/fur/ - Furry★

>>77877

>>77880

How are these unpopular opinions?

>>77881

Unpopular to the fandom at large more so than here.

>>77875 (OP)

furry is unreasonably comfortable with throwing money at everything and this tendency undermines its potential as a creative community but it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle and, sadly, too late to carve off a hobbyist, DIY, almost punk ethic community for anthropomorphic fans who want something a bit more than porn of a border collie that shares their username.

it's particularly unhealthy when you see children more or less being indoctrinated into this mindset. children brought up on Ayn Rand and Free to Choose alone would see human interaction in less economic terms. it's just sad when you see children lamenting that they can't participate because they're too young to have paypal, and it's even worse when you see adults egging them on ("you should buy some art :3", "have you tried stealing your mom's credit card? :3") rather than reflecting on the absolute state of the community. The worst part is it's not even predatory. This isn't an artist seeking to rip someone off, this is a non artist spreading a cultural norm. It's a good faith behaviour, they're honestly trying to help. What do you mean you can't buy art? That's unpossible..!

there is a switching point, so to speak, when you start letting people buy art. if you have a community that relies purely on what the artist wants to draw then you can't say they're underpaid: it's a hobby, it's like saying I'm not paid enough to sit in bed playing videogames. However if you allow charging even one dollar, now you are underpaying artists. Furry is arguably in the scenario where in aggregate art is overpriced but artists are underpaid.

that all said i'm convinced furry is leading the way with this sort of thing. expect to pay money to keep your friends by 2030.

>>77883

Japanese artists are inferior to Western artists in both technical execution and imagination; the only Western people who think Japanese artists are better are developmentally immature.

In addition, Japanese artists only know how to draw in anime style whereas Western artists can draw both anime and western style.

>>77885

>Sex is binary, gender doesn't exist, and "intersex" is a genetic defect, not a magical 3rd sex.

The issue with labeling things like intersex as “genetic defects,” or giving it any other status than totally normal and just as valid as the other two (admittedly majority) sexes is it’s not a far jump to say that intersex is “abnormal,” or something that should be “cured” or “fixed.” As far as I see it, there’s nothing necessarily harmful about treating intersex as a valid 3rd/nonbinary sex, whereas calling it an abnormality or other (even if it is relatively rare) opens the door to mistreatment.

Also, just because gender is socially constructed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There’s nothing in our biology (sex) that says if you have a penis you can’t/shouldn’t wear dresses---that’s gender. But a lot of the restrictions or at least guidelines gender imposes are stupid, so I see why you’d want to challenge its existence.

>>77875 (OP)

I'd fuck rasha's OC.

>>77880

>gender doesn't exist

I guess it depends by what "exists" means. If by physical object in space and time, then no. But it definitely is an emergent property of the sexes acting in different ways. I'd argue that man and woman are much more tangible and reasonable descriptors of the way most Males and Females behave then making up shit about being toaster-gendered or whatever as they are made up by the individual and not a product of culture-biology.

-People who whine about 'waaa the fandom is so sexualised' are the worst and should fuck off

-Right wingers have no place in furdom considering that their ideology would reject and oppress us if we were notable enough to care about

Murrsuits are hot and I find it so fucking sexy that people like dogpatchpress go around and let people jack him off on public

People should stop bitching about bestiality in a fandom that sexualizes animal people

-I don't care about Jasonafex. I unironically think that he's one of the good ones for creating independent projects like comics, vidya, and podcasts. They're not my favorite ones, but they're not stuck in prototype phase forever and they're set in a universe as opposed to it being a personal identity.

-Twitter is a bad social media platform for furry art. It resizes pictures at a low res and it's bundled with useless crap too.

>>77885

I think they're talking about their creativity as opposed to their art style. They have done comics and videogames without crowdfunding for a long time. People blame our economic in the west for the lack of creativity, but Japan is more capitalistic and their items are more expensive.

>>77891

>-Right wingers have no place in furdom considering that their ideology would reject and oppress us if we were notable enough to care about

I don't get this meme at all. If they were a threat, then they would have done it illegally beforehand.

>>77887

>>77885

>>77889

is this that bot thing that posts random posts again

>>77891

>-People who whine about 'waaa the fandom is so sexualised' are the worst and should fuck off

it would help if the fandom was capable of separating sexuality from everything else.

if the fandom was 99% sex and 1% sfw, that would be fine. the problem is that it's 99% sex and 1% awkwardly trying to pretend it's not sex. even culturally-innocuous things like giving a female superhero giant tits becomes obvious wank material when you make her a persian cat.

that's the problem with the prudes. they're not real prudes, they're a mixture of hypocrisy and knowing you're breaking social norms and not enjoying it but preferring it to not participating at all.

>>77899

>No, it becomes obvious wank material when you give her giant tits

The thing is it isn't, it's just titillating. It's fanservice. Weebs push it further - they're the kind of people who would actually pause on panty shots to shoot one out themselves, but even with anime it's less obviously, distractingly sexual than with furry.

>Furries aren't even remotely the first group to hyper-sexualize everything even in alleged "SFW" art, but it's highly disingenuous to claim something like "99% sex." There's still a very notable portion of the base rooted moreso in the sci-fi personification appeal, which involves less sexually-driven things like transformation (can be, but not intrinsically - I'm talking more about people specifically into werebeasts) or the general placement of animals or animal-like humanoids in human situations. Undertale in and of itself is entirely non-sexual, and a lot of people found themselves quite enjoying Asriel's character design.

This relies on a definition of 'furry' that leads to nonsense where everyone who enjoyed animaniacs is a furry.

Plausibly - and here's the fun part - you can have your sexy feline superhero as much as you like, so long as the creator has never heard of the furry fandom and has nothing to do with it after someone points it out. The ones actually in furry communities and on furry websites either ruin it all by letting you find their porn account in 2 seconds flat, or fall into the category of hypocrites who aren't real prudes at all.

The thing is though, you're right: It's because sex sells. In two words, that's the development of the modern furry fandom. If you want to talk lore or the logistics of clothing on creatures with tails, your safest bet since this board de-facto merged with /furry/ is to pretend that the furry fandom doesn't exist.

>>77902

>It's fanservice.

And how exactly do you think it serves them to see that? Not very many people wank one out immediately upon seeing something particularly erotic. A lot of people create a catalogue of imagery to refer to when masturbating, and this is precisely what titillating fanservice gets used for as wank material.

>less obviously, distractingly sexual than with furry.

A female superhero with giant tits is the same amount of distractingly sexual as a human character and a persian cat. You can't just compare full R18 hardcore pornographic imagery featured to something that is sexualized but otherwise non-vulgar. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing, but I just want to cover that base.

>This relies on a definition of 'furry' that leads to nonsense where everyone who enjoyed animaniacs is a furry.

Not at all. Practically speaking, I think the best use of the current "furry" culture is a furry is someone that specifically partakes in the culture itself, which as earlier mentioned revolves around derivative works of other licensed works (e.g. Zootopia). I merely made the comment to Undertale as an example of something that HAS created a big culture that isn't inherently sexualized by the masses. Of course Asriel gets a lot of porn, but he also gets a lot of SFW as well, because he actually has a meaningful character existence more than sex.

>>77906

If Toby Fox was a furry, Undertale would be an uncomfortable experience. He wasn't so it isn't. That's the interesting thing. It's when you just know.

>>77889

>>77887

"Doesn't exist" as in the term and idea for "gender" was a pet project from some insane scientist who's theory on the matter was proven to be a failure that lead to the physical/emotional/sexual abuse and eventual death of two boys.

Just because some people "like the idea of it" and ran with it doesn't lend it any validity, especially when most run the concept into the ground with an encyclopedia of made up genders and terms.

"Well what's the big deal? It's just what some people prefer."

The problem come when these people demand others adhere to their new titles without question, treat them as valid, and refer to them by specific terms.

>>77914

>Just because some people "like the idea of it" and ran with it doesn't lend it any validity

this is literally how money works

>>77880

>Gender doesn't exist

>All men and all women have always acted and spoken and dressed the same through all of history so clearly it's completely biological

It's even worse because everything else you said is mostly correct, so you're clearly not a complete retard. Why did you swallow /pol/s fat cock so hard on this ONE issue?

>>77914

>Gender doesn't exist because one boy got his dick broiled off, and later killed himself over it and other issues

And yet this hardly ever gets mentioned as a reason for why we should ban circumcision.

>>77893

tbh I like that stuff too

>>77934

Behaving or doing things in a way the opposite sex would often do isn't "gender", they're masculine and feminine traits. An effeminate man isn't a female, he's an effeminate male, and vice versa.

>>77902

>by letting you find their porn account in 2 seconds flat

Speaking of that, why even have a separate account for porn in the first place?

I want to turn back time and experience the Gold and Silver ages of anthropomorphic fandom. Even if the Graybeards say that it wasn't as good back then, it sure as heck would be better than what we're supposed to deal with in Current Year +3.

i am an otherkin..... the pagan magicks of furry kind (that's unpopular opinion)

>>77946

So no matter how a man acts, it won't make him a woman. Gotcha.

Then why are you so mad when a man calls himself a woman?? If all of it is completely meaningless. You can't say "gender doesn't exist" and "b-but people must be the gender they were born with!" at the same time.

Typical, no matter what community it is, how vulgar or derivative they are from those like them, gender talks are always gonna strike a nerve.

>>77989

>"They were born in the wrong body."

But they were you faggot. Males and females have different brain, and transsexuals show brain structures of the opposite sex they are born as.

https://youtu.be/LOY3QH_jOtE?t=4421

>>77991

That's the result of a sex-negative culture that ironically also encourages self-expression of identity. People get confused about who they are.

>>77995

This shouldn't be taken as a means to separate males from females, but rather embraced as a fact that males and females are physiologically a lot closer than otherwise seems.

Most people complaining about the whole gender identity movement only dislike it because it's trying to dramatically reshape the way we use our language, often as a political tool to control thoughts. Very, very few people legitimately honestly care on a very personal level what some random guy is doing as long as it doesn't interfere with their own lives, but there is a deep-seated dislike for being told that they are the ones wrong for not magically knowing the correct arbitrary pronoun to refer to someone... When pronouns are a quick and dirty reference to someone and not meant to distill an entire history of someone's identity.

It's also sort of the popular thing to do. When I was in High School, it was to for everyone to be bisexual, but now it's for everyone to be trans. I like to call it trendsgendered. For the majority of people most of the problems could be fixed by properly addressing their self-esteem.

>>77997

>That's the result of a sex-negative culture that ironically also encourages self-expression of identity. People get confused about who they are.

Sex-negative? Hardly. Our culture rewards/compensates minorities for being minorities, so it makes sense that people would want to adopt labels that give them that push them in the front. If it was sex-negative, people would be running away from it because they don't want to die.

I don't hate jasonafex, tbh I don't know why people hate him so much

>>78006

There's a lot of name-and-shame, it's just pivoted into a slightly different focus than it was before. Keep in mind that, while not publicly shown all the time, there's still quite the mass of religious folks who believe in things like pure abstinence because sex is a sin. Outside of that, the sex-negativity isn't necessarily from "don't do sex," but more like "if you don't do sex how WE say you should, then you're wrong." A lot of it comes from how language is slowly getting changed for politically driven factors, such as the definition of rape broadening more and more until finally the act of existing as a male means you are literally raping a woman.

Stalin did nothing wrong.

homosexuality is unacceptable sexual deviancy and gays need to be driven back into hiding

we need to bring back the stigma, things have gotten way out of hand

>>77983

>>77997

It's extremely uncommon that a trans person is going to flip their shit if you don't refer to them using the right pronoun when you first meet them. But if they correct you, and then you continue to use the opposite just to piss them off, because you want to be a childish asshole "nobody tells me what to do!!!", they have every right to be upset at you.

How would you feel if someone mispronounced your name, you corrected them, and then they deliberately continued to say it wrong? What if they just called you "shithead", every single time? I'd imagine you'd be upset, too.

>>78030

Depends on the artist, which is reasonable.

Granted, he probably used his position as site admin to get a discount on commissions (even indirectly, not even if he was trying to manipulate him). Also, reminder that Dragoneer had cub porn of his character, and the fact he's trying to bury that info is shameful

>>78030

Here's a really unpopular opinion.

He himself can be cute in the sense of him being a bimbo in regards to running a website.

>>78044

I don't throw Flowey and Asriel in the same pot. Asriel to me is that guy who found Frisk and who appears before the final boss. All the other shit isn't even really explained or well explained.

Flowey felt like a completely different character.

>>78045

>I don't throw Flowey and Asriel in the same pot. Asriel to me is that guy who found Frisk and who appears before the final boss. All the other shit isn't even really explained or well explained.

>Flowey felt like a completely different character.

He's objectively the same character, it's fact, you're just fucking retarded and couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the game you were playing.

Furries are garbage because they always make humans that just have a coat of paint and a mask on.

We should have more animalistic and alien creatures, rather than gay basically human trash

>>78011

I share most of your views, especially with regards to bara artists. The majority of western ones are cancer, so I like Anhes, Darkgem, Trogan, and eastern artists. ROM and NITW were shit walking sims/vns.

I disagree on burbs tho

>>78046

I never said anything else and I played through it 5 times. It was explained shittily. No matter the run.

So fuck you and spam your boicunt Asriel again, faggot.

>>78011

It's not the dick that is hot, but the pussy taking that weird dick.

>>78054

>it was explained shittly

>the biggest plot point that got the most attention out of any other didn't get good enough

>in a game that has nearly no good explanations

>even after 5 playthroughs I couldn't grasp a simple fucking explanation

It's ok to admit you have a below room temperature IQ. I already believe you.

>>78054

It was explained fine. It was still a shit storyline, you ask me, but, it wasn't poorly explained.

You're just autistic.

Oh I just figured something thread related out:

>complaining about things in Undertale

>not loving this game besides the creator's name is Toby Fox so everyone here wants to suck his dick

>thinking people shouldn't talk about this fucking game anymore because it's literally ages old

Now THAT seems to be unpopular because it turns this thread into Hugo level autistic shitfits.

>>78024

I reserve the right to be a dick to you. I can happily refer to you as, say, "Dick" when your name is Rick, and while you're free to assume I'm an asshole for it, demands are different.

>>78042

>>78044

>>78045

>>78046

Asriel and Flowey aren't the same person. Same as how the Chara who knew Asriel (and arguably Chara-as-the-narrator), and Chara in the Genocide run are not the same person. It's not explained that well, but it is completely obvious.

>>78070

Language evolves all the time. You can't stop it, and in many ways it's good. The issue has always been that people have used the excuse that a label should have an unchanging (sometimes even SACRED) definition and anything otherwise is a personal attack against them. Which is stupid and pathetic. If all a man has to define his masculinity is the label "man" (thus explaining why he is so threatened when a woman decides to transition and call herself a man), then he must not be very masculine at all. It's the same thing people tried to do with defining "marriage" as some sacred institution, which would somehow be defiled if they changed the meaning; it was very transparently an excuse to keep their boot firmly on the necks of gays. Hardly any of them even had the intellectual capacity to realize how meaningless it all is; when marriage isn't itself a sacred institution; when there is LITERALLY nothing legal or binding about the ceremony, itself; all they were doing was arguing semantics: "Marriage means a man and a woman!", even if they weren't religious at all.

As for the rest, I can certainly understand and appreciate the need for convenient labels, but it was never about the honest mistake. It wasn't even about the (mostly-strawman) person throwing a fit about it. The issue is that some people claim it as a blanket truth, that EVERYONE has to be the gender they were assigned at birth, for their entire life, and no exceptions! Anyone who does otherwise is a deviant horrible person who should be put to death. These are the people I was talking about, not reasonable folks like you who can see the difference between the people who are legitimately mismatched, and the attention whores.

Either way, it takes little extra effort, and no pain on your part, to call this hypothetical jerk "Sean" if he wants you to. There are more choices in life other than "let people walk all over you" and "be a complete asshole to everyone because you think that's what being a man means".

>>78072

Fine. But then you can't be upset if people choose to be a dick to YOU, because of how you treat others. You can't scream "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!" if society writ large brands you an asshole, and says you're wrong to do that. It's your choice to act that way, sure; but you must accept the consequences.

>>78089

>Asriel and Flowey aren't the same person.

I hate to use the word literally, but they literally are. There is no metaphor here.

It's even explained how monsters die, the way they die leaves everything about the monster intact, however, they aren't alive anymore and have no will to live. They're still the same person, just stored inside an object. The closest thing I've been able to come up with comparing it to is the idea of nirvana. However, when Asriel was injected with DT, he gained the will to live, and thus was ripped from his nirvana and brought back to suffer. He's the same character, but he "grew" in a sense through his depression and his inability to feel anything positive, and his possible infinite amounts of being forced to reset and such due to being a main character of a game that didn't exist.

That part about being a main character because of DT is a shaky claim that I'm making though, since DT is along the most unexplained shit in the game besides it's human magic or some shit and it comes from human souls.

If you want to say that Asriel is a different character because he "grew" then you would have to say you aren't you, you're someone else living in a different body.

The entire concept of characterization and individuality completely falls apart under that assumption and ends in the result of nothing being real, at which case there exists no good characters because characters don't exist because any sense of growth causes them to die and be reborn as someone new.

>>78042

Jack Savage and Nick Wilde are the OTP

>>78089

Well, keep in mind that when you get that sort of shit, it isn't about someone correcting you, mostly. It's about you not automatically knowing, and not accepting what they want to call themselves as what they actually are. Oh, and the cultural marxist perversion of language with ideologically driven "gender neutral" pronouns.

But, no, either way, I don't have to accept shit.

Especially when other people who aren't involved start deciding to actively harass me, and especially not when the fucking government starts sanctioning on this stuff.

Though., anyway, why doesn't this apply to you?

Why do you get to scream 'HELP I AM BEING OPPRESSED' when you decide to show your mental infirmity by suddenly demanding to be a different gender, often without even putting any effort towards it? At least, those that don't are the ones who're typically getting offended, as the ones who put effort towards things typically don't get misgendered.

>>78115

HOLY FUCK I NEVER SAID THAT! I fucking said that they don't behave the fucking same and one is a fucking flower and one a fucking cuck goat! It's like fucking saying Two Face and Harvey Dent are the same personality. Why the fuck is /fur/ such a shithole that I argue with fucking 12 year old Deviant Art faggots?

God damnit. Undertale man. I have to share this game with utter retards. Why did I even fucking play it.

>>78089

By the way, gender dysphoria is very much a real thing. I am cognizant of that, so please don't take this the wrong way. Personally, I feel like becoming transgender isn't the correct solution in the vast, vast majority of cases of gender dysphoria, and the practical results of the movement seem to agree with my conclusion considering their serious issues with depression - but I don't write off all transgenders for being the same attention-seeking assholes trying to control language as others.

>Language evolves all the time. You can't stop it, and in many ways it's good.

Correct. We create new words to represent new ideas and objects that didn't previously exist, such as computer.

>The issue has always been

It's not just one issue. My only crusade is against people that are looking to manipulate language specifically for their political cause, which ultimately leads to a fascist regime. The whole trendsgender movement is but one facet of it, where a very legitimate issue (gender dysphoria) got hijacked for the purpose of attempting to control discourse. It's precisely like how people are trying to change the definition of "racism" - which is a word that in no way needs a change. It's not a sacred definition, but it is a usable definition. Instead, you get people shouting down arguments through ad hominem and it works to crush discourse because of the way these words have been changed. This sort of speak is something that actively leads to fascism - the same thing that these typical groups claim to be crusading against, ironically. (After all, everyone's a Nazi now.)

In the case of pronouns, it should not be expected that people can use the pronouns accurate 100% of the time. As a service worker, I have misgendered people several times - accident, or confusion. People's voices don't line up with their faces as I would expect. I get misgendered constantly, because I have longer locks and a very high voice, oddly despite the fact that I still manage to get a 5'o'clock shadow. I get called the wrong name. Frankly, why care about that? The point of the pronouns, the names are, in its purist sense, just a way to get my attention specifically, and I know when people are talking about me unless they get my name way, way wrong.

To be the kind of person that goes, "ACKSHUALLY, I'm a SHE" is just banal because it's entirely irrelevant to the large majority of conversations. I'm not recognizing someone's maleness/femaleness by saying sir/ma'am, I'm using formal language to for the purpose of politeness, and the core of that should be understood rather than the individual words used that may or may not be perfectly attuned to individual persons.

>Either way, it takes little extra effort, and no pain on your part, to call this hypothetical jerk "Sean" if he wants you to.

Sort of, but he still looks like Joe. Of course there are going to be the assholes that will call him Joe because they think he's asking for an absurd change, but everyone else is just bamboozled, having to change a long habit for something quite inconsequential because, presumably, he's still the same person as before.

Basically, the core of what I'm saying is people shouldn't be looking to inconvenience someone over something trivial. We already get that constantly from other trivial bullshit, so why exactly does someone want to put the effort into being a dick because someone who was only using a pronoun to create a point of reference didn't use the correct arbitrary pronoun? Especially when sometimes Joe/Sean is seemingly only using it as a way to control discourse and shame people, much like some of the louder and more flagrant transgenders do so on their keyboard warrior crusades. It's relevant to me because they've built up a movement large enough that they are controlling discourse.

>>78089

>Either way, it takes little extra effort, and no pain on your part, to call this hypothetical jerk "Sean" if he wants you to. There are more choices in life other than "let people walk all over you" and "be a complete asshole to everyone because you think that's what being a man means".

You do realize that it's a extra pain in the ass for non-english speakers, right? English is already a complicated language to master, to arbitrarily pad on extra bullshit that increases the learning curve is pretty dumb. Nothing wrong with the two types of pronouns (he/she) and gender identities that we have now.

>>78125

Being that retarded still complaining about something I just explained.

>>78024

>How would you feel if someone mispronounced your name, you corrected them, and then they deliberately continued to say it wrong? What if they just called you "shithead", every single time? I'd imagine you'd be upset, too.

I would turn that into back and forth. From my experience all these cliques, mean names and other nonsense usually stops when other people require help from you or you become a really respected person within group.

>>78089

>it takes little extra effort, and no pain on your part, to call this hypothetical jerk "Sean" if he wants you to

Long term habits tend to die pretty hard since you're doing that unconsciously pretty much.

Sex and porn is not an okay thing to base a fandom on

>>78118

sans undertale is steven unviersive but died of cancer

>>78174

I bet they take that shit show just as too seriously.

>>78118

PERSONALITY != CHARACTER YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING MOOK

Holy fuck you must have brain damage or something.

>come back after a while

>'whoa, this blew up, bet there must have been some real interesting opinions poste---'

>generic gender argument that can be found everywhere from mom's facebook to alien /pol/ forums where they deny anal probing exists.

>>78201

>You do know that if that happened, then the cubfags would just create their own platforms and ban anyone that bitches about the content. Get real faggot.

And the problem with that is?

They wouldn't be here, and they would be easier to round up.

>>78203

>>78202

>inkbunny

>not pixiv

>>78204

Problem with that is they become the superior furry site, while the others devolve into drama cesspools more obsessed witch hunts than art thanks to the slippery slope mentality of going after the next big "problematic" topic.

>>78205

Pixiv's basically japans DA, it's an image dump for just about everything, furry's just an addition for them, it's not specifically a furry site.

>>78213

I feel like depictions of animals could easily be argued away from the term "minor", given that is defined as "a person under the age of full legal responsibility", which doesn't exist for animals, not to mention they're not considered persons.

Holy Jesus, so many people to reply to.

>>78090

It's said that the SOUL is what grants a monster compassion. This kinda flies in the face of what the plot mostly says about SOULs they are basically a battery for magic power and/or the conduit through which an essence (which, confusingly, is what is more like the religious concept of a "soul") is bound to a body; I wrote an entire theorem on this concept that explains virtually every plot hole in that regard, but fuck nobody cares but it's still there. Flowey is Asriel except without the capability to feel any sort of positive emotions. He can feel fear and anger and the desire to inflict suffering, but not hope or love or happiness. Flowey, himself, says this during the Genocide run, summarizing how he tripped through various timelines trying to be happy, sometimes even reuniting with one of his parents, and always to no avail because he couldn't "feel" anything. Obviously, Asriel wasn't like this before he lost his SOUL.

>>78115

He sure ACTS like a kid the entire time, but whatever you wanna believe, bucko. I don't care.

>>78123

The entire premise that a fascist regime is going to found itself upon some kind of Newspeak, strictly for the benefit of a group of people that most see as sexual deviants, is... just absurd. Your point about the corruption of language has merit, but your fears about a centralized boogyman perpetrating some conspiracy-theory level of societal influence are unfounded. Sorry if that's a bit harsh.

>people shouldn't be looking to inconvenience someone over something trivial

Except, to them, it's NOT trivial. Look, you said you worked in the service industry (and so do I) so you know what I'm talking about. When a customer decides that the fact that a fly got into their plate of food is as great an affront to them as if you had personally murdered their mother, do you tell them it's not your fault? Do you tell them they're being overdramatic? Do you tell them that it's actually good protein and they should eat it anyway? No. You apologize, take the plate back, and have a new one made fresh.

As I've said before, there is no reasoning or rationalizing with some people. As you find out in service, being nice gets you more tips than being an asshole right back to them. Funny thing, it works in life, too. Religion calls this "turning the other cheek"; chivalry calls it "being the bigger man"; but either way it comes down to not trying to win every fucking fight that someone starts with you. It's better for everyone involved if you just give them whatever platitude they're asking for --- even if it's completely ridiculous — than take offense to it as if they're attacking your manhood and try to make them even angrier for funsies. Likely, you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of understanding why this issue is so important to them; they are not doing it for no reason. There is literally NOBODY ON THE ENTIRE GODDAMN PLANET that is pretending to be transgender to mutilate language to create a fascist regime. That's an absurd strawman, and something that I guarantee has never happened to you in real life. You were just TOLD that it happens, probably by some /pol/ types, and then decided to believe it.

>>78150

>There are women on the internet

Jokes aside, I don't buy this. I've never heard of this happening. The people insulting MtF are all men. The "womb envy" thing doesn't even make any sense seeing how no power of science can currently give a biological man a functioning uterus. Although, it's going to be really hilarious how much of a non-issue this will be, come another century provided humanity survives, when people can mold their bodies and genetics as freely as a set of Lego blocks and change their gender, change their shape, even change their species. There will be entire communes of hermaphrodite anthropomorphs, and you think anyone's going to fuss over gender labels? Hah!

>>78202

>Fantastic Mr. Fox

I wonder how many other people know the feeling of having a husbando that literally nobody else in the world wants, because he's autistic and way too "different".

>>78221

Pt2.

>>78213

United States obscenity laws are highly subjective, but very, VERY hard to actually trip. You cut off the section that says that the piece "has no artistic merit". It's almost impossible to argue in a court of law that ANY piece has no artistic merit, as per free speech laws. Nobody ever tries, when it's obviously not a real child.

No, what most people are talking about when they refer to these laws are the laws of the former Crown territories (Britain, Canada, Australia, etc). Although I have no seen the actual documentation of the law (and don't care to, as I don't live there and am thus not privy to its domain) the consensus is that anything that depicts a living being that can be argued to be a representative of a child or "minor", engaged in sexual activity, is legally the exact same as real child porn. But again, there seems to be extremely lax enforcement of this law. For all intents and purposes, it's like how the RIAA says it can sue you for millions of dollars for pirating music; they CAN, and in extremely rare cases they have done so to some poor sod, but the chances of it happening to you are so remote and inconsequential, that it's basically irrelevant. Now, of course you recognize that it (and furry writ large) is culturally and socially taboo, so you're not going to go crowing to the public how much you like cubs. But the chances that you'll be jailed for it, if you don't, is so small that it may as well NOT be illegal.

Everyone knows that these law is mostly just used as an excuse to appease the sector of furries that don't like cub. Site owners like to talk about losing their host if the country they host in doesn't allow that content, but it's just deflection. The very EXISTENCE of inkbunny and e621 (and various places where you can still find shota/loli) belies the idea that it's impossible for a large site to find a host that will accept such content.

>>78221

>I don't buy this. I've never heard of this happening. The people insulting MtF are all men.

I didn't said that MtF don't get shit from men. I said that men usually don't have any problems with FtMs and that women are the ones who have issues with MtFs.

The womb envy thing does not refer to some scientific occurrence, but it's an insult that implies trans women aren't real women because they don't have wombs.

Your statement that only men harass MtFs is incorrect tho.

Perhaps you don't interact with women too often?

>>78221

>The entire premise that a fascist regime is going to found itself upon some kind of Newspeak... is... just absurd

Racism is currently a political bludgeon to silence opponents to invalidate any merit their arguments may have had.

Pedophilia is a loaded word and impossible to discuss in good faith, as it connotes quite literally with "child molester" in the eyes of the general public - not even getting into the fact that, especially in regards to cub which is frequently relevant here, is more like hebephilia.

"Southern Strategy" and other similar legitimate racist dogwhistles.

The fact that "nigga/er" can only be spoken by coloured folk, which is especially dumb because, while I appreciate the original intention in taking back the power of the word to disenfranchise the racists, becomes a method of counter-racism and sows division.

"People of Colour," which is hilarious because just a few decades ago "coloured folk" was the hip new racists term to refer to black people.

The list goes on, honestly. Both the right and the left manipulate language to shape discourse, because it's an effective method of controlling the opinions of the population. In fact, just look at any current news article about... anything, and see how far into the headline you can go before hitting a word that is intrinsically emotionally charged in an attempt to choose your reaction to the news. If you think controlling language isn't part of it, then you're wrong. If you think, for some reason, the transgender movement can't possibly be part of that, then that's silly because anything can be part of it as long as it grips the discourse of the nation.

>You were just TOLD that it happens, probably by some /pol/ types, and then decided to believe it.

Nah. I haven't met a single other person who has a raging hate-boner purely over the linguistics of the matter. My opinion on how the language is handled comes from my lifetime of seeing how certain words enter the limelight and evolve into gross malformed versions of what they once previously were - it just so happens that gender is currently one of the bigger topics gripping the nation.

>>78236

well you do have a great mind there.

>>78236

>No SFW furry art will ever matter

What exactly constitutes "furry" by this lot?

Because, otherwise, I have to say, I dont' think I agree.

If for no other reason than that the SFW art I think'd be called "furry" has been a fair sized inspiration to myself, so I imagine it'd do the same for other.s

>>78236

imagine the human desert that had to be created to make these opinions seem possible

>>78258

>being contrarian makes me an interesting person

Knots are the most generic and boring shit you can put on a dick and no one draws them right anyhow.

>>77881

I know right? This one:

>Fursuiters are the reason the fandom has such a poor public image.

Is more like a cool, hard fact.

the fandom is one of the least welcoming places on the internet

>>78275

Thats because your talking to the wrong people who thinks Nazi's are real and are mentally disfigured.

I believe we should get rid of communists and Nazi furs and stop them from infiltrating our and many others fandoms.

because two extremes kill everything they did it in video games their doing it with bronies and comics now us.

We must make better dead than red tea shirts again and fight both the nazi's and communist like the Hungarians and Finnish as well as American patriots before us.

let these old ideologies die and we shall survive for the great or good.

we shall make uncle Sam a furry!

>>78277

I grant you the whole thing is pure absurdity; a stroke of satire. What good has come of the furry political arguments that we may point to and say "Due to this, we live better now than we did before." The hatred is artificial and aimed towards those attaching themselves to ideologies they claim to support but in discipline do not practice.

>>78277

>people who thinks Nazi's are real

>I believe we should get rid of Nazi furs

what did he mean by this

>>78284

I mean we should get rid of old ideologies and stick to the classics of being modern capitalists.

>>78286

pure ideology

>>78313

Not really an "unpopular opinion" but alright, thanks for sharing.

>>78236

Reminder that hyenas are pussy-whipped faggots who like to take deformed clitorises up their asses.

>>78270

Correction: many people draw them correctly, but a bare fraction of a percent draw them WORKING correctly. For the most part, they're just penis accessories, shoved in when full-sized, and then the characters pretend as if it couldn't come right back out again.

>>78332

>>78270

Here's the dilemma:

For an artist to draw knots correctly, they need to have a collection of dog knot reference pics to work from. Which means bestiality imagery. So in order for an artist to draw knots anatomically correct they need to be into bestiality.

Furries who aren't into bestiality are never going to notice whether or not a knot isn't anatomically correct.

And both of you are giving away the fact that you look at bestiality porn.

>>78353

Bestiality is animal/human content. Pictures of dog dicks are just animals, and thus neither illegal nor particularly morally wrong, considering animals walk around naked all the damn time. Nobody gives a shit.

>>77875 (OP)

I genuinely believe humans are the master race.

>>78369

it would have to have been united in the first place in order to be divided. at the moment it's like medieval china

Im firmly on the side where I like furry porn more for the cartoon side than the animal-fucking side. While I understand that there is room for everyone in the fandom including those feral people and those people channeling their repressed bestiality fetishes, but I still absolutely despise them, especially the ones that bitch about cocks needing to be anatomically correct animal dicks to properly get off.

>>78330

hot tbh

>>78414

FUCK YOU MORON I HAVE AN ACCOUNT ON THERE AND IF I GET HIJACKED IM FUCKED!

>>78452

This cant be unpopular I want this too

>>78452

>furry OCs casually talking about species which isn't considered racist

It's a better world.

Monkey furs are almost always black and we should be able to mock them for this,

>>78452

who drew the last one? I really like the art and characters

>>78469

The only post worth a good goddamn in this entire thread.

>>78483

then your tastes sucks.

i think furfags are generally complete normalfags. i dont know where this idea that theyre autistic freaks came from. maybe residual effect of the very oldschool 80s ones that were pretty weird.

but nowadays i feel like i'm in a sports bar or a country club.

bunch of normalfags with active romantic and sexual lives that make 100k a year and see all the marvel movies.

furry is a normalfag community.

>>78503

that includes this board btw

>>78503

> see all the marvel movies.

Okay I got a new unpopular opinion

I really think those movies are okay and people that denounce them as capeshit are just trying to seperate themselves from normies as much as possible to feel special.

>>78508

ok and that's fine but you ignored the other three examples so fuck off. they go hand in hand in this instance.

forgot to mention how modern furfags will even bully people for being weird and friendless or jobless and there's cliques galore. i was shunned from maddeku's clique, of all people. even hyper fart artists are normalfagging it up.

furry is synonymous with football quarterback chad and anyone who thinks otherwise is either an oblivious normalfag themself or doesn't have a furaffinity account or some shit

>>78503

Considering how most nowadays seem to treat the community/fandom as if it's always been some inoffensive, trendy tumblr fandom all about fursonas and broadcasting your identity and social life, that assumption isn't far off.

>>78503

glad to see i'm not the only person with this opinion.

although i'd say furries are generally more like background characters enjoying a fandom where they can pretend to be chad, rather than actually being successful normalfags themselves. the fandom just becomes a place where they can channel their excess of money into trying to make up for their severe deficit of personality.

>>78483

You're confusing "detailed" with "cluttered". A picture can be plenty detailed, so long as it's composed correctly. This picture is not. There's just way too much going on, and all of rendered with the same level of detail as if it were the same level of importance. Who gives a fuck about that cart outside the barn? Why are the lighting effects focused on the dragon's tail of all things? Was it really necessary to add a tartan-pattern overlay on the armor? How goddamned many hundreds of individually-rendered straws are in that fucking haystack?

Calling this "detailed" would be like calling a passage of writing detailed, when it's just a single clunky run-on sentence.

>>78503

Furries that go to cons, wear suits, socialize with friends and buy art are extremely normalfag. That's barely one level odder than a Star Wars fan cosplaying as Han Solo and buying comic books. Worse yet, since "nerd culture" is in vogue, it's not only normalfag, it's POPULAR.

As for Marvel movies, they have a wide appeal. Something for everyone, unless you go into them expecting to hate them. I'm pretty likely to be the most fucked-up individual to have ever existed, and yet I enjoy them; and it's not because I want to fuck Rocket.

Okay, it's not ONLY because I want to fuck Rocket.

>>78503

>maybe residual effect of the very oldschool 80s ones that were pretty weird

boomerfurs should be purged from the fandom

>>78635

everyone should be purged from the fandom, literally everyone. they all must go.

i can think of like 3 people i would spare but 2 of them are ridiculously obscure and naming the other one would possibly play to egotism.

also

>not boomfurs

ONE JOB.

Unpopular in fandom:

>Majira Strawberry sucks

>Furry Amino sucks

>Cub is hot

>Yiff is not a problem

>Young furs are cringey

>Most furries overprice their commissions

>Furries are heavily overdramatic and oversensitive OR they are the exact opposite

>I'm mostly dom

>Reposting without permission is okay

Unpopular in /fur/:

>most popufurs are okayish

>colorful critters work well

>cats are a great species

Unpopular in both:

>Yo-Kai Watch is amazing

>dating is unnecessary

>>78614

>since "nerd culture" is in vogue, it's not only normalfag, it's POPULAR.

I think furry fandom is on the cusp of becoming a cultural thing that would be remembered in history books, like on the tier of hippies in the 60's. It's not there quite yet cause of the strong porn/sex association, but I think it can only blow up more before it crashes down.

>>78719

Furry won't ever be desexualised, but society at large will probably become more sexualised to balance it out.

Woe betide those who actually just wanted a fantasy adventure where foxes try to save the king without stopping to fuck like rabbits every 5 miles.

>>78731

Oh here I have one

>unsexualized fur is cringy denial - everyone who sees or reads it knows the author is into furry porn but he is stupid enough to launch SFW material and think noone will notice

zoophilia should be encouraged

Deleting old submissions with little to no favorites is not depriving the fandom of valuable artwork.

Unpopular and/or hated members of the fandom should leave and never come back.

I don't know why those views are so unpopular.

>>78736

I had tons of favs but noone shared it, so all that crap is gone now and I don't miss it.

The second opinion isn't unpopular. Piss off, Orochi.

>>78733

despite wanting a SFW fandom for anthropomorphics i agree with you entirely when looking at the situation as it stands.

>>78736

>Deleting old submissions with little to no favorites is not depriving the fandom of valuable artwork.

The problem with this one is that it confuses the map for the terrain.

A submission could have no favourites yet be wildly popular. Favourites are just a crude measuring tool.

Of course, that doesn't apply to artwork with no favourites or views.

tbh it's a shame everything has to be measurable nowadays. It's not enough to just entertain someone, you've gotta have piles of analytics bullshit to tell you every little detail of how many seconds they spent scrolling down what percentage of the page. Then you start producing content to boost those measurements rather than just making what you want to make. I would know I do this. Or god forbid, fucking up the user experience with autoscrolling, pagination, etc, to improve the measurements at the cost of making everything less enjoyable.

>>78719

Hippies were concentrated drugs and sex (and rock 'n' roll) though, and that was part of their counterculture. Woodstock was a giant orgy. Kids in the 60's and 70's routinely lost their virginity in middle school. None of this was debated or misunderstood. It's just that the backlash to this (partially also due to feminism) resulted in American civilization swinging back toward vilifying sex and adhering to Christian taboos, in the 80's and 90's. Most people don't know that committing bestiality and owning child porn was legal until the Reagan years. In the 70's you could be an actual dogfucker, or fap to IRL children in magazines ordered through the mail (Playboy had underage models sometimes, too) and at the worst it was a little creepy. But not criminal, at least until Reagan decided to re-Christianize the nation. Compared to that, furries are as tame as Sunday brunch.

In fact, it could easily be argued that sexualized furries were a counterculture revolution to the prudishness of the time. Just not a very widespread one.

>>78731

There's a huge difference between a story being mostly sex to the point where it's nothing but porn, and a story having some sex. Literally no adult fiction is as SFW as anti-sexual furries want things to be. There's always going to be elements of romance and sex because humans are sexual. Part of this is because most furries grew up out of Disney movies and --- surprise, surprise — media made for six-year-olds doesn't contain any sexual elements beyond, sometimes, vague implications. Then they think that Disney is supposed to be what furry IS, or some shit. It's not.

>>78742

remind me where the sex was in Dirty Harry

actually i think the antagonist might have sexually assaulted someone, but the act i can even ask is the point, we didn't slide off into any scenes where clint eastwood was fucking someone.

romance is fine, but people don't make furry stories about Mr. Wolf travelling across the country by any means possible to try and save his failing marriage, and if they did nobody would give a fuck. That's an adult story, that's a story for mature adults, but you fuck the whole thing if at the end you show Mr. Wolf's dick and Mrs. Wolf's 16 tits.

That's the important thing to keep in mind though: There can be no moralism to this. No "stop having sex". We've long passed that point - and it's not just sex, the whole social structure of furry is antithetical to creating anything serious, anything of value, anything adult. It's a fandom for extended childhood, teenage edginess at best. There's no morality to that either - no "grow up" - because there's no point. Nobody's going to grow up, and even if they did they still wouldn't produce anything good. That's the root of the sex problem too, it's that horny teenage inability to just let it slide, leave it to implication or innuendo. There's a tact and nuance to it that furries will just never get. So fuck it, Mr. Wolf is on the train to New York and CHOO CHOO HERE COMES THE KNOT.

>>78739

Most of my submissions, regardless if new or several years old, have 50-100 views total and an average of 5 favorites. Once a submission is about an hour old, most people forget it ever existed and it gets 95% of views & faves in the first hour. I'm purging my gallery now, and as much as my sad sack of shit watchers are upset, they didn't give a remote fuck when they had access to it. They have no one to blame but themselves for this.

My fans can go fuck themselves.

>>78759

I kind of want to see what happens if you reupload them all at once, how many faves/views you wind up getting.

Clicking +watch does not mean artists owe you. They do not have to dedicate their time to only drawings or uploading things you specifically like. Click -watch if you wish but don't insist they owe you only what you prefer as eternal thanks for padding their watcher count by 1 whole number.

Undertale is garbage.

>just because it gets low views & faves doesn' tmean it's unpopular, you should leave it up anyway

FUCK YOU. I never see my stuff on boorus or chans, it's not downloaded or reposted anywhere because no one on FA cares about it. As it stands, the furry fandom doesn't want me around, but is too gutless to say so. Yet the silent signs are pretty easy to spot, so in the end they don't have to say it.

I don't have to share stuff, not if the fandom is pissed at me eternally over 10 year old drama because their favorite artist told them to when I failed to kiss their butt, not if they ignore when it's available. I was gone from the fandom for a long time, and coming back? That little voice in my head told me it would be a bad idea. Go figure it was right, as it was right the past 9 times.

Your fandom coddles a known rapist, why I didn't leave when that came out, I don't know, but the 3 fans I stuck around for can eat my shit. They don't support me, they just want free cummies.

is it spam or the site breaking that causes random chunks of the thread from earlier to be reposted?

>>78759

Oh that's definitely true, I'm just making the case against deleting based on favourites (or any other single metric) alone.

Although if you had low views, low faves, but 100 people who always commented saying they liked you for example, that would be another example. But if it's just a tiny amount of views + no comments, faves, messages, recognition at all then the fandom clearly doesn't care.

>>78764

At least you can draw. Imagine lacking even that plus and still finding the fandom that (apparently) caters to your interests, and (apparently) accepts everyone only to find both of those claims are bullshit.

But yeah you're right. The furry fandom is one of the least welcoming places on the internet. Furries will tell you it's welcoming but what they mean is that they'll never actually tell you go fuck off openly. They'll just - as you say - ignore you blatantly and wait for you to go of your own volition. Furries do not, cannot understand that welcoming is an active process. To be welcoming you actually have to bring people in, take the initiative, talk to the quiet guy at the back, and so on. Furries will never do that because they don't care about anyone outside their own little clique unless they're someone from a more popular clique or someone waving a thousand dollars in their face.

>>78764

>As it stands, the furry fandom doesn't want me around, but is too gutless to say so. Yet the silent signs are pretty easy to spot, so in the end they don't have to say it.

Imagine being so narcissistic.

>>78807

Narcissism is wanting someone to fuck off and not saying it because you think it will make you look like a bad person.

>>78814

>>78807

Narcissism is your best and only friend in life. Live to it and get shit done. Noone will help or support you in life and is just there to wait for the right moment to fuck you up. Trust me.

My friends betrayed me, my collegues betrayed me, my co-workers betrayed me and this shit is a neverending circle. Whenever I end up in a friendship or working relationship, I wait for the day to be betrayed or fired.

It might drag your life down, but you will never be disappointed again because you know: You wouldn't have done that to yourself. You are the only person you can trust.

Artists have every right to take down their art when they see fit for whatever reason they want, because it's their property

If you're not cutting it in the art scene, quitting is not a bad idea

Lolicon/shotacon/cub IS pedophilia and pedophilia is a mental illness. Pedos deserve public humiliation on national TV at the hands of Chris Hansen

Fanboys should never be listened to unless they are paying you and even then they should only be listened to up to a certain point.

The block function does not violate free speech.

>>77875 (OP)

The only good thing about the fandom is worldbulding (sometimes the porn is good, but that’s besides the point, there’s to little world building)

>>78825

there's worldbuilding?

Commission buyers should 100% get the rights to the finished artwork. This should be classified as "work for hire" NO exceptions. Artists who want to keep full rights for what someone else paid to have done don't deserve business.

>>78503

most furries I've noticed are stuck in this perpetual high school teenager phase and what I mean by that is I have encountered many many people who act like characters straight out of Mean Girls

I suppose that is normal for many people but it's really annoying to deal with

there's nothing wrong with zaush as a person or an artist and the people who go at his throat are literal spergs that are seething that he'll always be better than them.

Also, we've all seen how normal women act, I don't know why a furry woman of all people would be taken as a credible source for something like rape the odds of it being genuine are literally zero

>>78815

I was betrayed by my own goddamn mother. At this point I don't think I'll give a rat's ass if anyone tries to royally fuck me over, so I'll just hope they won't. And if they do, I will find someone that won't.

>>78852

t. poopoo peepee face who is mad that he's such a kek that no one can stand him

>>78852

My parents and grandpa are the only ones who didn't betray me yet (the rest of the family did, tho - my uncle made fun of my last job and told me I work for fake news, while he ruined 3 companies and is constantly broke).

But they don't live forever, so I must stop counting on them.

>>78863

To me it's quite the opposite. Everyone likes me and thinks I'm a fun guy. But you know... not enough to support me or fuck me. They like me just for the short time of having a fun time.

zootopia was boring

>>78869

finally someone hates that movie.

>>78873

didn't even hate it, it just failed to provoke any response either way. it was competent, it passed my time, but i probably won't be rewatching it before the decade is out.

>>78875

eat my dick looney toons makes you part of this fandom noob child.

>>78886

Ah nice, here I have one for this thread:

>Looney Tunes, besides Wile E Coyote, is unfunny and annoying and keeps repeating the same jokes

>old Goofy cartoons were funnier

>to see how crappy it is, they inspired people like Dough Walker

>Lola Bunny from Space Jam is the only good thing that we got from it

>Bugs, the protagonist, is a smug asshole while Daffy is highly relatable and the true hero

Oh shit. I said it.

>>78875

i was never given an entry card, every time i have tried to use a furry community i have been an unperson, conspicuously ignored.

>>78891

OOOHHH you fucking jack ass.

WHAT WOULD YOUR PARENTS SAY TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID THERE!

>>78891

YOU PROBABLY JACKED OFF TO LOLA FROM SPACE JAM WTF!

>>78898

Me too, but you can find ways.

>>78900

>>78901

Get your fucking autist ass back to the Hugo thread.

It's not too unpopular, but Jasonafex is a bitch and I bet his friends fuck his fiancee behind his back.

>>78932

This is a well known fact

>>78748

>Remind me where the sex was in a movie that would have been a financial disaster if it had any sexual content, because the MPAA would have rated it X and nobody would have seen it

I was talking about books. I'll point out the sex in movies when you point out where the furry artists who are making feature-length movies are. It's completely irrelevant to compare different media like that.

For everything else, you do have a point. Furry's approach to sex and "adult things" is more like a teenager's, probably because most of them ARE TEENAGERS. No actual adult cares about putting enormous dicks on everything; that's what twelve-year-olds do.

My point was that there's a thick line in furry works, where people expect you to stay on one side or another. Either it's meaningless constant porn, or it's completely devoid of even the smallest mention of sex. The only people who ARE interested in stories that are more than just endless fucking are downright Puritan about it.

>>78835

There's plenty, but only in the stories that nobody cares about.

>>78932

>>78934

He is just a greedy fucking cunt.

>>78934

>>78949

>namefagging

Copyright law should be abolished and piracy should be legal. Artists shouldn’t get payed for art because it isn’t a real job.

>>78951

Most tripfags are twitter/reddit immigrants who aren’t used to 8chan

>>79152

>Copyright law should be abolished

This would basically make it so no big budget works would ever be produced because it would be a lot cheaper and more profitable to just steal something and pass it off as your own

The furry fandom is overrun with sjws and the tumblr gender/sexuality crap since the fandom attracts the mentally ill.

>>79155

>This would basically make it so no big budget works

This is a good thing. It would help smaller filmmakers. Hollywood is shit and needs to die.

>>79155

(You)

>>79155

>This would basically make it so no big budget works would ever be produced

1. not true, because you'd still get stuff like films made by public broadcasters.

2. good

>>78762

Those are not unpopular you tard.

>>78815

>everyone betrayed me

They didn't, you are deluded because you are narcissistic.

>>79152

As long as you’re okay with a government provided living wage. I’m honestly okay with artist’s not getting paid for their art (ignoring whether or not you think it’s a real job), but it’s retarded to say that they should be left to starve if they devote themselves to art.

>>79236

tbh while my preference is for a living wage or something else that removes the market element from art, i have to wonder aloud if not dedicating yourself to art full time leads to better art by making you a more rounded person with a better understanding of how most people around you (who aren't artists) live.

looking forward to all the 20-something zoomers in the fandom hitting 30 and becoming persona-non-grata

not even a boomer myself just think it'll be fun to watch.

>>79224

No, I wasn't until then. I did everything just for others. I gave too many fucks.

>>77875 (OP)

I think that furries irl are either really slutty, or really ugly.

>>79278

You think that's an unpopular opinion?

Most furries see it as an unpopular truth

There are some ugly ass niggas here who fuck their own dog just to get off

-Furry characters with pubes (especially human pubes) are disgusting

-herms/dickgirls/cuntboys/intersex characters are repulsive, especially herms with their chimera gentials

the fandom is irredeemable, but in the most mediocre way possible. it's not even really fun to go nightmare diving in. it's just people more normal and socially well adjusted than i am pushing the boundaries of social acceptability with the money they get from having more gainful employment than i do.

1.) anyone who complains about fetishists being in the fandom (diaperfurs, inflationfurs, etc.) are idiots and forgetting that the fandom is based around a fetish for human-like animals

2.) furaffinity is outdated, insecure and broken garbage and if it weren't for the fact that it has a massive fucking userbase i'd happily forget about it

3.) kuroodod's eeveelution comic is overrated and got boring/repetitive after about the fourth character was introduced

4.) super intimate yiff is much better and hotter than when two characters just meet each other and fuck

>>79304

>you can't not like pedophilia because you like human animal hybrids

>checkmate furists

epin

>>79317

No thanks, I left FA because of several assholes who don't have an Inkbunny account.

Human-like facial hair in the form of chin goatees or jawline straps on anthro faces is sexy.

Any other kind of humanoid facial hair, especially mustaches, on furs is pig-disgusting.

>>79329

Seconded. Same with posting doujins on Paheal.

>>79236

They should get a real job. Drawing E-art is a hobby, not a career.

People who debate if X part of a Anthro’s body would be human or animal like are idiots. They don’t exist irl so no answer is objectively true. It’s a stupid argument to have.

>>79382

Why should they get a “real job?” Do we have some shortage of labor? Should we just drop the entertainment industry because it’s unnecessary and apparently everyone that isn’t working a desk job needs to go right now or else the economy will fall apart?

>>79386

All I’m saying is that the labor of “artists” isn’t socially nessicary labor.

>>79386

>>79392

There “labor” has the same use value as someone who makes mudpies.

>>79401

Nazi-furs to

>>79395

>Pic

Every time I come here to jerk off I see shit like this and get angry instead

>>79386

LOL. Try dropping the entertainment industry for one week and see how quickly the world goes to shit.

>>79382

>>79392

And yet, some people earn 10x more than 99.99% of other, way more socially necessary jobs doing exactly that. The sad part? They don't even need to have any actual skill, unlike the real artists with real artist jobs.

You don't even need to look much further, we have prime examples in this fandom.

>>79413

>LOL. Try dropping the entertainment industry for one week and see how quickly the world goes to shit.

Me? I dropped it for a long time. I don't miss formulaic scripts and other trash like lootboxes.

>>79413

>LOL. Try dropping the entertainment industry for one week and see how quickly the world goes to shit.

I already did five years ago, my life has improved.

>>79395

If it’s about lowering the barrier of entry, then back to my original point about a government-paid living wage. If someone could be and would be spending all their time making really nice art, then why should they literally starve to death if they do that (unless they come from some trust fund/rich family or otherwise). Make art unpaid, but also don’t force them into employment of other jobs just to stay alive either.

>>79431

Really the problem with this is that it's an "unrealistic" solution, it actually requires a policy response. (Also I suppose there's a question of what makes artists special?, all the rest of us are forced into jobs we hate too. One of the benefits of hobbies is, hypothetically, we get to engage in escapism to forget that.)

With "make art a hobby, not a job" it's just alternate history. Vaguely plausible fiction. If furry had a stronger objection to being commercialised in the past, the problem wouldn't exist.

I'm too pessimistic to believe in a positive future for the fandom. Even if we had basic income now, commercialisation has set in so there's no way to have it revert to being a hobbyist thing. Commissions are a simple, natural thing that people have accepted, as is paywalling to a lesser degree. Now sure, with basic income the poor could now hypothetically participate - but that's only half the problem, because they'd be approaching participation with a market mindset rather than the mindset of a hobbyist. You would just have a slightly fairer version of the present system while trust fund kids continue to have disproportionate influence tracking their disproportionate income.

It's too late to change anything but we can always look at the lost futures of the fandom, what might have been, in between cataloguing how bad things really are.

>>79395

You're an idiot, Miles-DF alone makes over $1000 a picture because he inflates his prices to the point where you need to sell an organ just to be in the background

>>79440

explain to the class why you thought this was relevant.

>>79440

>become self employed in creating content that's in high demand

>improve your skills to the point where you can make a living off them

>be successful

Nothing wrong with this imo.

>>79442

>take a collaborative community and turn it into a place where people just buy your shit

modern day enclosure of the commons

>>79440

Then commission another, more affordable artist, not Miles-DF

>>79447

rests on the assumption of having sufficient disposable income to commission anybody, as well as the ability to transfer money over the internet and living in a country with a good exchange rate.

as it stands furry is like a posh restaurant that reassures you the fact you're not too well-off is no barrier to entry and tells you to wait in the corner to be assigned a seat, then never comes back for you. technically they haven't told you to fuck off, but eventually you're going to have to take the hint.

>>79416

>>79427

Sigh. I meant it like suddenly erasing it from existence for EVERYONE. Yes, we get it that acting tough in the face of the mainstream media makes you super duper speshul, but humans need entertainment more than you think.

>>79304

That comic actually has decent writing and even a little bit of plot-progression and character development (for a porn comic, anyway). What's gotten boring and repetitive is his art style, where everyone's got these absurdly giant dicks and watermelon-sized balls, and

EVERY

FUCKING

PANEL

IS

A

CLOSE-UP.

>>79413

>some people earn 10x more than 99.99% of other

Welcome to capitalism. Enjoy your stay. Or do you REALLY think the CEO of a company is a million times more valuable than the janitor cleaning the toilets? CEOs can be replaced, but if the fucking toilets overflow sewage into the boardroom, we've got REAL problems, son.

>>79439

>what makes artists special?

Nothing. A UBI would allow anyone to pursue creative works without fear of starving to death (or, more realistically, being homeless and dying of heart disease from a diet of nothing but fast-food dollar menu items) whether that be art, writing, making videos games, building furniture, building rockets, whatever.

But there's an argument to be made that the acquisition of expensive commissions has become nothing more than a status symbol replacement for money. People like to show off that they have a commission from an artist known for expensive works, in the exact same way as they show off expensive shoes, or an expensive watch, or an expensive car. This is because the acquisition of wealth is correlated in society with an increased ability to survive, because money is life. It's an abstracted way of a medieval king being fatter than the malnourished peasants, because he eats more, because he's richer. But this is merely because wealth and being able to survive are correlated. A UBI would cause a paradigm shift in society where people can survive even if they are poor; and given more socialized means like healthcare, the poor would even be able to thrive. Being rich would no longer mean being healthier, being better able to survive. So it stands to reason that those "status symbols" would largely disappear, as they become meaningless.

While it would, in any case, be longer than our prospective lifetimes, in some centuries after these things inevitably happen, any future furries won't have the need to get expensive commissions anymore.

>>79453

>but humans need entertainment more than you think.

They can have non-mainstream entertainment

>>79439

There needs to be an art website that’s only for hobbyists, nothing involving transfer of cash allowed.

>>79453

They can live without it. A lot of it is just the same content retold and resold in a different medium.

>>79449

So you're really just asking for free stuff then?

>>79486

I could consume all the furry porn I'd ever want or need right now for free. No, I don't need any more free stuff.

Since I'll never get what I do want, as a runner up prize I'd like furry to be open and honest about what it is and drop the whole "we accept everyone!!" bollocks.

>>79487

Maybe I just don't try as hard to be social as other furries, but I've never felt unaccepted or anything just because I don't have a lot of cash to flaunt around.

I hate horse furries. They bore me.

Furries say the block function is evil, but everyone knows it's necessary at some point. Some of us have at least ONE person we had to block and will never unblock, and it's their own damn fault. You do unblock them and they go back to starting more shit, every time, so there's ultimately no point in unblocking them.

Mine is supersonic250, she is a cub-obsessed psycho bitch who loses her shit if you so much as say you dislike cub. She's unreasonable and probably not right in the head. After a time, fuck it, I don't need or want to communicate with this fucking trainwreck of a person. It's not like this is new, they've been an unreasonable cunt for almost 10 years, if not more. Anyone who says she's friendly and nice doesn't know her well enough, clearly.

Dragon penises are bullshit.

That thing everyone is forced to draw is not a dragon penis. It's a made-up penis. No one should be forced to draw that and only that.

Hell, would a dragon have a penis? Wouldn't they have a cloaca?

>>79458

>Welcome to capitalism. Enjoy your stay.

Oh, fuck you. What is with ya'll and projecting matters outside of their scope?

It's not even about politics m8.

Do you think some moronic game critic YouTuber is worth more/knows more than each and every poor sod that MAKE video games? No, they're fucking stupid cunts with an ego the size of a house, but try saying they're unqualified to use a computer, much less being a video game critic near any of their fans and see what response you get. There's a reason why there aren't any functioning adults between their fans.

And yet, they do provide value for the advertisement companies, and that's the only way they make a living. Because nobody is paying them to be critics, they get paid to round up stupid kids and inject them with bullshit.

Now take that shit out of the the equation and what do you you get? People who claim to be experts in something and have nothing to to show for it, still have fans defending their claim, but no ad companies buying that attention.

Welcome to every popufur ever, where the ad companies are replaced by the fans themselves, who are still made up of dumb kids, but also a lot of dumb grown up kids with credit cards and a neverending need for attention common for all.

This is why popufurs are shit artists but prime divas.

And while writing that I just realised all of this is still capitalism. It's just the product being sold that I'm not happy with.

Fuck me.

>>79473

Irrelevant. No websites directly allow transfer of money, because all the services used to facilitate such transactions (Paypal, Patreon, Kofi, etc.) are independent of artist's sites in the first place. What you're asking for already exists, so that changes nothing. Essentially, you want to create a website where artists will go if they feel like voluntarily forfeiting all potential monetary gains for the production of their art, merely to virtue-signal about what a good person they are for doing so. You'll get ZERO artists who bother to show up.

It's a nice idea, but won't work in practice, because the current system encourages every human being to cling desperately to every possible penny they can get, and punishes with pain and death any who fail to do so.

>>79500

99% of "dragon penises" are conedicks or dogdicks stuck into a genital slit, which is itself 99% of the time just an under-detailed, vertical human vulva.

>Hell, would a dragon have a penis? Wouldn't they have a cloaca?

Depends greatly whether you feel dragons are lizards or dinosaurs/birds. The former have penises, the latter almost universally do not. However, since the latter is an evolutionary adaptation for weight reduction, facilitating flight (aka: no penis means less tissue means less weight) any theoretical flying creature also likely would not have a penis. They certainly would not have a HUGE penis.

However, this also depends on how hard-realistic you consider your dragons. The vast majority depicted in media don't have wing surface-area nearly large enough to actually lift themselves, and so must therefore fly via "magic". This doesn't require following any laws of aerodynamics, or biology, or often even logic. They don't even need wings but for being decorative.

Come to think of it, almost everything on a furry character is put there for the purposes of being "decorative" with zero consideration for how it's used. Hence dog knots that don't actually inflate; it's just a decorative embellishment on what is otherwise functionally identical to a human penis. Wings on dragon characters are just decorative, to indicate that the character can fly, without actually having the structural ability to actually do so (like literally EVERY SINGLE DRAGON that isn't a drake; where the fuck are those additional flight muscles if it also has separate forelimbs??).

>>79526

This is why, when you ask the successful, most the time, they'll tell you the trick isn't skill or knowledge or anything like that.

It's constantly taking risks.

It's making the attempt.

>>79528

And while I agree the wealth disparity is a little bit absurd between the 0.1% and everyone else, there's certainly some amount of value worth being placed on those people willing to take those risks. They do give up a lot, too. A decent amount of people do ascend into a higher wealth bracket, and while there are certainly plenty of people born into affluence, there are many that climb their way up, and in a lot of cases they do give up a lot. I've seen people pretty well-off because they voluntarily work 70, 80+ hour work weeks, creating a nest egg and making good financial decisions early on, and these guys are risking their youth for a more comfortable future that by all means should be considered uncertain.

The problem lies in businesses having reached the point where they are too big to fail. It has completely reshaped our labour situation (and I think you could see this aspect in previous ways, like slave ownership was too big to not be used) and the way businesses are viewed. There's a new commercial you can hear on various radio stations about Wells-Fargo, which was the banking institution that leaked personal data about some half of the country - they're saying they've "reimagined their business" to "put the customer first." Most of the people hearing about this commercial probably don't even know why they need to put an advertisement out, or aren't even mad anymore - screwing over literally half of the fucking country and Wells-Fargo stands to benefit from it, rather than die.

For the absolute top percentile of owners, they command so much that it's no longer risk. That's the problem.

>>79526

I hate that I have have to put up with not only the knowledge that these faggots get to retire early thanks to a stroke of luck, but that also when you try to point out that is indeed the case, you get swarmed by a bunch of morons who argue that all that money is deserved for all the hard work they put in and skill they have. It's when you actually have the knowledge (and the skill they lack) to determine that it's absolute fucking bullshit and nobody bothers listening to you that the frustration amplifies so much that you get to the brink of insanity.

What's the fucking point of telling me that it's just luck, it's not about skills, and that I can't place a monetary value on it, when you could tell people are forking out way too much money to someone that doesn't even try putting effort in and get told that they actually deserve more money because they're so skilled and work so hard, when they actually don't even reach entry level.

>>79528

Yeah m8. Not all success is the same. I know a thing or two.

>>79530

The extreme majority of artists that procure high payments from commission work are good. You seem to be extremely upset that it's not completely meritocratic, but it's absurd to discard them as if they're "not even entry level." They aren't masters of their craft, they're not going to produce the next Mona Lisa, but they've established that they are a) Good, b) Prolific, and c) Consistent. This all makes for good business conduct. You could have an extremely great artist, but if they're unknown and inconsistent, they're not going to be very good to do business with.

Art as a skilled hobby is really weird to assign monetary value to, because you're paying someone to exemplify the time they've spent in refining their craft.

>>79531

I'm talking about the furry fandom.

Of course the guys working in entertainment are good.

But some furries manage to rival the top names in entertainment, without even being entry level for that industry nor abiding to those 3 points of yours. While there are some furries who could potentially work in entertainment (or who do, like Trunchbull) who decided in favor of the furry fandom, without even being covered in money for it.

Only God knows the reason behind this.

Apologizing over furry drama is a complete waste of time

>>79543

I don't think any of the big money-making furry artists (or even furry-related entrepreneurs in general) make literal millions of dollars.

At worst you could make motion towards like Varka or Dragoneer, but keep in mind that running actual businesses mean they abide by tax rules (and if they don't, they'll be fucked over in the long run).

If you point me to your infographic from earlier, it's not exactly a very good one as its point isn't clear - Dragoneer is $5,962/$8,420 in... what way? Where does "$170" from a professional CG Artist come from? Why is nothing on this infographic sourced? And it was established almost a decade ago.

$7,800 in monthly advertisements isn't very much. That's less than 100K, which isn't enough to live in big cities in the country anymore, not to mention all the extra taxation from being ran as a business. I agree that Dragoneer hasn't been the most competent, but if we're trying to say that the income he receives from FA puts him above top earners in the entertainment industry... fucking lol.

>>79530

>you get swarmed by a bunch of morons who argue that all that money is deserved for all the hard work they put in and skill they have

This made me have another realisation: Even if this was true it wouldn't be defensible. It's basically "it's your own fault you're unhappy"

Okay, so I'm a loser, I have no talent and popufurs do. Great. So where the fuck do I go? I'm obviously not welcome here, because it's a gathering place for the great and good, the talented who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and earned something better. Good for them, but what the fuck do I do?

Imageboard culture, though usually full of successful well adjusted people who imagine themselves worse off than they are, with a few genuine massive fuckups, at least welcomes these people. It's your own fault you fucked up in life... but you can still shitpost. We don't really care. Furry? We'll exclude you by default and if you speak up about it you're the bad guy and should leave. Leave to where? Not our problem. But remember, this is a welcoming community for everyone!

>>79545

Furries are a bottomless pit of money

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=121401

(yeah yeah i know patreon takes like a 50% cut or whatever, still.)

Even if very few are outright millionaires, influential or noteworthy furries definitely trend towards the top end of the income distribution. I'd go further and say so does the average furry due to one distorting effect of the internet: Children imagine themselves as poor (because they depend on their parents, even though those parents may be very wealthy and support them on the way to being similarly wealthy as adults.) and they imagine themselves as NEETs for not having jobs. This artificially inflates the number of income-constrained people in a community without actually boosting the participation of normal people on shit wages trying to escape the drudgery of daily life.

>>79545

>millions of dollars

Exclude the names the average layman knows (eg directors) and count only the names that one who works in the industry would know. 1

6 figures? Sure. Millions? Not likely.

My infographic? Sorry you've mistaken me for another person. Try having a look around Patreon, see how many furries in the top earning are there. More than the acceptable amount of 0.

Still rivaling people who would shit on them any day of the week. Considering said people also put in a tremendous amount of effort and dedication, unlike furries, that makes this situation even more fucked up.

Varka and Dragoneer run actual businesses, as you said. They don't count.

>>79597

>pic related

who?

>>79588

>New Freedom

This has to be the most burger name for a town I have ever heard of.

>>79403

>>79401

How about we kick all you politi fags out and we let you guys grab a gun and cap one another for our amusement you son of a bitches.

>>79528

Success is nothing more than survivorship bias. If a million people "take risks", then probably 999,999 will die or go bankrupt/homeless, and they won't have anything to fall back on. A lot of wealthy entrepreneurs ended up destitute at some point (like Elon Musk) but through mostly dumb luck managed to climb out of it. Distill it down, and it's little more than a contest of playing Russian Roulette where the prize for winning is lots of money. You ask the guy who succeeded how he did it, and he'll tell you that "You just gotta pull the trigger!" You don't hear from the people who also pulled the trigger, but didn't "win".

>>79531

If there's one thing you'll learn working for a successful business, it's that they're NEVER the objective best, just a shade over mediocre. Usually the best is some poor fuck you've never heard of that will be out of business by next week. Thinking that McDonalds is "bad food" is moronic, but nobody would claim that it's so amazing as to justify it being the world's most popular food.

After seeing the Sabrina Online thread.

>Chuck Jones style is an awful choice for a furry style

>it's like fapping to noodle arms and only context makes it interesting

>using that style makes you look terribly unoriginal, most of Eric Schwartz's characters are just ripoffs of e.g. Minerva Mink, the "Hello my Baby" frog... and as far as I know, ZigZag isn't even his character.

>>79692

I would accept McDonald's from someone. I wouldn't be happy about it but I'd accept it. Now Wendy's, that I'd be happy to take.

>>79969

>Muh square patties

Their chicken nuggets are alright. Everything else is barely above-average when it comes to fast food hamburgers.

>>79978

By what metric are you measuring "success"? I wasn't talking about just managing to be successful enough to live a normal life and not starve to death.

Anyway, by far, the best way to predict how rich someone is going to be is to look at their parents. Rich kids can almost never fail completely because their parents will bail them out. Poor kids have almost no chance at escaping poverty, even if they get an education. Middle class is just code for: poverty, but with a steady job. There are exceptions, sure, so-called self-made-millionaires, but becoming one of those is less likely than getting struck by lightning. Almost everyone who tries to climb the ladder will end up slipping back down to right where they were born, no matter how hard they try. It's less that the cards are stacked against them, and more that they aren't even allowed into the casino.

>>80092

I was suggesting that was more or less the minimum, generally speaking. At least here, in America.

Success is more getting somewhere above minimum-wage living.

From what I understand, most wealth is lost away by the first generation, so I don't think that's actually true.

>>80092

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

>>80132

the way i'm reading this is that trust fund kids have nothing to worry about and then probably won't have kids themselves unless they fail to squander the money.

which tbh would mesh well with rich irresponsible furry fucks.

also there's something almost comically ridiculous at this article giving advice for boomers on how to prepare their kids to inherit their vast wealth. the best gift i could afford to give my future-kids is the gift of nonexistence.

>>80129

>Success is more getting somewhere above minimum-wage living

Given progressive taxation, it really doesn't make much of a difference what your wage is. The only rich people are those making money without directly working for it.

>>80132

I'd like to see the actual statistics on this. All of the words used in this are subjective, chief among them are "rich" and "lose". How rich? How much do they have to lose? Also, is this counting every family that gets sudden windfalls like winning the lottery, because those do indeed tend to disappear very quickly. The kind of rich family's I'm talking about are more like "old money", who have wealth NOT all in liquidity. It's literally impossible to spend non-liquid assets, so it shouldn't come as a surprised that people generally don't.

>>80171

It wouldn't surprise me if the "losing" wealth is due to children. 2 people's money distributed between 3 kids, then those kids have 2 or 3 kids, etc. The problem is that they're likely grouping in "rich" as in a few million dollars that was achieved by luck and they actually pay taxes on it, vs the Romney or Bloomberg rich that are worth billions and hide most of it away in secret accounts.

>>80182

It's more of a conservative strawman that welfare is for racial minorities, than reality. That may be true in the cities, but there are ENTIRE STATES in Appalachia and the South, where essentially the entire population (and largely white) is on welfare.

You sound like an asshole, and fingerpointing at Clinton and "teh Joos!" is an obvious sign of /pol/ brainwashing, but the rest is correct. Anyone working for their money --- whether it's by labor or surgery or "just talking" — is a wage slave, one way or another, and will never be truly "rich". The other side doesn't work (or, at least, doesn't have to). They have "assets" that work for them. Stocks, investments, art, real estate, holdings in tax havens; and much of it is inherited. They can just sit on their ass all day and night, and their portfolios will continue to print money for them, year after year. These kinds of people can't lose their money; it's almost IMPOSSIBLE, even given something like a market crash. Investments on necessities and real estate are things that almost never will lose value over time. If you own stock in a company for food or cars (things people will need even after any rhetorical apocalypse), or significant amounts of land, you'll never be poor. Nowadays, if you've got the money, you can use expensive computer programs that play the stock market for you: thousands of trades per second. It's impossible to lose. Given enough math and a rigorous system, it's possible to make consistent profit even through sports betting (was once done for horse racing).

Normal people just can't fucking fathom how unbelievable powerful these people are, who were born with billions of dollars of diverse money in their families. There is simply no comparison to people who do actual work.

>>80215

>Anyone working for their money --- whether it's by labor or surgery or "just talking" — is a wage slave, one way or another, and will never be truly "rich".

In the context of the fandom: Bollocks.

Burned Furs were right. What many people in the fandom don't seem to realize or deliberately ignore is that the group came into existence to protest the idiots that came to conventions to masturbate in public ,often in the hotel lobbies, legitimate zoophiles that were using the fandom as cover for their dog/horsefucking antics, and dramawhores that just loved to make everyone look bad. Apparently there was also pornographic material being sold without verification of age as well. It wasn't created as some sort of anti-"alternative lifestyle" or prudish cult like leftists would like you to think. In fact, it's very likely that those individuals were planted within the movement in order to either silence opposition to the shader stuff going on or damage the reputation of the fandom as a whole. Anyone, the damage is already done now- so this is probably a moot point.

If you want to know more about it, check out the remaining refs on wikifur that haven't been memory-holed yet good luck getting archived versions of that page, and DTRH on youtube.

>>80215

>You sound like an asshole, and fingerpointing at Clinton and "teh Joos!" is an obvious sign of /pol/ brainwashing

That's a bit of a kneejerk reaction. I don't at all think there is some sort of innate Jewish conspiracy, in precisely the same way I don't think there is some sort of white conspiracy. White people don't receive privilege cheques that suddenly elevate them to higher statuses, and Jews don't either.

It is, however, still very odd how disproportionately Jews are represented in a lot of these very fields of extreme wealth we're speaking of. Except it's not really odd. It's bullshit about religion where they were allowed to be bankers where others weren't, a bit of family upbringing to make them more financially sensible (in the same way that Asian races tend to be very schooling-oriented), and probably a little bit of leveraging using their victim status. I "fingerpoint" at 'teh Joos!' because the oddity lies in how leftist rhetoric somehow excludes them, as if they're allowed their position of privilege because of WWII. I find this nonsensical, because they don't allow it from other white groups.

And I don't really understand picking out Clinton. I could have certainly picked out several other influential political figures too, but she's just an... adequate choice to highlight. As I understand, actual leftist rhetoric doesn't like Clinton either, but people will very willingly defend her because she's not Trump, which.. shouldn't be a good enough character trait to defend someone. I guess maybe you're telling me she's not actually THAT kind of rich?

Either way, in general, yes. As you said, even a market crash they won't lose their money - frankly, a market crash stands to benefit them because they have the assets to be able to turn easy profits off of it, and in fact they have the kind of money to create market crashes for that explicit purpose. I don't even intend to employ a conservative strawman, if that's what you're taking from this - like I said, I would love a UBI - but I don't think it's a very successful angle when people are pointing so low on the ladder towards people that are still very much proles themselves. The 'white privilege' rhetoric in particular is stupid because it's deflecting onto an entire race when most of us are shitting the bed too. In fact, the rhetoric is specifically about controlling discourse thru enforcement of arbitrary and specific language rules. Reddit is fucking awful for conversation because people will obsessively stalk through your post history to find a single little thing to invalidate anything you say. See my previous pictures for an example - guy makes a good, on-topic point and the entire thread of replies underneath him were people shitting on him over "blacks". Latinx is a particular pet peeve of mine because it's actually rewriting cultural and historical defining of how a language works at its very basis for pointless gender neutrality.

>>80227

It's a bit disheartening to see valid points swept under the rug because someone makes a single mistake or associates/shares an opinion or two with the "wrong" people. It's this sort of Tumblr/Reddit vaguely left-wing mentality that seems to have been making its way around big tech companies and certain political parties/governments as an excuse to silence people they have minor disagreements with and I absolutely hate it. I can definitely understand why /pol/ has so much resentment towards those groups in power, however imprecise and misplaced it can often be.

>>80228

the idea that imageboards are immune to this is silly. if anything imageboards were probably at this long before reddit and tumblr. use the wrong words, the wrong formatting, anything that might signify you're an outsider and you can fucking whistle for your point being taken seriously.

i don't know who i'd blame though, at this point i just look at it as another aspect of our perpetually declining society. i'm just riding it out to see how stupid things get.

>>80229

Of course they're not immune, but I've seen quite a higher number of dissenting opinions on them than non-anonymous big tech sites. My guess is the anonymity gives you only the content of the post to go on excluding namefags/tripfags of corse, so instead of dismissing people on who they associate with you do it based on how shit you think their ideas our. Though cuckchan seems to be succumbing to some of the same dogma as Reddit and Tumblr at this point.

Most posts are still shitposts however. Some of the more niche boards like /tg/ and /sw/ are great for the on-topic variety.

This board is a shithole. All it ever churns out is contrarian whining and obnoxious posturing.

>>80241

Ah, yes, the ultimate contribution one could make.

Even though it's a lot slower than the better days of /furry/, I still greatly enjoy the occasional conversations we have here.

>>77875 (OP)

Futa is a terrible fetish.

>>80227

>It is, however, still very odd how disproportionately Jews are represented in a lot of these very fields of extreme wealth we're speaking of

It's mostly /pol/ infographics using really shitty statistics. I've seen some of them. They claim someone is a Jew if they had a Jew in their family tree several generations ago. If you know anything about demographics and the power of exponential growth (you have only two parents, but go back a mere six generations and you have over 100 direct ancestors) you'll realize that by this loose metric nearly EVERYONE is a Jew. Same way that nearly everyone is a little bit black or a little bit Genghis Khan.

Even if there are more Jews in banking because of centuries-old family power structures, it wouldn't really matter. What would they do with this power? Humans, particularly rich ones, are selfish as all get out. They'd never be that way if they didn't ruin millions of lives to get all that money. So the idea that they would all band together to, I dunno, make Israel really powerful? is absurd. If anything, they're all fighting each other for a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Not a single one of them gives a flying fuck what happens to the world after they die, or what happens to anyone else. They just want to ride the lightning until then, and maybe secure their delusion that they really can buy a stairway to Heaven.

>people will very willingly defend her because she's not Trump, which.. shouldn't be a good enough character trait to defend someone

Why not? The opposite was a good enough reason for ~30% of the country to elect Trump. They also deflect to her for a "defense" whenever Trump does something wrong. If he started a nuclear war, the first fucking words out of their mouths would be something like "B-but Hillary would have started a WORSE one!!"

As for the rest, it's quite impossible to actually have an argument with someone outside of a structured environment like a moderated debate with rules and a rational scoring system. Otherwise, the other person will just pile on logical fallicies, throw insults at you, ignore the central point to nitpick minutia, and in the end deny that you've proven anything at all. The internet isn't any different, it's just less subtle about it. As I've said before, adults don't change their mind; the only way to "defeat" someone is to kill them. Barbaric, but always true. A noteworthy appendix to this is that you can modify the definition of "kill" to "simply wait for them to drop of natural causes" and it still mostly works, at least on a macro scale.

>>80267

>Adults don’t change their minds

Sweet. I didn’t want to be an adult anyway.

-Hybrids are underutilized and have infinitely more creative potential than standard species.

-The issue with the fandom isn'tthat artists take comissions, it's that the fandom produces literally nothing else and so artists can take advantage of the content vaccum

-Mythical creatures beyond dragons are also underutilized

-Most older animations are being slowly forgotten by the fandom and will eventually be completely gone.

-Making a good sandwich is way more effort than most equivalently sized meals and are always worse than them too

>>80287

>in most places daring to be a Trump supporter is grounds for being banned

Not here, though. Several boards on h8chan will get you banned if you badmouth him.

>I wouldn't expect much to be significantly different than if Clinton were elected

Then you really are an idiot. Clinton might have had problems, but at least she's not a deliberately boorish failure of a statesman excuse me, stateswoman. At least she wouldn't have caused irreparable damage with foreign relations of all our ally states, and the UN, and NATO. At least she wouldn't have blown a raspberry at even the IDEA of trying to reverse climate change. At least she wouldn't have dismantled the EPA, filled her cabinet with know-nothing retards, and caused a resurgence of anti-science. Probably wouldn't have given actual literal Nazis praise, either.

>Trump at least had a chance of pushing down on illegal immigration

You got me there. In that, he's succeeded. Illegal immigration is way down. He just had to make the country so undesirable that even starving war-torn Hondurans think twice before coming here, and it only took committing several human rights violations!

>>80342

Would things like sergals count as hybrids? Because I've seen quite a few of those as well as some other special snowflake species all over the place.

>>80346

Not really sure why you're bringing up Clinton so long after the election- saying you liked her better says less about Trump than it does your personal views. Not really surprised she didn't end up winning though, considering that "I'm not the other candidate" isn't exactly a great thing to run on- especially when your party primary shafted the candidate that had the actual popular support. I may have vehemently disagreed with Bernie's political views even more so than Clinton, but at least he relied more on policy than his sex or ethnicity. doesn't mean I necessarily like communists/socialists or social democrat policy though

Are you trying to come off as a living caricature of stereotypical left-wing views? Because it sure seems like it. Might be beneficial to take a break from the news cycle and all the alarmism it brings.

>>80346

you need more historical perspective tbh. more or less everything important in politics which really is to say political economy, cultural politics has mainly been a coalition building and voter-distraction matter since the mid-1970s has been terrible. in the 1990s, we thought that clinton and blair would break us out of the 1980s mould - they offered a small amount of palliatives in Blair's case, and a continued boot to the face in Clinton's case. Despite the appearance of a return to normality, plenty of people were left behind. Unsurprisingly voters became increasingly disillusioned as time went on with this situation, where your only real choice is what colour of boot kicks your teeth out. Then we thought the 2008 crisis would finally crack the consensus because the underlying economic model it was built on had been shown to be bollocks - but it didn't, indeed it strengthened it. Now finally people are being given a chance to make things not go according to plan, and even if this often means doing silly things, it's the first opportunity in decades to realistically disrupt the direction of history.

Story time:

Imagine you were on a bus to the moon, then one day lizards came along and hijacked the bus and insisted it drive around in circles, giving everyone arbitrary tasks to perform and force-feeding them. Every day, the lizards take a vote on which lizard gets to drive the bus. The first few times, people are genuinely optimistic that the lizard promising to stop the bus will do so. Then people get disillusioned, helped by the fact the lizards have started running over innocent people outside the bus. More and more people abstain from voting at all. Then one day, the lizards offer a new choice: You can have our most qualified driver for the job, or you can let a child drive the bus. Their intention is obvious: to make you appreciate their driving skill. Lizards are very good drivers. Well that may be true, we know how letting a lizard drive the bus works - it keeps this nightmare going. The child on the other hand cannot even reach the pedals. He will almost certainly crash the bus one way or another. So here's the question: Would you take the risk of crashing the bus to escape at the risk of killing some passengers in the impact, or wait and hope that the lizards have some higher plan beyond the same circular route until everyone has died of old age?

And despite the obvious contempt I show for the lizards in typing this, that's an open philosophical question.

>>80352

I'd count sergals as hybrids yeah. Most of the super snowflake shit is just "My guy is cooler than ur guy x100000" bs, or has no thematic cohesion but usually garbage you can rant about/laugh at is better than garbage you feel nothing towards.

>>80267

>It's mostly /pol/ infographics using really shitty statistics. I've seen some of them. They claim someone is a Jew if they had a Jew in their family tree several generations ago. If you know anything about demographics and the power of exponential growth (you have only two parents, but go back a mere six generations and you have over 100 direct ancestors) you'll realize that by this loose metric nearly EVERYONE is a Jew. Same way that nearly everyone is a little bit black or a little bit Genghis Khan.

That's a lie and a strawman. They talk about those who identify as being one in the duration of WWII to the present. Not 100 past ancestors like you're claiming.

>Even if there are more Jews in banking because of centuries-old family power structures, it wouldn't really matter. What would they do with this power? Humans, particularly rich ones, are selfish as all get out. They'd never be that way if they didn't ruin millions of lives to get all that money. So the idea that they would all band together to, I dunno, make Israel really powerful? is absurd.

It very much has everything to do with it, you fucking moron. There's a good reason why banks refuse to process the funds of corps like Bitchute. It's to promote their interests first and hinder those who act against theirs.

No one is claiming that they want to make Israel powerful. They're claiming that they want to make their own demographic powerful. Which is true. That's why the left-wing Jews criticize Trump for deporting illegal immigrants and trying to build a border wall, but why they remain silent to Netanyahu actively sterilizing and shooting immigrants while having a border wall. The Jews are more close to Nazis than any Americans will ever be.

Boy I fucking love politics on my F U R R Y board.

Derailers please fucking die.

>>80427

Its an infectious cancer. I don't think anybody has a cure for it either, sans killing the host

>>80427

You're free to contribute and create other discussions, if you feel. Bitching doesn't really help, though - especially since this is one of the more civil political discussions you could have... anywhere, really.

>>80356

I'm not going to give that absurd lizard analogy a second of my time. I'll just say that it was foolish to assume Trump was any sort of a wildcard. All through the campaign, he showed us who he really was. There was no mystery involved. And his idea of making America great was that America is perfectly fine and will succeed just fine --- provided you remove all obstructions to the free market and kick out all the brown people and dial up the Christian meter to eleven. The really funny part is that he's practically the only candidate in the history of American politics who had every intention of fulfilling every one of his batshit-insane campaign promises (provided he had to executive power to do so, which in many cases he didn't). It's just that all of his voters thought he wouldn't do it and was just being hyperbolic. More fools them. Why would you trust a man who's made his living on business scams?

>>80365

>no permanent damage was also done to our allies as well

Completely false. Up until now, every President has at least paid lip service to our allies. But now Trump has proven that at least ONE party doesn't give a shit about that anymore. Now every other foreign power knows for a fact that --- even if the next President mops up this entire mess — every new election cycles comes with the very real possibility of some jackass getting into power who will roll everything back to zero again. American politics have been unstable for a long time, but it's never been THIS unstable. No world leader is going to want to deal with the USA anymore, because there's a huge chance that at any time the President could be the kind of person who will throw a hissy fit and flip over the game board.

>>80420

Everyone is always conflating Trump supporters and Nazi supporters and racists and everything, saying it's all the exact same as the people who hate THEM, that it's all free speech or some shit. But that's wrong. It's a false equivalence.

One side hates and wants to oppress people for who the ARE (black, gay, female, Muslim, etc.); the other side hates and wants to oppress people who what they DO. See the difference? It's not okay to beat the shit out of someone for being a member of a demographic that commits more murders. It IS okay to beat the shit out of someone who actually commits a murder.

Is it actually supporting Nazis by saying that both they and groups protesting them have "good and bad people on both sides". Not really. But it has the same EFFECT. It emboldens and legitimizes these hate groups, and allows them to collect more power in our country. Would you seriously stand there and tell me that a group that wants to lynch niggers (the KKK), and a group that wants to stop the former from doing that (even if it takes some violence), are on equal standing? Because that's basically what Trump did.

As for Trump being a wildcard: see above. You even said it yourself, that he wore everything on his sleeve. You knew exactly what you were going to get with Trump, and I just CAN'T understand how a rational person can think that's a good choice, because he's such an openly BAD PERSON. He's everything horrible about America in one package, and he doesn't even have a lick of shame over it; he wears his racism and sexism and ignorance and boorishness as a mark of pride. He literally said that he could shoot a man out on the street, and still get elected. How in the FUCK can someone look at that and say that's the man you want to represent you and your country for the next eight years??

Clinton wouldn't have started a war with anyone, because literally every politician aside from Trump puts diplomacy first. Every candidate ever has been a small bit of ideology wrapped in a ball of campaign lies; we accept that. Until now it would have been nothing but a Liberal-created boogyman to say a GOP President would actually stack the SC with judges so conservative that they'd overturn Roe v. Wade and once again disallow gay marriage. But Trump? He's actually insane enough, and committed enough to do it. Because that's always been his idea of Making America Great: removing the "undesirables". Does that make him a Nazi? No; but it sure sounds like he's doing his honest best to TRY.

>>80519

you can't have it both ways, either trump is crazy and bad and will have negative consequences (and therefore isn't a competent managerial lizard and was worth a punt to get out of the lizard-cycle), or trump IS a competent managerial lizard, in which case who cares which lizard won?

>No world leader is going to want to deal with the USA anymore

i mean look at this, this would be the most radical change in the structure of global power since world war 2. after decades of being given no options whatsoever when it comes to changing the world, getting a result like that is quite the knockout blow for the people the lizards were leaving behind.

Trying to make furries the next LGBTQDE TJGSGD+XD is a mistake, yet it seems like the idea is still getting traction. I understand that shitposting about gassing furries is a common meme, but that's no reason to bring politics into what's literally just other kinks/interests but with animal people. I guess the fandom never should have become this unified yet horribly divided clusterfuck either.

>>80519

Is your post a /pol/ psyop to make /leftypol/ look bad? Because even the most ardent anti-Trump people I know don't believe half the shit in it. Pretty sure he was the first GOP candidate to even pay lip service to the idea of gay marriage and transgenderism as well.

I swear, it's like I'm reading some shitty tabloid article about how every new president is the worst thing since Dungeons and Dragons corrupted muh youth.

>>80524

I'd argue the increasing influence of third-world nations like those in Africa and Asia probably has a bigger impact, but I see your point. wasn't there some progress made on lessening tension between North and South Korea earlier this year?

>>80528

OwO whats this is now just a halfway furry meme thats had its full context basically erased in the """mainstream""". 14 year olds say it in that "lulz ecks deeee I mayd refrenc" sort of way, and even those that know the full pasta don't really think about it when they repeat the meme back. and again awoo is also another "lol refrenc" shitpost that young teens stole from furries.

We aren't pop culture atleast not how you would think we are. I'd say that star trek and capeshit is still more pop culture than furry is and maybe furry is sliding closer to their level of relevancy but they could also be getting less relevant instead and we just can't tell which is what.

Whats the point of this shit anyways? A month long derail where nobody learns anything and the cancer grows.

>>80524

A person doesn't have to be competent to make things worse. You don't have to be good at running a nuclear power plant, or even know it at all; but if you go into the control room and start pressing buttons at random, bad shit is going to start happening. Whether you're trying to make things worse or not doesn't matter.

Also, I don't know what the hell you're getting at. It all sounds like insane conspiracy-theories when you replace every fucking noun with "lizard". If this is what characterizes Trump voters, it wouldn't be too much or a surprise.

>>80526

>Pretty sure he was the first GOP candidate to even pay lip service to the idea of gay marriage and transgenderism

It would be because he's the first GOP President to EXIST in an America where those things are given lip service to. Those things weren't around before Obama. Next you're going to tell me that President Lincoln didn't talk about televisions.

Also, I don't believe you. This is Mr. "grab-'em-by-the-pussy" who called Africa a "shithole" and comes up with creative preteen insults for world leaders we're talking about.

>>80528

>You are inherently compartmentalizing groups based on their affiliation to separate them in ways that are not relevant to their affiliation

What?? Nazis are defined by their antisemitism; the KKK is defined by their racism. There is nothing else to it. People who merely have issues with their economic situation DON'T join groups like that.

>Trump also says a lot of very smart things

Oh yes. He's the smartest. He knows the best words. Not like Crooked Hillary and Rocket Man.

And as for furries, they're still not remotely mainstream. Literally everyone still thinks they're some tiny fringe group who yiff in fursuits and fuck plush animal toys, that nobody thinks about unless something happens like a convention getting bombed with chlorine. Them becoming "protected" would first require people to know they exist.

>>80531

People like Hilary Clinton and Tony Blair basically have/had no publicly meaningful life outside politics. It is difficult to imagine them as serious, three-dimensional human beings at all. In vulgar terms you could not have a beer with them. Hence: Lizards. Their political vision was a staid vision of competent management, again a response to the world's problems that could only be desired by inhuman lizards. We don't need competent management of the status quo because the status quo is not functional, we need radical change, and we're not going to get radical change - of the left or of the right - until they fuck off.

Let me put you in the position of a British voter in 2016 - so Brexit rather than Trump, but the same basic idea. You haven't had a proper job since 1987, alternating between part-time non jobs like call-centre work and the dole. Since 1996, the government has made getting the dole harder and harder. In 1997, you thought that Labour being elected would dig you out of the bog that is your life - but they did nothing except continue buggering you about at the job-centre and filling the short-term work you did with arbitrary targets, and invade Iraq. Since Labour lost power in 2010 and the Conservatives were returned, the amount of money you get has been cut each year, despite the fact full employment hasn't existed since the 1970s so it's a mathematical certainty there will be good people unemployed. Your local hospital has just been closed, and now the government is going to cut your income further because you've got a spare bedroom in your dilapidated council house. The person in the dole office sanctions you for showing up 5 minutes late to meet their financial targets. You've got to take a payday loan to eat that week.

Then along comes the EU referendum. John Major (Prime Minister 1990-1997), Tony Blair (1997-2007), Gordon Brown (2007-2010), and David Cameron (2010-2016) all unite to say that voting to leave the EU would be a terrible, terrible idea and would make life horrible for people in Britain. But hold on a minute! Life is already horrible! And if you vote to stay in Europe? Well, David Cameron will stay Prime Minister, and he'll stick to his 2015 plans for the country. So you know what happens if you vote for the status quo: You're fucked. But what if you vote to leave? Well, if you listen to Leave campaigners, your life won't suck anymore. They'll put more money into public services, they'll cut immigration so there'll be less competition for jobs, and Britain will have a freer hand to export to the rest of the world. All very nice - if true. So now here's where you weight things up: What if that's not true? Well, according to Remain campaigners, if Britain votes to leave the EU, the City of London will be fucked, house prices will crash, and unemployment will increase. So now you think: If leaving is good, my life will be less shit - and if leaving is bad, it will mostly hurt people who've had it good since the 1980s who frankly fucking deserve it for callously ignoring the rest of the country's suffering. Oh yes such a very, very tough choice...

Now, both sides predictions could both be bollocks: But look what has happened to Britain since the vote. David Cameron and his friends had to fuck off. Theresa May (more Robot than Lizard...) was forced to change the government's economic plan and in 2017 basically just plagiarised Labour's 2015 manifesto, and even then her government hangs on a knife-edge. Jeremy Corbyn, a random outsider in 2015 hated even by most of his own party in 2016 has suddenly become a plausible candidate for prime minister, and the whole atmosphere has changed again to being one of possibility. Maybe, just maybe, the future isn't going to be another 20 years of what we've had before. And if it is? At least we got to see David Cameron resign in disgrace as probably the most incompetent prime minister of the century, which is at least one good thing, something we'd definitely not have got if we'd stuck with the status quo.

tl;dr sometimes doing bad shit causes good shit to happen. out of the fires of WW2 came the longest period of peace in Europe in history.

>>80519

>One side hates and wants to oppress people for who the ARE (black, gay, female, Muslim, etc.); the other side hates and wants to oppress people who what they DO. See the difference?

It doesn't matter what they think, it matters what they DO. If there's no oppression being DONE, then you have no excuse to oppress them. Got it? Don't give the "well they would have done it if it were legal" bullshit excuse because they would have went through with that plan illegally like Antifa does.

And no. It's not "oppressive" to hear views that are offensive to you. You don't lose rights from being called a nigger or a fag. If anything, the only person losing those rights is the person stating those slurs to begin with. They get fired, doxed, beaten, etc.

>Is it actually supporting Nazis by saying that both they and groups protesting them have "good and bad people on both sides". Not really. But it has the same EFFECT. It emboldens and legitimizes these hate groups, and allows them to collect more power in our country. Would you seriously stand there and tell me that a group that wants to lynch niggers (the KKK), and a group that wants to stop the former from doing that (even if it takes some violence), are on equal standing? Because that's basically what Trump did.

Nope, it doesn't have the same effect. Mainly because there's NO ENDORSEMENT of nazis. Just criticism. You can't state anything convincing because you know that it's complete hogwash.

They didn't get any power and legitimacy from being criticized by fucking president. How do I know this? Because they got DEPLATFORMED from nearly every social media site like Facebook, corporate services like Uber, and financial platforms like Paypal/gofundme. I don't get why you guys parrot bullshit from twitter leftists and lie about verifiable information.

You don't analyze the real world when it comes to your claims because you want to be blinded by hypothetical fear and falsehoods. It frustrates me because you're aware that you lie to yourselves.

>Clinton wouldn't have started a war with anyone, because literally every politician aside from Trump puts diplomacy first. Every candidate ever has been a small bit of ideology wrapped in a ball of campaign lies; we accept that. Until now it would have been nothing but a Liberal-created boogyman to say a GOP President would actually stack the SC with judges so conservative that they'd overturn Roe v. Wade and once again disallow gay marriage. But Trump? He's actually insane enough, and committed enough to do it. Because that's always been his idea of Making America Great: removing the "undesirables". Does that make him a Nazi? No; but it sure sounds like he's doing his honest best to TRY.

She would have started a war like Obama did with Syria and Libya. Leftist idiots wouldn't care they're not right-wing politicians.

You're not basing your criteria on the actual Nazi platform, you're basing it off subjective horse shit that you've made up to include everyone. "Removing the undesirables" can refer to prisons, abortion, vaccines, etc. The actual specific nazi platform was genocide of their legal jewish immigrants, it was not a "muslim ban" that banned 8 out of 50 muslim majority countries nor the action of deporting illegal immigrants.

>>80531

>Also, I don't believe you. This is Mr. "grab-'em-by-the-pussy" who called Africa a "shithole" and comes up with creative preteen insults for world leaders we're talking about.

So? He's objectively right about it being a shithole. Go live there if you think otherwise.

It's crass, but saying it nice as others previously did for decades didn't improve the state of African countries.

>What?? Nazis are defined by their antisemitism; the KKK is defined by their racism. There is nothing else to it. People who merely have issues with their economic situation DON'T join groups like that.

Looks like you've missed his point. He's saying that Trump supporters aren't genocidal nazis nor racist klan members for voting Trump.

I'm just in it for the sexual stuff, but am suspicious of anyone who clsims there is more to furry shit than that.

>>80541

Ultimately it's about an appreciation of a fantasy, but I think it's a little disingenuous to say that it can only be sexual.

The real difficulty of attribution comes in the fact that the fandom itself has evolved into a weird meta-cultural thing where it's not just the appreciation thereof, but the reference of the appreciation (thru self-expression or, more typically, the purchasing of something substituting self-expression). Really, are you a furry if you have no interest in socializing with other furries? That's the ongoing debate that will probably never be solved.

My personal conclusion has been that we should just distance furry from everything else. Just like how not all Star Trek fans are Trekkies, not all anthropomorphic fans are furries.

As a general thing, I think animals are a lot more capable of expression in artistic mediums, especially when it comes to more sensitive ideas. Homeward Bound, for example, if depicted with children but otherwise point for point the same script, would have a massively different tone and be unsettling to most people, rather than being a fun characterization of household pets.

>>80549

Like I said in>>80342 the issue stems from furry being 'just art' nowadays. So people fill their time spent not looking at art with socializing.

>>80535

>It doesn't matter what they think, it matters what they DO.

nice behavioralism stuck-in-the-50s

go chant for lobotomies because mommy dared to disagree with your lunacy over your circlejerk

>>80549

>Just like how not all Star Trek fans are Trekkies, not all anthropomorphic fans are furries.

You are even if you tell yourself you aren't, and taking any other position is what's actually disingenuous as it ignores the fifty thousand years of cultural interplay anthropomorphic figures have had in art, religion, literature, and yes, sexuality. Schisming the last one because it hurts your feelings makes no sense and is antithesis to human history and undermines how people use anthropomorphism as a means of expression because of your Victorian sensibilities. Furries as sex objects aren't a new thing, they didn't start with the sci-fi nerds wanking over anthros in the 80s. They've been around since the earliest civilizations. Until you appreciate this, you will never understand what makes anthros tick in the human consciousness.

>>80559

That's taking what I said out of context.

You can appreciate Star Trek and its intricacies without being a "Trekkie," because the latter implies that you take it to such an extent that a large part of your identity revolves around the fact that you are such a fan. "Trekkies" go to conventions and hold lengthy discussions about Star Trek as a regularity - it is normalcy to them.

Similarly, you can appreciate anthropomorphic media such as Zootopia and, yes, even sexualized content like Fritz the Cat without being a so-called "furry," because that term is sprouted more in reference to those for whom furry is a significant part of their identity. I don't deny that I am a furry - even though the only other furry I speak to on a non-anonymous basis is my boyfriend, I partake in the culture and am aware of some of its intricacies, and yes it does play as a part of my individuality. I know of many people who appreciate produced furry content works without it being a tangible part of their cultural lifestyle. For some, Zootopia is just a decently animated movie with talking animals.

You can make this kind of comparison to many things, really. It's not a question of how little or big a role anthropomorphism and personification plays in our history (which I agree is an actual large foundation of many things in our lives) but how loose or strict we want to define "furry." Is anyone that liked Zootopia a furry? That's diluting the term far too much and making it useless.

>>80564

The only thing that picture is missing is the Pokemon gateway drug.

You're all zoophiles or zoophiles in denial.

>>80600

>The reason why the Democrats have been failing recently is because they don't understand America. They're still trying to play nice and play fair and use such outdated and futile tactics like reason and logic. They refuse to be a piece of shit and resort to dirty cheap tricks to win elections like the GOP does. They have somehow not realized that America is a toilet bowl full of pieces of shit, and the only way to get ahead is to be the same. Despite all desperate cries that things will change, it won't. Unless Dems start being whining, crying, screaming, lying, cheating, retards like the GOP candidates are, they won't get anywhere in the midterms, nor will they stop Trump from being re-elected, nor will they do anything for the next... eh, however long it takes for the nukes to start flying and humanity to destroy itself.

lol

>>80558

I think it says quite a lot when the person you're arguing with gives some pretty good reasons for his line of thinking, and your response to that is implying they think lobotomies are a good idea along with saying they're stuck in the 50's. I really don't understand why people get so emotionally invested in what often in both the best and worse cases amounts to little more than a minor change to the usual political bullshittery.

>>80563

I guess the only real thing that really defines if you're a furry these days is whether or not you fap to furry porn. The original idea of being in the community specifically to read stories or media featuring animal characters because you're interested in that seems to have largely gone out the window once mature media not porn, just stuff that doesn't cater to children featuring animal characters has become more mainstream than it once used to be. Of course, the porn was always there- but it seems that's gotten the most attention since the Burned Furs were a thing. You still see art that isn't porn, but it just doesn't get the same amount of attention because it doesn't make those big patreon gibs.

>>80600

>If you think Trump or Brexit is going to suddenly prop up the entire economy so hard that everyone will be gainfully employed and wealthy, you're REALLY delusional

Imagine they destroy it. You know what came after the great depression? Full Employment. The Golden Age of Capitalism. And failing that? Revolution. And failing that? forcing upper middle class wankers to realise everything is shit.

>When you ask yourself how things would be if you'd ended up like THAT, maybe you wouldn't be so eager to vote for the "destroy everything" option just because you're a little bit pressured by the "status-quo".

No future is no future is no future. If things go on as they do now, our hypothetical individual is going to succumb to the main cause of death for males between 20-49 years of age anyway. It doesn't really matter if he kills himself by hanging in his council house or jumping off a bridge without a house.

But then you're really giving off the impression of someone who thought the Obama-Cameron status quo was acceptable and the Clinton-Blair years were a golden age, so what's the point in pressing on? You'll never know what it's like to have a shit life and absolutely nothing to lose. My one regret is adding to the political walls of text in this thread when that should probably have been foreseeable from the start. Enjoy the next financial crisis. :)

>>80600

>If you think shit can't get any worse, you're delusional. If you think Trump or Brexit is going to suddenly prop up the entire economy so hard that everyone will be gainfully employed and wealthy, you're REALLY delusional. People like you need some perspective on life, maybe by going down to your local homeless shelter. When you ask yourself how things would be if you'd ended up like THAT, maybe you wouldn't be so eager to vote for the "destroy everything" option just because you're a little bit pressured by the "status-quo".

They'll be more wealthy under right-wing leadership than left-wing leadership. The left is only capable of creating shitholes like Baltimore, San Francisco, New York, Venezuela, and Cuba.

>You're a moron. End of argument.

You're the moron. Never said that illegal crimes were nonexistent, just that there's no oppression nor Nazism from you being called slurs online. That's a fact.

If you're using a 2016 mass shooting committed by a lone muslim to prove the fact that all offensive speech should be prohibited on the web, then you're pretty stupid.

>She lost at the last second when Trump and his friends dumped that leak about her e-mails literally the day before the election. Everybody knows this. Maybe it wouldn't have had enough of an effect of depressing her support, has she spent more time talking about how incompetent Trump is, and less about how much of a creep he is. But the fact remains that she was just barely on top before that, and then suffered a small but fatal drop.

Trump didn't leak those emails, but that's besides the point.

If the emails were so bad to make democrats lose the election, then it's the fault of the democrats as opposed to the leakers. The emails revealed that they were phony liars who had close ties to the press and entertainment industry. It also revealed that they were responsible for deplatforming Bernie Sanders.

If their emails supposedly reflected their "fair, nice, and honest" character, then they would have won the election. Unfortunately for you, it revealed that they were manipulative rotten liars who used the media to hide their bad actions. Rather than remove the duplicitous character that people resent them for, they would rather prefer to double down with it instead. Listen idiot, you can't pretend

>>80628

>the only real thing that really defines if you're a furry these days is whether or not you fap to furry porn.

That's still an extremely vague brush and completely disregards a large portion of the fandom. A lot of people do literally nothing but occasionally find pieces of furry artwork that they're willing to get off to - not even knowing the name of the artist, any of the drama behind them, without having a fursona, or anything like that. Sticking to my Trekkie analogy, this would be pretty analogous to just watching Star Trek (e.g. "consuming" the media, as it were). This is even being generous towards your side of the argument, as it's making the assumption that the only media to consume in the furry fandom is porn, which isn't quite true.

In fact, just look at the next poster below - maybe that guy has or wants literally nothing else to do with furry, just happens to have a crush on a cute bunny girl. Calling that furry is certainly diluting the term and making it unusable, is it not?

>>80629

Whats at that url famalam I don't want to soil my eyes or get on another list.

And yes you're a furry now

>>80640

>They'll be more wealthy under right-wing leadership than left-wing leadership

This isn't the real point. They'd quite probably be better off under right wing leadership or left wing leadership, so long as either threw them a bone. The problem is status-quo managers who don't care at all. Because they've taken those groups for granted electorally for decades in order to pander to swing-voters. San Francisco and NYC seem like embodiments of the places where the people who forget about normal people live. Especially with Oakland just across the bay. Fun game: Keep a tally of how many rich furries live on the west coast.

Anyway none of us are going to convince each other of anything let's go back to complaining about furries.

>>80639

>You know what came after the great depression? Full Employment.

Are you forgetting The New Deal enacted by FDR that allowed for that? Capitalism won't naturally fix itself, it needs regulation. Reminder food companies literally burned crops and killed livestock and left the corpses to rot rather than distributing that food to the starving masses, thus killing 7 million people, all so they could keep their profit margins up;

http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/

>>80261

You mean the circlejerking? Sure, sure.

>>77875 (OP)

furries are mentally ill and need to be gassed

>>80659

The new deal didn't really do shit except prolong the end of the depression until the US got involved in WW2. It turns out selling weapons to your allies who are in existential danger, converting most of your industrial output into military, and emerging as one of the few nations involved in the war not to be a bombed out shell of it's former self is really good for the economy. If Europe hadn't decided to kill several million of its own people, America would have likely become a shithole like post-war Europe was for a while.