board it seems and that's the worst people you can engage with.

>>50181

I'm glad we're having this discussion again.

A persona is a character. If you are roleplaying as a drunken religious hammer-wielding god-fearing dwarf in a D&D campaign, then that is your persona so long as you wear his mask, even if you've never touched booze, hammers, and think god is a sham IRL.

Same thing with fursonas, it's just (fur). If you have multiple furry characters and you roleplay as all of them, then your fursona changes.

>>50137

I admit I was running on very little sleep when I posted this, and wasn't really thinking about the thread. I'd gotten 4 hours of sleep, followed by 10 hours of driving and doing deliveries, neither of which is normal for me. I think I assumed it was another "post your 'sona" thread, without reading it. Really, the only one I post to laugh at the hate is the sparklegenet.

I used to have a fursona, for years, and I don't see either of my two listed here. Until 2012, I was an otter, specifically Ollie Canal's "Lutrai" (Ollie is a pretty cool guy, and I had his OK for my character). After that, I called myself a skunk. I still have friends from both eras who call me by my otter's or my skunk's name. Anyone have generalizations for those? See below, re: otters.

>>50148

>>50151

Foxes used to be the generic, stereotype furry. It seemed, maybe 15-20 years ago, as though everybody was a fox. And "yiff" was supposedly the noise foxes make when having sex. Which species are the cum-dumpsters varies, though. Then it was foxes. Rabbits had a short vogue. Now it's otters, after Adam Wan began drawing them as cutely tiny and insanely stretchy (I vaguely recall one picture showing someone fisting one of 'em and having their fist appear in another galaxy).

>>50168

What they said seems to me to be about 60% on-point technical jargon and 40% Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

>>50172

>But if you get different artists drawing it, then it will never be able to look like the same character, because unlike humans, animals don't have discernible faces

...unless you're Trigger Happy Squirrel, the guy whose 'sona/character is literally one of the actual squirrel suits from the "Trigger-Happy TV" sketches. An artist I know says he gets irate if the badges he buys every year don't look exactly identical. It drove my friend to the point of throwing out an uncharacteristic "would it be wrong if I just photocopied last year's?" though his actual decision was simply to stop taking his commissions.

>>50181

Even self-inserts straight up aren't fursonas, as they effectively exist separate from you.

They are you, as a character, in a situation. As opposed to simply being your interaction or face.

>>50183

>this faggot again

No. A persona is merely the face you wear in interaction, as it were. It is not necessarily a character.

I'd make the argument, even when using an existing character as your persona, it's different from the character itself, since ultimately it's just your means of interacting with what have you.

It has no story of its own, outside of prior to the point you were using it as a persona.

>>50128

Oh, it's the "let-me-spam-my-dull-OCs" guy.

I would write a lengthy post about how vapid this character is and how all those "details" tell us exactly nothing about the character, but it would fall on deaf ears so why the fuck should I bother.

>>50210

You basically just did all of that, though.

>>50210

As said, I was stupidly tired. Basically, misunderstood the thread. But hey, if you want to know if my OCs have depth, you'd be welcome to ask questions about them. If I posted much more detail about them, I'd get a lot of "tl;dr" or claims that nobody wants to read the life story of some autistic OC. As for them being dull, isn't that basically the way opinions go here? EVERYTHING is either too flashy or too plain, too colorful or too drab, too detailed or too boring, too common or too esoteric.

Ehh, I think it's all pretty subjective. But I'd use "fursona" when the creator says it's 'me as an anthro' and it shares several attributes with the creator, and "OC" or "character" when those qualifications aren't met.

>>50218

How do those glasses stay on

They're not even hanging, they're just sitting there perfectly upright

>>50224

I don't think artists think about it. One of my characters wears glasses, and she had magnets implanted that they stick to. I'd imagine some would have clips to grip the muzzle, one on each side.

>>50231

Special snowflake raccoons. Little more.

>>50248

If I wear a mask, am I someone else?

No. Of course not.

A fursona is literally the creator.

>>50249

Are Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Tweety Bird, Sylvester, et al literally Mel Blanc?

>>50250

No, but then, they aren't being fielded the same way. Additionally, they have history, character, behind them.

A fursona does not.

It's like making a guy in, say, Habo Hotel. That's you. That's the thing you use to interact with the gameworld. Without you, the thing doesn't exist. It cannot be separate from you.

>>50252

A fursona does not have history or character behind them? Is that what you're saying?

They are being fielded similarly though. The voice Mel Blanc used to bring those characters to life means that they are effectively his masks - just because he was reading off of a script doesn't make it less of a mask he was swapping out.

If I make a guy in Habbo Hotel, then let someone else play that guy after a while, is it separate from me? Literally who is the guy?

(By the way, that would be called an 'avatar'.)

>>50253

No. They do not. They are not, after all, characters.

Any personality they may have is the personality of the owner. Same for history.

Now, this is where the lines get a touch blurry, as there's also self-inserts what fit this line. However, their stories are divergent. They exist on their own.

Firstly, yes, using a script abso-fucking-lutely changes the lot. You're comparing effectively player interaction to a story. If you at least went the route of roleplay, you might have a point, but no, reading from a script is sure as hell not the same thing as a loose means of interaction.

Anyway, no, they're not fielded similarly at all. Again, one's for a story, the other's for interaction.

It'd be that other guy's. It wouldn't be its own character.

That's effectively what a fursona is.

>>50255

Honestly I don't think that's a real argument, my dude

The lack of baneposting in this thread is disconcerting.

>>50260

For you

>>50260

What did he mean by this?

>>50232

Really? I'm not even a nigger though.

Ah well

>>50254

I suppose I see the logic in this: a "fursona" is a character with the creator's personality, and a "character" or "OC" is a character with a different personality. Strictly speaking, I'd tend to agree. That being said, do we really need to draw a clear line? Must people use these created terms exactly 'properly'? Must they have, and be used only in accordance with, a strict definition?

>>50275

Niggers don't use raccoons as their fursonas. Ever. They usually go with horses and then give them dreadlocks. If you ever ever see a fursona with dreadlocks, it's 99% guaranteed that the owner is a black guy.

>>50287

>didn't get the coon joke

the latter's true though

I think the next question is, which species DOESN'T say autist, speshul snowflake?

>>50295

None. everything is either painfully generic or a special snowflake. There is no in between.

>>50001

>You're a worthless "scene" kid who simply follows whatever fad is currently trendy. You probably also have a Twitter and have tweeted at least 4 times while reading this article

I don't follow the fads because all of them are shit. But I do have a twitter presence I have to maintain because streaming shit. Which is a whole new level of cancer

On a side note, god damn I wish Kaa would open online commissions the stupid fuck. I want to throw money at him but he only does con commissions and no way I'll show up to one of those shit-shows.

>>50029

Right on so many levels, it was really damn stupid.

>>50040

This was really stupid too and way too fanservicy. "Raptors are so cool, but they're killing people!" It's like they want to rip out what made them interesting in the movies in the first place and thats not even counting the books.

Fuck I need more of these fursona reviews they're great

>>50290

Crows before hoes

>>50290

Crows are cool, and that's a sweet character.

I nearly made a crow for mine, but I decided against it, as I've not really got the personality for a crow.

>>50297

>Fuck I need more of these fursona reviews they're great

In a fursona thread from a few weeks back I did a bunch of dumb reviews, though it was targeted at specific characters rather than entire species. I enjoyed writing it up and would be willing to do it again. It's kind of on a similar level as OP's reviews.

It does not matter if you have autism or not, anything that has 'sona' is autistic. Reality is hard to face for people like you, but that does not change the fact that a sona is autistic.

>>50328

persona is a good game though

>>50296

Of course. How else can everyone be mercilessly mocked?

So how about skunk characters? How about otters (and I don't mean the stretchy black holes Zaush draws)?

>>50385

>The stoner thing started with one person

I doubt that. Weed is often described as smelling "skunky", so there is an obvious line of reasoning, there.

>>50387

Nah, the next fad species is raccoons. Nick Wilde might have tried very hard to steer kids back to foxes, but Rocket Raccoon is just too goddamn cool. Every kid in elementary school has GoTG shit on their lunchboxes and backpacks right now; give it five years or so and we're going to have as many raccoon fursonas as there are foxes, right now. You can take that one to the bank.

I just hope I still won't be stuck in this fandom by then, to see this happen. Fuck.

>>50395

Great, I can't wait for

>DAE trash panda xD???

>>50420

because dragons are awful

>>50420

Because dragons are trash and only exist for size difference fetish plays

>>50420

Consider that a lot of dragons are probably rooted from like Digimon and stuff like that. While Veemon and Guilmon are cuties and should be treasured, most people who just almost strictly copy such a character with little thought into it are underage, autistic, or both.

>>50424

These are fictional characters that don't need to exist by strict rules. You can have a human sized dragon if you wanted to.

>>50420

Be a kobold. Basically the same thing as a dragon, only without the autism, and smaller.

>>50424

Just because you want somewhat larger girls doesn't mean you want full on macro shit, anon.

>>50424

my dragon is roughly 4-5ft tall standing on all fours

>>50426

how's that any different from a ton of other sonas being based on other cartoon characters?

>>50429

>implying kobolds aren't dripping with autism

>>50441

these words aren't very familiar to people who don't know the dnd mythos

also I like quadrupeds

>>50438

harmarist you little shit fucker

>>50010

>What it really means: You played Undertale and liked it.

fuck off i made my sona based off another canon goat

>>50395

>Weed is often described as smelling "skunky", so there is an obvious line of reasoning, there

Well, yes, though there was, for a long time, ONE stoner skunk character.

>>50436

>>50440

Haven't heard them called sluts beflore. Got a kobold m'self, and she's not into dragons... or other kobolds. No unusually high sex drive, either. She's dating a tiger.

>>50438

That's an adorable kobold. Has a cute snoot.

>>50441

Dragonborn are cancer.

One of my favorite ERP sessions has been between my male dragon and a female kobold. So much fun!

>>50485

>not going argonian explicitly for that

Bonus points for realizing it means somewhere down the Septim line, one of 'em had an affair with his handmaiden.

>>50429

A little off-topic, but I don't think I've ever seen a male kobold. Do they even exist?

>>50502

That's the beauty of cloacas.

Don't know until it's too late.

>>50514

Depends on who's drawing it.

Egg-laying hips ought to be a decisively female trait, you ask me.

Tabletop stuff proper tends to be just male, anyway, when it comes to beast or monster races. Especially some of the older stuff.

>>50462

you got me, anon.

>>50515

Wouldn't a beefy tail cause the hips to be wider anyways?

>>50648

Blank looking, but then, that's not inherently bad

Shirt is undoubtedly cutting off circulation

>>50648

>no dick

0/10

>>50231

You spent hours looking at pictures of animals and chose that one because it was cute and would help you feel cute.

I know because my fursona is a Red Panda

>>50695

Is there Richard Stallman as a Gnu by any chance?

>>50696

That's not necessarily true of everyone. Red pandas are totemic to me, so it makes sense that I would use one as my own persona within the furry community.

>>50703

Red Pandas are the animal embodiment of NEETs.

>solitary/anti-social

>sedentary

>depressed

>doesn't want to mate/doesn't know how

>eats a lot

It fits with my personality tbh

>>50709

That's actually a pretty gross misunderstanding of red pandas in the wild. They are a solitary animal, yes, but there are many species like that, and it's related to gestation periods and pack occurrences. Mothers raise the children alone until the children are of suitable age to go off on their own, and this isn't unique to red pandas. They very well know how to mate, they just have an abnormally short season of less than a weak.

They eat a suitable amount of calories for their body, and move around a lot - they are a crepuscular territorial animal. They may seem sedentary for the same reason that a cat seems sedentary - their most active times are when humans are typically asleep, and also at times of night where it'd be hard to capture good video of their activity.

By the way, red pandas are predators. They eat bugs and eggs, and will fuck small birds up. They used to not have natural predators against themselves, but deforestation has driven clouded and snow leopards into their territory in the wild, which is a small contribution to their endangered status (but it's most human poaching that's been the problem.)

And seriously, you can't ascribe depression to an entire species like that. You're just clearly projecting with that point.

>>50709

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8002978.stm

They are the only known non-primate (i.e. not a monkey) that can taste artificial sweeteners.

Red pandas are actually incredibly fascinating creatures because they're decently unique. They are loosely related to mustelids but there's really no other creature even remotely close to their lineage, and current science suggests that there used to be enormous bear-sized red pandas in the past. Even then, there's actually two different kinds of red pandas as they are now, despite the fact that both of them live very close to one another.

>>50711

It was more of an exaggeration to begin with. The depressed part was more about "What your fursona says about you." Although you could argue most furries are depressed compared to other people

>>50799

>Yes, most furry art can be seen wholly at face value, but again it's just that most artists are terrible, art in general tends to be in a pretty bad spot right now because we live in a world of quantity over quality

It's not technical skill I'm talking about. It's entirely just how one looks at what they're doing. Like there were a lot of painters that were technically not as competent as some of their peers but still tried to say something. Like if you posted Picasso's skeleton picture to /loomis/ they'd likely tear it to shreds over anatomy/composition issues but it's still a painting that has more of a message than 90% of furry art.

>Instead of having deep, well-thought out meanings, it's about churning out something that looks good and that's it

it's about money first and foremost. Most furry artists have never had anything beyond a McJob and to them living off art is something that they need to do in order to survive.

Despite living off furry art being mostly unfulfilling and being extremely risky. (once the economy crashes do you think you'll still get people wanting to drop 700$ on your ychs?) Instead of honing their craft and becoming skilled enough to have a consistent source of revenue they'd rather just be paid amateurs forever until they either have to get a real job to pay for their mortgage or quit drawing entirely.

>And in a way, this is completely okay. It's not inherently bad, it's just different.

To be entirely honest this comes off as low standards. Like "this is the way things always are and I can't imagine it being better". I can easily envision a world where anthro art has a better reputation besides "cartoon" and "yiffe"

>>50801

>tfw don't know if sarcasm or not

>>50804

>To be entirely honest this comes off as low standards.

I don't quite mean it in that way. By all means, I can certainly enjoy something that's high-effort, but for example if you take League of Legends, there are over a hundred characters, each with multiple unique portraits - the portraits themselves aren't inherently trying to say something deep, they just have to look good so people enjoy using them for extended periods of time.

It's the same way as fast food. You can claim that fast food is low quality food, and you would be relatively correct, fast food has its place in being quick, moderately cheap (relative to other places) and accessible. Even then, there are standards that are held to for those foods, and those standards are rising. Everyone makes fun of Taco Bell's beef because it used to be terrible in the past, but now it's decent. Not as good as properly cooked ground beef, but it's also not sludge.

It's just that it actually has its place. No one should be eating nothing but fast food, the same as no one should be appreciating only quickly-churned out art.

The same is true of current furry art. In terms of pornographic material, there's no reason for it to have deep undertones. It has its place; it's just that currently, it relatively has too large of a space compared to good art. It's literally what I said - not inherently bad. Don't blame the art itself.

>>50804

>tfw don't know if sarcasm or not

It's not. I'm not saying that Sonichu is good, but I'm pointing out that it came about because of other inspirations. What I'm saying is that all experiences, good and bad have an impact. Forming an opinion is the result of how you feel. And that depending the person, some experiences can be bad to one but good to another. Do you know when and why these philosophical questions started? It started when someone asked what having a Red Panda fursona says about you.

>>50231

This is the result of that post. This is having an impact. But again, it's possible that these questions could've popped up in this thread without it, but it wouldn't be exactly the same. Everything we do matters in some way.

>>50807

wow so deep

>>50807

Also, Sonichu despite being trash has an impact. That's the point I'm making. Most people know it's trash, but people make fun of it all the time. People are drawing inspiration from it to make others laugh or showing it to others and make them cringe. It's trash, but a lot of people know about and thus have been affected by it.

>>50809

>>50808

This post whether you like it or not has made you form an opinion based on how you feel.

>>50798

>It used to be you would be legitimately worried near constantly about things like "are we going to survive through the winter?"

Am I going to be able to make rent this month?

>"are we going to catch an incurable disease caused by not washing our hands?"

If I get sick or badly hurt, will I be able to afford to go to a hospital?

>"are we going to get invaded by some guys who live 50 miles away who speak a different language?"

Are we going to get bombed by terrorists, shot by our own countrymen, or is our leader going to start a war and send our sons off to die in some garbage country ten-thousand miles away?

Stress is stress. You can't compare issues a person faces with issues they've never faced. Just because they've never had to consider the possibility that they may starve to death, doesn't invalidate their depression over "first world problems" like losing a job. When a person is on the verge of mental collapse over matters in their life, they couldn't get MORE SAD if some things that are arbitrarily scaled to be "worse" happened to them.

But the modern world pretty much hit a brick wall in about the 50's or 60's. Life for most people hasn't improved in any way since then. They work more hours and make less money; they have fewer vacations and less extravagant ones (this is the decade that invented the term "staycation" as a euphemism for "we're too fucking poor to so much as leave the city"); there are few stable full-time jobs, and pensions or retirement plans through employment no longer exist outside a few narrow fields; most young people will never be able to own a home, and it's very likely that Medicare and all other social security will crash and burn by the time they retire.

This is the first generation where most everyone agrees they are worse off than their parents. And for what? What have we gained? The internet?? For this most efficient time-waster and productivity-killer and argument-atarter on mini devices stuck in everyone's fucking pockets? That's not quality of life; entertainment is entertainment whether it's books or TV or youtube. The information age was supposed to bring the world together, yet all it's done is allow people to ever-more effectively sort themselves into tinier and tinier groups. All the alliances and mixed countries of the world are falling apart into squabbling tribes. We could have been living in Star Wars or Star Trek by now, but instead it's 1984 and Brave New World. God fucking help us all.

>>50815

>They work more hours and make less money

>there are few stable full-time jobs

That's if you're a wageslave or work a McJob. If you run a business or work as a freelancer or just went to college in STEM it's a non-issue.

You can also just learn a trade which is extremely easy to get employed in and make large amounts of money doing. Especially if you start your own business.

>most young people will never be able to own a home

I should note that this is a modern/cultural inconvenience and one based on direct comparison since in a lot of cultures most young people live with their parents until they get married. Some even still live with their parents after marriage. Especially if you look at Asian cultures like in India.

>This is the first generation where most everyone agrees they are worse off than their parents

This is again by comparison and it's again only in certain circumstances people are comparing. It ignores medical advancements and technological advancements. Like it's very likely we'll see things like artificial limbs and organs being a thing soon which would've been nice for people in the 20th century.

>What have we gained? The internet?? For this most efficient time-waster and productivity-killer and argument-atarter on mini devices stuck in everyone's fucking pockets?

You're looking at it extremely narrowly

The internet and computers in general greatly increased the amount of potential industries we now have and changed a lot of how people live their lives. The only reason you're viewing it that narrowly is you're only looking at the downsides and not the upsides. If you really think learning how to draw by yourself by buying expensive books/canvas and going to the library would have been more convenient I don't know what to tell you. Like I mentioned above it greatly allowed people to self educate themselves and create careers for themselves that otherwise wouldn't exist.

>We could have been living in Star Wars or Star Trek by now, but instead it's 1984 and Brave New World

There are major physical limitations to space travel that are by scientists estimation currently, impossible to overcome. Things like artificial gravity and radiation shielding.

For instance astronauts when they go into space need to exercise their bodies constantly due to the lack of artificial gravity. They also have an enormous increase in the potential to have cancer later in life due to solar radiation. This causes them to only stay in space for less than 3 months at any given time. Then there's more simple problems like cost like how much it costs just in fuel to put a single pound of weight into space. It's highly unlikely all of these problems will be solved within our lifetime and the solutions that people propose like creating a spaceship by making it enormous and rotating parts of it in different directions are too expensive to be practical.

There's a comparison between space travel and jet airplanes. For decades both the US and the Soviet Union competed to make a faster jet plane that could travel at supersonic speeds. Eventually one was created and it could fly across the Atlantic within just a few hours. However you couldn't fly it domestically due to how if you travel at those speeds the sonic feedback it would generate would shatter windows on the ground. And it consumed so much jet fuel that eventually travel using those planes was suspended entirely because it was too expensive to be economical.

The fact of the matter is there are practical reasons why we don't live in a fantasy world and it's better to live in the world we have now than get stuck in the mindset of "it should be better just because".

Can you two faggots go make put on messenger or something and jerk each other's dicks off while reading Catcher In The Rye? We're trying to talk about fursonas here.

>>50321

Do it again, please!

>>50441

Image 4 is just making me laugh too hard. Looks like he's either looking guilty or giving bedroom eyes

>>50785

I get exactly what you mean. I've tried to get away from that; even though my OCs are all designed solely for a world used my my friends & I in online roleplay, so I'm sure our OCs don't have the sort of depth one would want in characters created for a story intended for strangers to read, enjoy, and become immersed in, they still have to have drive, goals, likes and dislikes, flaws (if only as they apply to plot), etc. and they all do.

My world, which is an analogue to current-day earth, has some big changes, some very bright. 9/11 and the 90s Middle Eastern wars didn't happen, nor is terrorism a big threat. Russia had another revolution, Tsars took over again, and conditions improved. Alien species made contact in 1987, and space travel is possible (though most people never get to do it). But there have still been major wars. There's still evil in the world, and hunger, and disease, and homelessness. Bad things sometimes happen to good people. I don't focus on that sort of thing, but I have OCs who have been or are being affected. It typically doesn't show up in the art I commission, though (I'm the sparklegenet guy), nor do I usually go into depth when I post pictures. I'm mildly annoyed, but still annoyed, by the perfectly-happy worlds. But I've also known people who loved grimdark post-apocalyptic settings, and a few preferred the kind where the characters they created struggled to do good and make changes, yet always failed in the end. That's very much not my bag, either.

>>50826

There aren't many people's actual fursonas or characters in this thread, but the next time I see a fursona thread pop up I'll certainly give it another whirl. It was a lot of fun writing up those silly things.

>>50819

>It's like saying a person who has ptsd from twitter is the same as a soldier who has it

But how is it not? How does the brain know the difference? You're trying as hard as you can to point out the tiny differences between suffering as if there is some objective, rational system of measuring it. Just because you're statistically very unlikely to be killed by a terrorist doesn't change that it's something people are extremely afraid of.

>>50820

>If you run a business or work as a freelancer or just went to college in STEM it's a non-issue

>There's no such thing as taxes or the difficulty of self-advertisement or massive college debt or outsourcing of all tech jobs

Owning a good-sized home means you pay about $250,000, and that's all. If you rent a small apartment at $750/mo from age 20 to age 80, you'll have spent $540,000. It's only a SLIGHT difference.

>Like it's very likely we'll see things like artificial limbs and organs being a thing soon which would've been nice for people in the 20th century

Only the super-rich will ever be able to afford things like this; don't kid yourself.

>There are major physical limitations to space travel that are by scientists estimation currently, impossible to overcome

Look. In the first sixty years of the 20th century, humanity went from the first powered flight in an oversized kite to landing men on the moon with the most powerful machine ever built. In the fifty years since then, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. They've made a few space stations so close to Earth they're still in the atmosphere, like a toddler afraid to take more than a couple steps outside a door, and hurled a couple big robots onto Mars. It's pathetic. You can't tell a human "that is not possible"; there is no mountain too tall or ocean too wide; if you ever feel as if humans can't do the impossible on an impossible timeline, I suggest you re-watch Apollo 13. Humans perform their best when under enormous pressure. The problem now is that nobody gives a shit anymore. The world is full of small people concerned with their small lives, unwilling to care about anything other than the bottom line this quarter. What's "practical" or what's "economical" or what's "profitable" or what's "reasonable". Saying that something will be not "be solved in our lifetime" is a pretty way to say "I don't give a shit"; it's passing-the-buck to the next generation because you're too afraid to do it yourself; it's species-wide procrastination.

This is the kind of thinking that caused Neanderthal man to become extinct, because the Homo Sapiens was, by comparison, fucking nuts with taking risks. A Neanderthal saw a distant island on the horizon across a stormy and shark-infested sea, and said, "Nah... I'm okay here." and went back to hide in his sheltered little cave. The Homo Sapiens said, "I have GOT to find out what's on that island, even if it kills me!" and went along to figure out how to build a boat.

Humanity evolves by technology and exploration, and both of these have been stagnant for half a century. Computers getting smaller haven't changed the fact that they still do all the same things, but the video games are a little prettier. Having the world's knowledge at your fingertips is pointless when it's all squandered but for looking up football stats. Lack of evolution leads to extinction, and I fear THAT is something that is very likely to come to pass in our lifetime.

>>50863

Okay but what does this have to do with fursona analysis you fucking sperg shut the fuck up

>>50863

>In the fifty years since then, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.

That's a bit hyperbolic. Maybe to the layman nothing as interesting as landing on the moon has happened, but there have been several breakthroughs in astrophysics thanks to various things we've done just in terms of going to space alone. The Hubble telescope, for example, has brought us much closer to understanding the rate of expansion of the universe, as well as giving us more general knowledge of what planets and stars exist. We have a dedicated rovers on Mars searching for proof of life, and a guy landed a probe on a moving asteroid. We have an actual space station where people actually live for extended periods of times, which has brought us important information about living in space.

There's a lot of exciting things going on, and what's holding us back from "big breakthroughs" are weird things with energy and energy storage. A really big reason keeping us from having easily obtained renewable energy is that our current batteries are incredibly inefficient, but we're getting closer and closer to solving that problem. Things are learned about quantum computing every single day, all kinds of illnesses have been rendered non-concerning. A lot of the smartest brains on Earth are working on research to cure cancer without using invasive chemotherapy or risky surgeries.

Just... Hypothetically speaking, what kind of big breakthrough do you want to hear? That we sent a man to Mars? For... what purpose? It's the same thing as landing on the Moon but the journey time was longer. Send someone outside the Milky Way? Well, we probably could, but it'd take decades. We're kind of trying to break physics first, and that's a work in progress.

>>50867

We have almost 40 new IDs over the last week if you didn't notice. Your perception of this board doesn't give you the right to shitpost. Stay on topic or I'll make sure you do. I'm giving you a chance. This is not your blog.

>>50869

>active discussions are shitposts

The discussion naturally led here, and it's not really blogposting because several people have been partaking in this discussion. Also, we still have a low PPH regardless of active IPs.

>>50868

Theoretical physics is a goddamn cancer on the scientific community. Einstein's theories led to atomic energy and GPS in a few decades, but all the wanking over smaller and smaller particles hasn't produced a damn thing. They've been talking about fusion power since the 80's, but not a damn thing. They've been talking about curing cancer since the 60's,but not a damn thing. Everything is just about to happen,

just around the corner; we're getting closer, making breakthroughs, doing research; BUT NOTHING IS HAPPENING. I'm fully convinced that literally all of it is political bluster. Just like when the current government is saying that they're going to send people to Mars in a few years; it's bullshit, just like their promises to build walls and create jobs and everything else. Politicians lie, big surprise.

The only industry going anywhere is consumer electronics, because that's where the profit is. There is no profit to be had exploring the universe and securing the future of the species, so it will never happen.

Whatever. I'm done. You're clearly not going to take off your childish rose-colored glasses no matter how much I throw at you. Just another brainwashed human waiting to die.

what about mice

>>50891

They put mice brains in robots

>>50877

>Whatever. I'm done. You're clearly not going to take off your childish rose-colored glasses no matter how much I throw at you. Just another brainwashed human waiting to die.

First of all I'm a fur tyvm, second of all that was the first time I personally had actually responded to you.

If you really think they haven't produced jack squat despite all the newer knowledge we have, then please answer my previous question:

>Just... Hypothetically speaking, what kind of big breakthrough do you want to hear?

>>51299

>your average furry knows about dog wieners

To be fair, the average furry knows absolutely nothing about dog dicks besides that they have a knot.

>>50877

You must live a terribly depressed life, "knowing" so firmly that scientific exploration is completely dead and that we're really going nowhere.

>>51315

You must be a teenager, if you are unable to see the complete lack of any scientific progress since the 80's. You think that fancy tenth-generation iPhone in your hipster jeans means humanity is going somewhere? What a joke.