# Neo-Nazi furries in Newsweek



## Telnac (Nov 22, 2017)

Just when I thought I’ve seen it all...

www.newsweek.com: Neo-Nazi furries are Trump’s latest and most puzzling alt-right supporters


----------



## Open_Mind (Nov 22, 2017)

No. Oh please no.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 22, 2017)

Open_Mind said:


> No. Oh please no.


Yeah, just when you thought the portrayal of furries in the media couldn’t get worse...


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

>Sees Junius mentioned





Junius is trash. Feel free to scroll through some of Junius' Tweets if you don't believe me. Deo is in that same boat.

Fun fact: Alt-Furry =/= Alt-Right. Alt-Furries are sick of the political correctness and identity politics being attempted pushed down their throats. I love smear campaigns because the news have some ways to somehow attack Trump through it. Pathetic.

I find this group way more diverse on ideologies, ideals and opinions than the trash that are smearing them. An before you ask: Yes, I talk with them all on Discord.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 22, 2017)

It unfortunately shows the drama, but it at least made it clear that furs don't tolerate it in the least bit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> It unfortunately shows the drama, but it at least made it clear that furs don't tolerate it in the least bit.


Just like the Alt-Right, the Alt-Furry is the direct result of identity politics being pushed, and people identifying as Alt-Furry is only going to grow.

This time however, there are no ideology let alone ideals involved, apart from two things: Fuck identity politics, and fuck political correctness.


----------



## fallout19980 (Nov 22, 2017)

Today I decided to hit the forums again. Wasn't expecting to see this...


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

Ughhh more politics stuff, schools already force this stuff to all students. So seeing politics in personal hobbies is annoying as hell.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 24025
> Ughhh more politics stuff, schools already force this stuff to all students. So seeing politics in personal hobbies is annoying as hell.


The fandom's been slowly politicized for the past 5-6 years. This is yet another shitty attempt to attack Trump, by any means necessary.

This is what happens when your actual "enemy" is nowhere to be found: You make shit up. You mislabel and name-call those you don't agree with.

Well, the Legacy Media is dying, and taking the shit they've spawned with them. This is just another dumpster fire waiting to burn down.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Also:

Are the photos shown copyrighted material?
I see no actual citations to verify any of these claims.

Welcome to Junius:
 http:// archive .fo/L2Cfz
^ Without spaces between, for some beautiful Tweets by our beloved Junius. <3

Someone who smears anyone who isn't politically correct or accept identity politics. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Got a ton more tweets from Junius and our beloved Deo, too.

P.S: Newsweek closed their comment section. I wonder why..


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

It's just edgy kids and manchildren.  This is nothing new and nothing shocking. Edgy wannabe nazi furries have been around for a long time.


----------



## Sgt. Kai (Nov 22, 2017)

I cannot believe this was in Newsweek. Seems more tabloid-ish writing style to me anyway.
The dumbing down of America. Ain't it great?


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Nov 22, 2017)

*DEEPLY IMPORTANT NEWS RIGHT THERE.
*
Can't have the rise of "nazi furries" can we? No sir.


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> P.S: Newsweek closed their comment section. I wonder why..


Beacuse of people like me who hate furries beacuse they are weird gross sex objects.. OOPS I FORGOT IM SUPPOSED TO BE A FURRY HERE, IT'S NOT LIKE I'M A NORMIE DISGUISED AS A FURRY TO TAKE THEM DOWN OR SOMETHING

I was looking at that junius guy or whatever and he seems like a bit of a dick


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Beacuse of people like me who hate furries beacuse they are weird gross sex objects.. OOPS I FORGOT IM SUPPOSED TO BE A FURRY HERE, IT'S NOT LIKE I'M A NORMIE DISGUISED AS A FURRY TO TAKE THEM DOWN OR SOMETHING
> 
> I was looking at that junius guy or whatever and he seems like a bit of a dick


It's just the tip of the iceberg. Should see some of the shit taken from chat logs. Open calls for violence and shutting down events because people this trash hates are attending. Defamation, advocating for political violence, targeted harassment, +++. As they continue this garbage, the ones they are unjustly attacking will bite back, and they will have the laws on their side.

It will be beautiful. Salt will multiply so far out we'll hit Jupiter.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)

I've met Junius.

He's just an obsessive SJW who centers his existence in validating his own political ideas by pointing fingers at non existent neo Nazis using the typical scapegoats that have been proven far more complicated than what he trots out, using assumptions to assign guilt to other furries, or look at a few shitty furries and portray it as an issue.

Those you have to fear are those willing to create issues, not fix them.  You wanna blame a certain people for the problems in the fandom?  Start with those who create problems where none or few exist.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Nov 22, 2017)

this is completely mind blowing.... I don't even understand how you can dress up like an anthropomorphic animal, be part of the most trashed, misunderstood fandom in existence, and spread hate and intolerance for someone else...


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)

>Muh Furry Raiders r NAZIS

>Alt-Furries are NAZIS even though less than a quarter actually identify with nationalist views and most are actually libertarian

>Foxler

Yep this just an article spouting the same horseshit we've been hearing for the last decade.


----------



## connortheskunk (Nov 22, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> this is completely mind blowing.... I don't even understand how you can dress up like an anthropomorphic animal, be part of the most trashed, misunderstood fandom in existence, and spread hate and intolerance for someone else...


I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 22, 2017)

There is no low the fandom can't go, that's why we make such great memes, so this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Muh Furry Raiders r NAZIS
> 
> >Alt-Furries are NAZIS even though less than a quarter actually identify with nationalist views and most are actually libertarian
> 
> ...


Welcome to how the SJW's operate.

Have no ideological enemy? Fucking create it through your own hatred. Because you know, victim complex and narcissism is through the roof and half way to Alpha Centauri already.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> The fandom's been slowly politicized for the past 5-6 years. This is yet another shitty attempt to attack Trump, by any means necessary.
> 
> This is what happens when your actual "enemy" is nowhere to be found: You make shit up. You mislabel and name-call those you don't agree with.
> 
> Well, the Legacy Media is dying, and taking the shit they've spawned with them. This is just another dumpster fire waiting to burn down.



Alt furry? What the fuck is alt furry? Can't we just call them racist bigots in fur suits? Because that is what Trump supporters are. The people yelling about "political correctness" are usually the first to support absolutely appallingly despicable people like Donald Fucking Trump. 

Furries, to me, represent acceptance of weird stuff, different ways of thinking and acting. Trump represents suppression of all that, so these God damn neo nazi furries are just exactly that.


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Welcome to how the SJW's operate.
> 
> Have no ideological enemy? Fucking create it through your own hatred. Because you know, victim complex and narcissism is through the roof and half way to Alpha Centauri already.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Alt furry? What the fuck is alt furry? Can't we just call them racist bigots in fur suits? Because that is what Trump supporters are. The people yelling about "political correctness" are usually the first to support absolutely appallingly despicable people like Donald Fucking Trump.
> 
> Furries, to me, represent acceptance of weird stuff, different ways of thinking and acting. Trump represents suppression of all that, so these God damn neo nazi furries are just exactly that.



"Can't we call them racist bigots and move on?"

This is real.

Ah hem.  Listen here.  I was an Alt-Furry.  Majority of members are neither racist nor bigoted.

I also don't appreciate you calling me a racist and bigot.  You don't know me.  Stop pretending like you're some moral guardian.  You can't be moral based on ignorance.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 24031


Basically. Just a bunch of nitwits crying over petty crap that doesn't even matter.



BahgDaddy said:


> Alt furry? What the fuck is alt furry? Can't we just call them racist bigots in fur suits? Because that is what Trump supporters are. The people yelling about "political correctness" are usually the first to support absolutely appallingly despicable people like Donald Fucking Trump.
> 
> Furries, to me, represent acceptance of weird stuff, different ways of thinking and acting. Trump represents suppression of all that, so these God damn neo nazi furries are just exactly that.


Cool story bro. Needs more moronic assumptions and collectivizing entire groups.

Your ignorance is one of the reasons Trump won, and is going to continue to win. But keep pressing. You'll get them "evil nazis" sooner or later. <3


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> "Can't we call them racist bigots and move on?"
> 
> This is real.
> 
> ...



From the article:

"These “alt-furries,” as they’re known, hold similar views as the so-called alt-right, a white nationalist, anti-globalist movement that largely supports President Donald Trump."

The alt-right is the new front of the KKK, essentially, or the whitewashed version, "white nationalism." Ha, see what I did there?

And if you're an alt furry, but not alt right, then this isn't a useful label.


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't know me





 
...im honestly only here to post memes and to learn about alt-furry, I've been wanting to know about alt-fur for awhile


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Basically. Just a bunch of nitwits crying over petty crap that doesn't even matter.
> 
> 
> Cool story bro. Needs more moronic assumptions and collectivizing entire groups.
> ...



No, people being willing to overlook pussy grabbing commentary, unethical business practices, crony capitalism, whorish behavior, capitalistic corruption, and bigotry is why Trump won.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 24032
> ...im honestly only here to post memes and to learn about alt-furry, I've been wanting to know about alt-fur for awhile


Alt-Furry = Alternative Furry. That's it. There is literally nothing to it apart from doing identity politics and political correctness. 



BahgDaddy said:


> No, people being willing to overlook pussy grabbing commentary, unethical business practices, crony capitalism, whorish behavior, capitalistic corruption, and bigotry is why Trump won.


Of which you have ZERO actual evidence for. I can claim that Mars is made of chocolate. Doesn't make it true, no matter how loud I cry about it.

His commentary happened 12 years ago. In private as a civilian. People in general are way worse, so moot point.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> From the article:
> 
> "These “alt-furries,” as they’re known, hold similar views as the so-called alt-right, a white nationalist, anti-globalist movement that largely supports President Donald Trump."
> 
> ...



the source is Junius, a source I know to be biased.  The article has no legitimacy except as a mouthpiece for Junius.

Furthermore, just because someone supported Trump doesn't mean they're racist.  Just because someone isn't a Globalist doesn't mean they're a nazi.

The article mean a nothing.  Furthermore the name Alt Furry literally translates to Alternative Furry.  It has little to no relation to being an alt right group.

We have leftists and moderates in the group along with right wingers and admittingly some nationalists, mixed with different races and ideas and religions.  It's literally the opposite of national socialism.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 24032
> ...im honestly only here to post memes and to learn about alt-furry, I've been wanting to know about alt-fur for awhile



Think furry raiders but more political.

Seriously.  They get kicked around for looking/sounding too close to Alt Right, under constant screwtany for any tiny screw up that they can profit from... they're literally a second Furry Raiders.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Alt-Furry = Alternative Furry. That's it. There is literally nothing to it apart from doing identity politics and political correctness.
> 
> 
> Of which you have ZERO actual evidence for. I can claim that Mars is made of chocolate. Doesn't make it true, no matter how loud I cry about it.
> ...



Oh, sure, because that pussy grabbing shit was the ONLY questionable thing he's ever said. Rolling my eyes here. 

I've been having conversations like this for years now. It's always the same fucking bullshit. I show countless examples of Trump being an absolute fucking jerk, and his supporters just brush it all off because apparently being a decent human being just isn't important to them, I don't know. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> the source is Junius, a source I know to be biased.  The article has no legitimacy except as a mouthpiece for Junius.
> 
> Furthermore, just because someone supported Trump doesn't mean they're racist.  Just because someone isn't a Globalist doesn't mean they're a nazi.
> 
> ...



Then you're not alt right and I don't have a problem with you. Sorry.


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Think furry raiders but more political.
> 
> Seriously.  They get kicked around for looking/sounding too close to Alt Right, under constant screwtany for any tiny screw up that they can profit from... they're literally a second Furry Raiders.


Thanks, thats pretty much what I wanted to know, they seem pretty chill scince all that alt-right stuff is cleared up


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 22, 2017)

While I admire Trumps entrepreneurial skills, I have a really difficult time trusting anyone that can sell you an ordinary rock for $20. That sort of thing comes across as really sleazy to me.


----------



## Sarachaga (Nov 22, 2017)

Hm.
I really dislike the way the article is written 
It really goes through all the possible stereotypes before reaching the actual content. 

Also it's interesting to see how political the fandom seems to be, especially in America.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Thanks, thats pretty much what I wanted to know, they seem pretty chill scince all that alt-right stuff is cleared up


I find a decent amount on the Alt-Right even to be rather fun people to talk with.



BahgDaddy said:


> Oh, sure, because that pussy grabbing shit was the ONLY questionable thing he's ever said. Rolling my eyes here.
> 
> I've been having conversations like this for years now. It's always the same fucking bullshit. I show countless examples of Trump being an absolute fucking jerk, and his supporters just brush it all off because apparently being a decent human being just isn't important to them, I don't know.


The pussy grabbing thing is old as fuck and never was an argument. Your frothing at the mouth about some COMMENTARY to me sounds moronic, considering you have problems condemning zoophilia. 

>"The fuck is Alt-Furry?"
>Groups a group I have zero knowledge let alone understanding of as what I hate the most
>Trump supporters are racist bigots
>Trump is a big meanie because he says things I personally don't like

And this is why Trump is winning, and is continuing to win. Good luck on your endeavor to collectivize and label everyone the same. You'll definitely get a long way with your words and actions. <3


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I find a decent amount on the Alt-Right even to be rather fun people to talk with.


I got much to learn about this world.

Well it looks like a shitstorm may or may not happen soo....


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I find a decent amount on the Alt-Right even to be rather fun people to talk with.
> 
> 
> The pussy grabbing thing is old as fuck and never was an argument. Your frothing at the mouth about some COMMENTARY to me sounds moronic, considering you have problems condemning zoophilia.
> ...



I don't have problems condemning zoophilia. This comment is clearly designed to create more contention and is quite meaningless.

Here's Trump insulting people:

www.huffingtonpost.com: Here's A List Of Countries And Leaders Trump Has Insulted Since His Election | HuffPost

Oh... remember when Trump said the Charlottesville people had "many fine people" amongst them? I'm sure that didn't mean anything.

www.huffingtonpost.com: Here's A List Of Countries And Leaders Trump Has Insulted Since His Election | HuffPost



> Trump gave a press conference Tuesday during which he essentially unsaid all the good things he asserted in his speech Monday. While he claimed he still condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists, *he also said there were "many fine people"* protesting alongside the people carrying swastika flags and shields bearing racist symbols. He expressed clearly his opposition to taking down Confederate monuments. He once again blamed both sides equally for the violence that broke out. He confirmed his complete inability to understand what systemic racism is and his own role in perpetuating it.



As I've said before, but you conveniently ignore, the counter protestors were *peaceful, *and the white supremacists *were not.
*
Trump's a pathological liar:

www.politico.com: Trump’s Lies vs. Your Brain



> But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were protecting their reputations; Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed “crooked,” Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.)



Anyone who supports this man quite safely falls into the category of extremely ethically questionable.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> While I admire Trumps entrepreneurial skills,


Skills? He's been bankrupt multiple times. He tried to make his own version of the nfl, failed, sued them, and walked away with a whopping $3. Look at his steak business or his college. He covers his shit in gold but its still shit. 



Yakamaru said:


> People in general are way worse, so moot point.


The general population being worse doesn't make him or his actions good. He's the president, not an asshole neighbor. 

Also, I think it's great that "those damn sjws" are supposedly making up smear campaigns without evidence, but everyone is just name calling and posting memes like that's somehow reasoned discussion. 

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to check sources, but the article does seem suspect. I'm not going to call out alt furs since I don't know them or their deal, really, but fuck Nazis in all their forms and if alt furs spurt any Nazi ideals then Fuck them too.


----------



## Sarachaga (Nov 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to check sources, but the article does seem suspect. I'm not going to call out alt furs since I don't know them or their deal, really, but fuck Nazis in all their forms and if alt furs spurt any Nazi ideals then Fuck them too.


This
I don't know much about alt-furs either but I hate Nazis.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Nov 22, 2017)

@BahgDaddy

I have really grown to dislike Trump, but I have to live in an area where the fanciest car you'll see is a 90's Camaro and where roof damage has stacked up from the last two hurricanes. I saw maybe 5 people fix their roof so far. These people make up a lot of who voted for Trump. It's likely out of the perceived failure of their last votes that has driven them away from other candidates. It's true, many of them ignore the harsh rudeness of Trump, but I've seen their positions and many of them feel nothing has worked for them in the last decade. The South, ignoring all the parties, spring breaks, cities, and attractions is surprisingly impoverished relative to the North. Deseperation breeds action, and whether or not that was the right decision doesn't make them terrible people for wanting to do what they thought would make a difference in their communities. All of this is not to say there aren't people who support his every word, but it's not as simple as "Trump said some dumb, lying shit, therefore Joe who just wanted quality of life believes in that", if ANYONE who supports him is part of your claim.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> The general population being worse doesn't make him or his actions good. He's the president, not an asshole neighbor.
> 
> Also, I think it's great that "those damn sjws" are supposedly making up smear campaigns without evidence, but everyone is just name calling and posting memes like that's somehow reasoned discussion.
> 
> I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to check sources, but the article does seem suspect. I'm not going to call out alt furs since I don't know them or their deal, really, but fuck Nazis in all their forms and if alt furs spurt any Nazi ideals then Fuck them too.


Fuck Socialism in all its forms. That includes National Socialism. And especially Communism.

Alt-Furry have literally nothing to do with any ideology let alone ideals, apart from not wanting to have anything to do with political correctness or identity politics. They are not related to the Alt-Right in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Skills? He's been bankrupt multiple times. He tried to make his own version of the nfl, failed, sued them, and walked away with a whopping $3. Look at his steak business or his college. He covers his shit in gold but its still shit.



Thank you Ms. News for pointing out a few of Trumps many well documented business failures, but for the sake of clarity, I did imply skills in a very loose sense.

Hey, here's a thought: we can take Trumps pet rock slogan and apply that to his current run as president. At first you thought you were buying into something that was different, unique, but after awhile the novelty quickly wore off as you came to the realization that you didn't buy something that was different or unique at all, but in fact, just another ordinary everyday rock.

#Trump2k18


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Thank you Ms. News


You're fucking welcome 



Yakamaru said:


> Fuck Socialism in all its forms. That includes National Socialism. And especially Communism.


Huh, didn't know this thread was about socialism or communism. Did you really think this was a worthwhile addition to the conversation or could you just not think of a better response to my statements?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> @BahgDaddy
> 
> I have really grown to dislike Trump, but I have to live in an area where the fanciest car you'll see is a 90's Camaro and where roof damage has stacked up from the last two hurricanes. I saw maybe 5 people fix their roof so far. These people make up a lot of who voted for Trump. It's likely out of the perceived failure of their last votes that has driven them away from other candidates. It's true, many of them ignore the harsh rudeness of Trump, but I've seen their positions and many of them feel nothing has worked for them in the last decade. The South, ignoring all the parties, spring breaks, cities, and attractions is surprisingly impoverished relative to the North. Deseperation breeds action, and whether or not that was the right decision doesn't make them terrible people for wanting to do what they thought would make a difference in their communities. All of this is not to say there aren't people who support his every word, but it's not as simple as "Trump said some dumb, lying shit, therefore Joe who just wanted quality of life believes in that", if ANYONE who supports him is part of your claim.



Yes, there certainly are reasons why people voted for Trump. Honestly, it's actually pretty sad. The two major political parties have basically done nothing for the middle class for decades. Since Reagan, it's been nothing but more tax cuts for the rich, more public funding cuts, and more crony capitalism.  People are retaliating, and the Trump vote was their retaliation. Unfortunately he is just more of the same - his cabinet is made of industry leaders who do not care about the common man, and Trump, although he brands himself as a common man with lots of money and class, is another wealthy elite who only cares for his immediate surroundings and himself. 

What Trump has done that is positive is relentlessly reveal how incredibly messed up our political system is. Every day, his incompetence reveals another flaw in the current system that is usually covered up by adept cronyism and political manipulation. We're seeing our government at its worst, but maybe it will cause us to become better, more proactive citizens. 

Or this is the beginning of the end - I'm really not sure anymore.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Huh, didn't know this thread was about socialism or communism. Did you really think this was a worthwhile addition to the conversation or could you just not think of a better response to my statements?


People who are smeared can easily go down the defamation route as it's against the law to make claims and allegations against someone without evidence. They are not legally required to respond, but they have the option of doing so.

One of the best weapon however, is ridicule. People meme back because they don't take bigotry and hypocrisy seriously. Not to mention claims and allegations that have zero evidence to back them up with.


----------



## Open_Mind (Nov 22, 2017)

I've come to like so many of you, though I've only known you a little while. So many ideas. So many backgrounds. So many different hopes and dreams.

I wish we could stop fighting each other.

There's enough hate in the world.

why add more

Please ...

♡

I've worn the uniform. I've fought for my country and what it stands for. I know what it means to fight for something that matters. But cursing at each other in the forum isn't how we're going to solve this. There are hateful people in the world. But hate shouldn't be coming from us. 

You won't hear it come from me.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Nov 22, 2017)




----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 22, 2017)

The discussion here, is pretty much making the article have legitimacy.  

Both sides have lost.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 22, 2017)

Open_Mind said:


> I've come to like so many of you, though I've only known you a little while. So many ideas. So many backgrounds. So many different hopes and dreams.
> 
> I wish we could stop fighting each other.
> 
> ...



I'll be the first to admit that I often get very energetic and express my opinion freely. But I'm also always willing to be corrected, and people can easily change my opinion by supplying evidence which directly contradicts me or by supplying superior logic. 

The problem is that we don't have very well developed argumentative abilities. When we think of arguments, we think of the family Thanksgiving argument (coming up for a lot of people) where frequently, more than words start flying after a while. The problem is that we aren't expressing ourselves in a rational, coherent manner. So discussions quite quickly devolve into little more than name calling and ad hominem attacks. So people can point that out, and I'll try to stop that, because I'm a human, who expresses opinions in a sometimes forceful manner, but we are all adults and should be capable of operating mature conversations.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 22, 2017)

Fuck dude, i don't even wanna take SJWs seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them even slightly is a Nazi now. "Nazi" is their default insult to try to censor free speech and it makes me want to shove them back into my high school History class so they can learn what a real Nazi was like.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> People who are smeared can easily go down the defamation route as it's against the law to make claims and allegations against someone without evidence. They are not legally required to respond, but they have the option of doing so.
> 
> One of the best weapon however, is ridicule. People meme back because they don't take bigotry and hypocrisy seriously. Not to mention claims and allegations that have zero evidence to back them up with.


I am so confused by you. You aren't responding to what I'm saying, yet you continue to quote me as though we're having a conversation. 

Yes, defamation lawsuits exist. What is your point? I said Fuck Nazis, not alt furs, so who am I defaming exactly? Or is this not about my posts and you're just throwing words around to avoid my points?

The best weapon is ridicule? Really? This coming from the paragon of centrist reasoning? The champion of facts and stats? The poster boy of "citations needed"? Can't you muster something more than insubstantial memes?

Well, I'll give you that mocking feels damn good. Especially when it's set up so neatly.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 23, 2017)

Sorry for bringing in the negativity guys. I really need to learn some restraint with these things.


----------



## Belatucadros (Nov 23, 2017)

Saw the headline and didn't even bother reading it. Just more of that same old furry drama bullshit if you ask me, not worth my time worrying or even thinking about it!


----------



## Augustus (Nov 23, 2017)

Regardless of who or what ideologies is involved, this is just another example of the fandom's image taking a major hit.


----------



## Troj (Nov 23, 2017)

Main takeaway from the article is that these kinds of groups appeal to and target the lonely, the alienated, the naive, and the insecure, and they speak to their desire to feel needed, included, superior, and important.

Also, probably wise to stay the fuck away from anyone who glibly remarks that kiddie porn is "just 1s and 0s."

On the bright side, the article painted a fair and reasonably-accurate portrait of the fandom overall, all things considered. I wouldn't worry about this article being a black mark on the fandom's reputation.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Nov 23, 2017)

I seen that sadly theirs a lot of them...i was kinda shocked wher did thes guys come from??  i hoped that the furry community diddet have sutch crap ....but they do the sadness I HOPE their not really nazies its just a joke right??? RIGHT?


----------



## Torvus (Nov 23, 2017)

sharprealmcomics said:


> I seen that sadly theirs a lot of them...i was kinda shocked wher did thes guys come from??  i hoped that the furry community diddet have sutch crap ....but they do the sadness I HOPE their not really nazies its just a joke right??? RIGHT?



It's worth it to read the article, if you want some kind of answer to your question. There's a few stellar examples within. The good news is that while they recruit from the community, members tend to grow a sense of disdain for furries and eventually leave. They view us as degenerate, and for sure, they are right. We are degenerates, thus further involvement with us runs counter to their new personal goals. They can't really be good adherents to the movement and be furry.

Beyond that, in the alt-light sphere, I find there's a lot of empty talk about identity politics and communism. But like drama, the only people I hear actually bringing up these issues are the ones who claim to hate it. I wouldn't know SJWs were a thing if not for the alt-folks there pointing it out. (I've never actually met one of these fabled villains myself.) I would just see issues of unfairness that need to be addressed, and messengers bringing the issues to light. It must be intentional that these problems are now lost in the ongoing debate about the motives of that messenger. If you so much as kneel during the national anthem, you receive personal accusations regarding your character. I find it all really clever - the focus on the youth, the alteration of the language (making liberal a pejorative term), the divisions forming in formerly a-political enthusiast communities... they have literally left no stone unturned in the expansion of their alt-movement. They're in the MLP community too.

It would be nice if these people would stop jamming their politics down our throats... but I guess that's too much to ask.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 23, 2017)

Sigh... Some people in this thread


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Sigh... Some people in this thread


*Lol* yeah. I haven’t responded much b/c kinda not part of this fight other than reporting the article. Interesting to read how ppl responded to it.


----------



## Amiir (Nov 23, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 24025
> Ughhh more politics stuff, schools already force this stuff to all students. So seeing politics in personal hobbies is annoying as hell.


Yeah I've kinda gotten sick of all the ''politics'' lately



BahgDaddy said:


> Alt furry? What the fuck is alt furry? Can't we just call them racist bigots in fur suits? *Because that is what Trump supporters are*. The people yelling about "political correctness" are usually the first to support absolutely appallingly despicable people like Donald Fucking Trump.









 Pls stop


EDIT: Anyway that was all I had to say in this thread. Now if you'll excuse me...


----------



## Guy-in-Shadow (Nov 23, 2017)

Who are alt-furries?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Guy-in-Shadow said:


> Who are alt-furries?



The article talks about them. A few posters on here claim the alt-furries are completely benign. They are ostensibly just a melting pot of different political ideologies. If that's true their label is useless, since the furry community is already quite accepting of various personalities, interests, and behaviors. I sense the alt-furry is nothing more than another toxic infiltration of the alt-right, which you can look up if you'd like, or you probably already know about them. 

If so, then I greatly question anyone supporting alt-furries. Someone could correct me, but they'll need to explain why they've chosen to use the "alt" label.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> There is no low the fandom can't go


You're confused because those people have nothing to do with the fandom. They are a literal Psychological Operation conducted to undermine the fandom. They are not fans because they harbor value that is antithetical to fandom. It goes without saying that by the definition and meaning of words they are not members of the fandom community. The question becomes: How do we in the fandom community stop this false defamation of our community by these outsiders?

Someone strategized and commissioned them to do this because they understood that it would serve as a program to neurolinguistically confuse tongues as to just what exactly our fandom is in fact. The only response that can work would be a stronger message of fandom pro-humanist truth and loud proclamations of condemnation of anti-humanism and illiberality everywhere that they may march like a fifth column within our walls.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ah hem.  Listen here.  I was an Alt-Furry.  Majority of members are neither racist nor bigoted.


You should choose your associations more carefully-- you can't, for example, join up with a literal pedophile society of flatearther anti-Christs and then deny you fancy children or claim you have humanist morality and that you care about the world. It's not an al la carte thing, when you join up with an ideological philistine movement of cognitive dissonance, exploitation, and hate like that, you aid and abet the enemies of the free world and that's just who you are choosing to become. 

It should have occurred to such people that they are implicitly anti-fandom and they should have had the good grace to exit the fandom, but like their arrogant toxic political ideology, they stick around anyway to poison our well. Obviously, expecting sound reasoning from them was always a bridge too far. Their minds and their spirits have been destroyed and they march like zombies possessed with unhinged thoughts and appetites and a profound lack of self-recognition.


----------



## 134 (Nov 23, 2017)

I'll just ignore that and carry on having fun in the fandom. When we talk about them they get attention which only let's them scream louder.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 23, 2017)

Nimilex said:


> I'll just ignore that and carry on having fun in the fandom. When we talk about them they get attention which only let's them scream louder.



Bingo. 

And to add some whipped cream to this shit pie, this type of content becomes searchable.


----------



## Open_Mind (Nov 23, 2017)

Nimilex said:


> I'll just ignore that and carry on having fun in the fandom.


I second the motion.

Lets dance!


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 23, 2017)

Guy-in-Shadow said:


> Who are alt-furries?


Alternative Furries. They give zero fucks about political correctness and identity politics.

Non-SJW's, simply put.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Alternative Furries. They give zero fucks about political correctness and identity politics.
> 
> Non-SJW's, simply put.



I don't endorse political correctness or identity politics either, but I don't have to become an "alt-furry" or "alt-righter" or other tribalistic group of echo chamber toxicity in order to do it. I just have to think for myself and avoid tribalism - it's actually quite simple and has the added benefit of making almost everyone dislike me because I refuse to use labels.

Who are these SJWs I keep hearing about? People who care about justice in society and are willing to fight for it? Sounds good to me.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

_The angelic choirs circling the abode of God, from Dante's Paradiso, illustrated by Gustave Doré._



Yakamaru said:


> Non-SJW's, simply put.


Someone has neurolinguistically reprogrammed you to believe that justice and well society are bad things, and what can we do with that? It's self-defeating poison, friend. You've been drinking ideological poison. The inevitable outcome of a world without social justice is a miserable and unlivable dystopia or even a civil apocalypse, and you sit here like a child saying the darnedest things about how you hate the world that nourishes you, how you would bite the hand of the society that feeds and sustains you, how you would promote the war that injustice begets. It's like black magic has been thrown at you, and you don't even recognize it. I do like you, Yakamaru, but you harbor some dangerous confusions, things that can't really be allowed to be promoted because they are noxious, false, and potentially misleading to vulnerable minds.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Who are these SJWs I keep hearing about? People who care about justice in society and are willing to fight for it? Sounds good to me.


Fighting for justice is fine with me. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi, on the other hand....


----------



## Saiko (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Fuck dude, i don't even wanna take SJWs seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them even slightly is a Nazi now. "Nazi" is their default insult to try to censor free speech and it makes me want to shove them back into my high school History class so they can learn what a real Nazi was like.


Fuck dude, I don’t even wanna take alt-righters seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them is a SJW now. “SJW” is their default insult to try to oppress minorities and perpetuate white privilege.

See? It works both ways. I swear half of the people in this thread are the same thing they complain about.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Fighting for justice is fine with me. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi, on the other hand....



Right, relentlessly calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi is a tactic to quell conversation and position oneself over another as a moral authority. That's dangerous and unethical name calling because it causes the opposition to become sub-human, which is a psychological tactic we employ in war to make it easier to kill people and make them the enemy. 

A healthier mode of debate is to engage in rigorous conversation and find out each other's intentions. My intentions are to fight for social systems that work work for everyone and are in line with modern liberal democratic values, and by that I do not mean American Democrats, many of whom are also unethical.

And quite literally, Nazis don't exist anymore. But there are people who still support the intentions of the Nazi Socialist Party. These people.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Right, relentlessly calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi is a tactic to quell conversation and position oneself over another as a moral authority. That's dangerous and unethical name calling because it causes the opposition to become sub-human, which is a psychological tactic we employ in war to make it easier to kill people and make them the enemy.
> 
> A healthier mode of debate is to engage in rigorous conversation and find out each other's intentions. My intentions are to fight for social systems that work work for everyone and are in line with modern liberal democratic values, and by that I do not mean American Democrats, many of whom are also unethical.
> 
> And quite literally, Nazis don't exist anymore. But there are people who still support the intentions of the Nazi Socialist Party. These people.


I may disagree with your politics but I totally agree that name calling and dehumanization needs to end of we’re going to have any chance of engaging in civil debate.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 23, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Fuck dude, I don’t even wanna take alt-righters seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them is a SJW now. “SJW” is their default insult to try to oppress minorities and perpetuate white privilege.
> 
> See? It works both ways. I swear half of the people in this thread are the same thing they complain about.



Are you calling me an SJW or am i just reading this wrong? I hope i'm just reading this wrong tbh.

I'm not an SJW or alt-right, i hate both sides equally. I've got my stance and its somewhere in the middle, but i refuse to give myself labels. I believe what i believe. I am not an SJW, an Alt-right, a conservative or a liberal. I am a person with an opinion.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I may disagree with your politics but I totally agree that name calling and dehumanization needs to end of we’re going to have any chance of engaging in civil debate.



Disagreeing is a natural part of being human, a person. We shouldn't see it as something bad.

Unfortunately, in the current world, it's dividing us. I believe finding ways to disagree will bring us back together. We need to stop the love-to-hate-each-other attitude we seem to have in this country and abroad.


----------



## Ginza (Nov 23, 2017)

Dear god what kind of hell have I stumbled upon? I swear, coming on here hurts my goddamn brain. Why can't y'all just chill for a day and have fun without getting offended over something and start a whole new bait debate??


----------



## Saiko (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Are you calling me an SJW or am i just reading this wrong? I hope i'm just reading this wrong tbh.
> 
> I'm not an SJW or alt-right, i hate both sides equally. I've got my stance and its somewhere in the middle, but i refuse to give myself labels. I believe what i believe. I am not an SJW, an Alt-right, a conservative or a liberal. I am a person with an opinion.


That’s just it, though. Everyone is avoiding labels with every ounce of their being but dishes them out like candy. Of course you’re in the middle. Everyone is in the middle, everyone’s friends are nearby; and everyone else is at one pole or the other. Everyone else is obviously wrong. Everyone else is obviously just name-calling. Everyone else needs to go back to school and learn history. The SJWs need to grow some thicker skin. The alt-righters need to stop being racists. It’s all the same shit, just slung over a different fence.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

Ginza said:


> Why can't y'all just chill for a day and have fun without getting offended over something and start a whole new bait debate??



Because these are issues that will literally pull down and raze the fandom, as it has in Colorado, if the fandom community doesn't come up with answers and a response. Because, I hate to break it to folks, but we've been under attack for quite some time. They decided they would use attributes of the fandom such as inclusiveness and a sense of open-minded tolerance as a vulnerability to exploit. They likely calculated that it would work, or it would force the fandom to itself turn away from its ideals. We need a third path, we need to show we are as a community simply better than their spiritually-squalorous camp.  We must unite and revive our values but we must look with 20/20 hindsight at the development of the fandom and adapt our fandom to our world without losing its identity and spirit. This is pretty serious stuff, not to be dismissed or trivialized.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Ginza said:


> Dear god what kind of hell have I stumbled upon? I swear, coming on here hurts my goddamn brain. Why can't y'all just chill for a day and have fun without getting offended over something and start a whole new bait debate??



Think of it as the traditional family thanksgiving argument.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Think of it as the traditional family thanksgiving argument.


Traditional Thanksgiving arguments in my family is met with traditional asswhoopings from my grandmother. Maybe I should invite her here.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> Traditional Thanksgiving arguments in my family is met with traditional asswhoopings from my grandmother. Maybe I should invite her here.



Nah, that's kinda the reason I don't visit family on thanksgiving actually.


----------



## Arwing Ace (Nov 23, 2017)

I've heard about this shit. Can you possibly come up with a more absurdly ironic and incongruous combination than furry and National Socialism? 

At any rate, the reality is that any actual "Nazi furs" out there are really little more than just posers LARPing for attention or trolling, or something along those lines. Nothing to freak out over at all. Being associated with a fandom like this one, with all of it's...shall we say... "quirks", and odd inhabitants, I'd really have to question just how well they understand, and how genuinely committed they really are, to Nazi ideology. I'd also have to say the same for any "Nazis" who are actively, knowingly trying to recruit furries into their groups.

_"Foxler Nightfire, the head of the Furry Raiders, says he once tried to join a neo-Nazi group but was kicked out for being gay, half-Asian...and a furry. Another prominent alt-furry, a rat named Chairman Squeek, claims to be a “cross-dressing, communist Gypsy.” (Newsweek could not verify their ethnic backgrounds)"_

I mean, give me a fucking break... The _real_ Nazis (you know, the NSDAP of Germany during the 1920s and '30s) were a smartly disciplined group of guys (most of them former soldiers) who were actually politically involved and rallied around a cause, common political tenets, and established goals. They did more than just talk, were committed to their beliefs, and _*actually took some action*. _They were smart and actually _had_ a plan to _*seize political power by whatever means necessary*_, by organizing themselves, recruiting and building up their membership, collecting money, fighting commies in violent street battles, and actually taking _*serious personal risks*_ to their safety and freedom, all while contributing money out of their _own pockets _to _be _members of the party and further its goals. That was who the Nazis were. They also didn't tolerate weirdos and degenerates in their ranks.

By comparison, a lot of self-proclaimed "Nazis" nowadays (not all, but a lot) are really just confused, disaffected loners who live with their mothers who are looking for a group to belong to that gives them some sense of identity and purpose, even ones who have no connection with furry. Most of them are pussies and pose no real threat to anyone except maybe themselves. If the real Nazis saw these most of these guys, they'd probably look upon them with nothing short of bemusement and snicker derisively amongst themselves before proceeding to gang up on them and beat their asses to a pulp.

This is just more sensationalist media bullshit, and half of it is probably taken out of context and outright made up. 

Move along folks, nothing to see here...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 23, 2017)

Shane McNair said:


> I've heard about this shit. Can you possibly come up with a more absurdly ironic and incongruous combination than furry and National Socialism?
> 
> At any rate, the reality is that any actual "Nazi furs" out there are really little more than just posers LARPing for attention or trolling, or something along those lines. Nothing to freak out over at all. Being associated with a fandom like this one, with all of it's...shall we say... "quirks", and odd inhabitants, I'd really have to question just how well they understand, and how genuinely committed they really are, to Nazi ideology. I'd also have to say the same for any "Nazis" who are actively, knowingly trying to recruit furries into their groups.
> 
> ...



As being one of the few old enough to legitimately remember the late 80's/early 90's street scene, this is pretty true regarding the skinheads of yore.  Lead plates in 18 hole Dr Marten boots, bats and lead pipes.  They were small in number, but no less dangerous.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

Shane McNair said:


> ...absurdly ironic and incongruous combination ... furry and National Socialism... Nothing to freak out over at all.  Move along folks, nothing to see here...


It's actually quite toxic memetically, and it flies in the face of the fandom directly. Hey, I'll bet the kids in Asia could pull this thing off without much of an issue, it's just an abstract thing over there in, say, actual Japanese fandom circles. Over here, though, not only we do have direct victims whose families and nations suffered greatly under that fascist movement, but the US itself also has that unfortunate KKK legacy that went on to inspire the Germany Nazis and we seem to have a minority group with all this unfortunate xenophobia and nativism that's been sown out there by the internal enemies of the United States these past sixteen years in earnest.  

We're seeing the same thing rise up elsewhere as a contemporary problem suddenly, ask an Austrian or a German. Ask a Brit who considers themselves a European. Ask someone in the fandom from Poland. Of course, and this was always the thing, 'national socialism' was absurdly ironic and incongruous with German socialism because it was never actually socialism at all. It was always fascism and it used those people early on to gain political influence until they could consolidate their power. These alt-right furs aren't the fascists, or rather, they are themselves bound up in the figurative human fasces someone else, someone above and in the shadows perhaps close to Steve Bannon's camp, is swinging around like a club.

There's a lot to see here, and it's been this growing social and political crisis year after year ever since Al Gore was elected as US President in 2000 but results were not ratified and he was never inaugurated. It's been metaphorical and sometimes literal butchery ever since, and just one of the problems here is that the center is not going to hold forever, and there will need to be a reckoning and a reformation because this thing has hopped the rails and it stopped being business-as-usual some time ago. It was becoming readily apparent by 2012 that an intervention of some kind was required. It's at its logical endpoint now, it can't continue because if it does it's going to pull down the ceiling and walls on everyone, at least everyone connected to the United States who isn't in on the scam and prepared with contingency for the disasters they'll create.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> ever since Al Gore was elected as US President in 2000 but results were not ratified and he was never inaugurated.


ROFL

I was taking you seriously until I read this. Comedy gold.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> ROFL
> 
> I was taking you seriously until I read this. Comedy gold.



We probably would have had more action on climate change, but Bill was an all right president. Except for NAFTA which kinda crushed half the economy. Aside from that...


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> We probably would have had more action on climate change, but Bill was an all right president. Except for NAFTA which kinda crushed half the economy. Aside from that...


Yeah Bill was a reprobate but he was a good prez despite that. Unlike the presidents since he could work effectively with the opposing party in Congress.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Yeah Bill was a reprobate but he was a good prez despite that. Unlike the presidents since he could work effectively with the opposing party in Congress.



Honestly I'm really sick of our two party system.

"Hey, hey you! Plebeian! You've so many choices - corruption and theocracy on on hand and corruption and government control on the other hand! Don't vote for those third parties, it'll never work, because we keep telling you it won't work. Here - have some free money, now stfu."


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 23, 2017)

Saiko said:


> That’s just it, though. Everyone is avoiding labels with every ounce of their being but dishes them out like candy. Of course you’re in the middle. Everyone is in the middle, everyone’s friends are nearby; and everyone else is at one pole or the other. Everyone else is obviously wrong. Everyone else is obviously just name-calling. Everyone else needs to go back to school and learn history. The SJWs need to grow some thicker skin. The alt-righters need to stop being racists. It’s all the same shit, just slung over a different fence.



And is there something wrong with not using labels and being in the middle? Am i not allowed to have opinions unless i tie myself to one side or the other? If i put my views together i'd fit both of the more tame sides so i see no point in choosing one.

You're right, SJWs need to grow a spine and the Alt-right needs to get off their high horse but that doesn't mean everyone needs to choose a side.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> that doesn't mean everyone needs to choose a side.



Speak for yourself - I'm on the side of liberal democratic governance and human civil rights ethics. (Not in the sense of American Democrats. They are socialist lite lite lite, they're afraid to be what they need to be. Canada's Republicans are closer to our Democrats.)


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Honestly I'm really sick of our two party system.
> 
> "Hey, hey you! Plebeian! You've so many choices - corruption and theocracy on on hand and corruption and government control on the other hand! Don't vote for those third parties, it'll never work, because we keep telling you it won't work. Here - have some free money, now stfu."


Agreed. Almost impossible to change with our winner take all system tho.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 23, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> You're confused because those people have nothing to do with the fandom. They are a literal Psychological Operation conducted to undermine the fandom. They are not fans because they harbor value that is antithetical to fandom. It goes without saying that by the definition and meaning of words they are not members of the fandom community. The question becomes: How do we in the fandom community stop this false defamation of our community by these outsiders?
> 
> Someone strategized and commissioned them to do this because they understood that it would serve as a program to neurolinguistically confuse tongues as to just what exactly our fandom is in fact. The only response that can work would be a stronger message of fandom pro-humanist truth and loud proclamations of condemnation of anti-humanism and illiberality everywhere that they may march like a fifth column within our walls.



No, dude, you're the one that is confused. There is no grand conspiracy. Most of the bad shit that happens to the fandom is conducted by those within it. From Rainfurrest 2015 (and we all know the clusterfuck that turned out to be), the chlorine attack at MFF in 2014, or some idiot out in public in a fursuit going "woof woof woof I'm a dog trapped in a humans body". The only people "defaming" the fandom is us, and it's about time we take personal responsibility and come to terms with that and work towards solutions to prevent these issues in the future.

I also place some of the blame on the more influential people in the fandom, too. Not enough of them talk about setting a moral guideline to adhere to that would make the fandom a more wholesome place, but keep perpetuating this edgy and trashy outlook that is reflected back upon us by these boogiemen you speak of.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> The article talks about them. A few posters on here claim the alt-furries are completely benign. They are ostensibly just a melting pot of different political ideologies. If that's true their label is useless, since the furry community is already quite accepting of various personalities, interests, and behaviors. I sense the alt-furry is nothing more than another toxic infiltration of the alt-right, which you can look up if you'd like, or you probably already know about them.
> 
> If so, then I greatly question anyone supporting alt-furries. Someone could correct me, but they'll need to explain why they've chosen to use the "alt" label.


no...they cant be real......nazi and furrys you would think that sutch a think would be a mith


----------



## Saiko (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> And is there something wrong with not using labels and being in the middle? Am i not allowed to have opinions unless i tie myself to one side or the other? If i put my views together i'd fit both of the more tame sides so i see no point in choosing one.
> 
> You're right, SJWs need to grow a spine and the Alt-right needs to get off their high horse but that doesn't mean everyone needs to choose a side.


The issue is not with people choosing sides. It’s with people assigning everyone else to sides and declaring the discussion over. It’s just an immensely subtle ad hominem that no one learns from.


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 23, 2017)

(edited out most because I'm not really interested in this bloody jejune discussion that is taking place)'
Finally: As these two say:


silveredgreen said:


> Fuck dude, i don't even wanna take SJWs seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them even slightly is a Nazi now. "Nazi" is their default insult to try to censor free speech and it makes me want to shove them back into my high school History class so they can learn what a real Nazi was like.





Saiko said:


> Fuck dude, I don’t even wanna take alt-righters seriously anymore. ANYONE who disagrees with them is a SJW now. “SJW” is their default insult to try to oppress minorities and perpetuate white privilege.


Do you all see how this goes two ways? Any side can just pick and choose, and absolutely nothing gets done. I don't even know why you all are making this into left vs right, because the original post was just an article about some guy calling some furries neo nazis.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Do you all see how this goes two ways?


There's no equivocating the two 'sides' to US establishment politics in late 2017. One side supports hateful kooky violent intolerance, pedophiles, oligarchs, pirates, xenophobes, and wants to believe in magical disproven notions about the world, which they are pretty sure must be flat with no anthropogenic climate change because "only God" can do anything bigger than their stillborn imaginations. They're proud of their ignorance, their credulity, even as it's used against them endlessly. It's really something to watch a people so completely subverted and oppressed with such poo-eating grins about it all. What wickedness and degeneracy.

The part of other side that matters to me, e.g. the people who are minorities or believe in Enlightenment Age principles as essential and universal for all humanity, are just clinging to the remains and debris of our once-honorable system as if it's a life preserver out there in a storm-tossed sea. What else can they do but try to keep heads above water long enough to draw another breath. It's a hell of a thing to watch and be entombed within. I wish I were in Sweden, or some other strong social liberal democracy, where I could just live and flourish and know peace again. It doesn't seem they're leaving us anywhere to flee, however, and the EU is embattled and endangered by external foes (who are probably the very selfsame faction devouring us here in the US). So I guess it's 'fight' not 'flight' after all, and so I have found my voice and my pen.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Speak for yourself - I'm on the side of liberal democratic governance and human civil rights ethics. (Not in the sense of American Democrats. They are socialist lite lite lite, they're afraid to be what they need to be. Canada's Republicans are closer to our Democrats.)



I am speaking for myself. If you want to pick sides that's your deal, but my statement of "that doesn't mean everyone needs to choose a side" still stands. You're not everyone and just because you want to pick sides doesn't mean everyone else has to. If people want to pick sides they're free to do so but those who want to stay in the middle have just as much a right to speak their mind as those who lean left or right.

And yes i'm referring to the fact that i, someone who doesn't lean at all, will continue to give my opinion despite this.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> ...those who want to stay in the middle have just as much a right to speak their mind as those who lean left or right.


I think this must be some functionally-specious "truism" because it seems as though taking the middle these days is just denying a position, but you can't sit this one out, it impacts everyone. Where are your values? What sort of world do you want to live in the rest of your life? Do you want to see humanity and Earth flourish together? We're coming down to some pretty existential questions now, and you can't sit in the middle of death and survival, it's not a position. To make matters worse, the objectively world-, liberty-, and equality-destroying bad factions are exploiting the confused guys in the middle like a zombie/zerg army because they're completely depraved and unscrupulous and therefore see no difficulties with subterfuge and gaslighting of discourse in the political "middle," the "nihilistic center." It turns out 'the middle' is a completely-exposed and vulnerable position to take. It's failing to side with both good and progress and it's pretending the status quo is sustainable and wholesome. None of that is defensible. Better to be good but silent than to think you can play both sides at some imagined center that doesn't make any political sense at all in the present context.

You can't escape this with rhetorical slight-of-hand, though the dimensions of this thing might be confusing, because there's a very disingenuous two-brand one-party system willfully filling the airwaves with political noise and confusion. The first thing one must do to understand the nature of this is to understand the US Democratic Party ideology in Washington DC is neither liberty nor equality. Those principles were bred out 35-40 years ago, so neither party is actually true left. The whole political spectrum has been whacked out of true by these subverted clowns. So best set aside the parties entirely, they're not ideologically legitimate for the most part, the whole thing is this farce that has outlived its own suspension of disbelief. "Neo-liberalism" is not liberalism and doesn't offer liberalism's protections rigorously. The worst thing is that there's this general confusion about basic political theory that keeps people in the US here and elsewhere endlessly chasing their own tails over empty noise and meaninglessness. This is real tower-of-Babel stuff, and they are caught up deep in the farce and confusion, not apprehending how this puts them over a barrel and at someone's mercy (or lack thereof). Such political Eloi as this will be forever lost and exploited if they don't get wise.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 23, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I think this must be some functionally-specious "truism" because it seems as though taking the middle these days is just denying a position, but you can't sit this one out, it impacts everyone. Where are you values? What sort of world do you want to live in the rest of your life? Do you want to see humanity and Earth flourish together? We're coming down to some pretty existential questions now, and you can't sit in the middle of death and survival, it's not a position. To make matters worse, the objectively world-, liberty-, and equality-destroying bad factions are exploiting the confused guys in the middle like a zombie/zerg army because they're completely depraved and unscrupulous and see no difficulties with subterfuge and gaslighting. It turns out 'the middle' is a completely-exposed and vulnerable position to take


can we cool it with the name calling?  Calling conservatives depraved and unscrupulus is no better than calling them Nazis. If you want to compare and contrast your beliefs with theirs, fine. But ad hominem attacks don’t advance the discussion at all.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> can we cool it with the name calling?  Calling conservatives depraved and unscrupulus is no better than calling them Nazis. If you want to compare and contrast your beliefs with theirs, fine. But ad hominem attacks don’t advance the discussion at all.


I don't "name call" as a general MO, and so you must be confused between the use of pejoratives and the use of actually-descriptive labels appropriately applied to the subject matter in good faith and outside "post-facts" "reality." Why don't you quote what you're specifically referring to and I'll try to address your concern, whatever it may be.

True conservatives are good guys because they want to preserve that which must be defended, as in conservation. You know, of classic and ancient gods and philosophies, culture and art, traditions in agriculture, humanity, civilization, planet Earth. Radicals who demagogically claim they are conservative, well. They are not so good and they tend to leave a path of exploited and destroyed things in their wake. They're basically cultists, pirates, vandals, and/or would-be new-aristocracy feudal lords. It's all soft power these days, with a few harshly-timed extralegal sucker-punches to move things along in their direction.

The whole thing festers. It is sordid, it is beneath us, it is _disgusting_, and _yet_... now it seems to have _authority_ over us. How about _that_!


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

Telnac said:


> can we cool it with the name calling?  Calling conservatives depraved and unscrupulus is no better than calling them Nazis. If you want to compare and contrast your beliefs with theirs, fine. But ad hominem attacks don’t advance the discussion at all.



It's not an ad hominem when it's directed at a political bloc, or a specifically carved out ideological function. Personal insults are usually directed at an individual, for instance, "you're dumb," etc. Calling conservatives depraved and unscrupulous is, I think, valid at this point. Just look at the garbage the Rs are willing to support - Sessions the marijuana troll, Roy Moore the pedo, Trump the womanizer. 

But these insults cheapen the process. Rather these people are unethical, have greed as their primary motivation, and are destroying our liberal democracy. This is quite concerning, and at some point, people are going to go from "this is concerning" to taking action.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 23, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I think this must be some functionally-specious "truism" because it seems as though taking the middle these days is just denying a position, but you can't sit this one out, it impacts everyone. Where are your values? What sort of world do you want to live in the rest of your life? Do you want to see humanity and Earth flourish together? We're coming down to some pretty existential questions now, and you can't sit in the middle of death and survival, it's not a position. To make matters worse, the objectively world-, liberty-, and equality-destroying bad factions are exploiting the confused guys in the middle like a zombie/zerg army because they're completely depraved and unscrupulous and therefore see no difficulties with subterfuge and gaslighting of discourse in the political "middle," the "nihilistic center." It turns out 'the middle' is a completely-exposed and vulnerable position to take. It's failing to side with both good and progress and it's pretending the status quo is sustainable and wholesome. None of that is defensible. Better to be good but silent than to think you can play both sides at some imagined center that doesn't make any political sense at all in the present context.
> 
> You can't escape this with rhetorical slight-of-hand, though the dimensions of this thing might be confusing, because there's a very disingenuous two-brand one-party system willfully filling the airwaves with political noise and confusion. The first thing one must do to understand the nature of this is to understand the US Democratic Party ideology in Washington DC is neither liberty nor equality. Those principles were bred out 35-40 years ago, so neither party is actually true left. The whole political spectrum has been whacked out of true by these subverted clowns. So best set aside the parties entirely, they're not ideologically legitimate for the most part, the whole thing is this farce that has outlived its own suspension of disbelief. "Neo-liberalism" is not liberalism and doesn't offer liberalism's protections rigorously. The worst thing is that there's this general confusion about basic political theory that keeps people the US here and elsewhere endlessly chasing their own tails over empty noise and meaninglessness. This is real tower-of-Babel stuff, and they are caught up deep in the farce and confusion, not apprehending how this puts them over a barrel and at someone's mercy (or lack thereof). Such political Eloi as this will be forever lost and exploited if they don't get wise.



Choosing whether to identify as liberal or conservative is not even close to a life or death situation. Both are ideologies and i share some aspects of both, but i don't want to choose one or the other. In this day and age i can either:

- Choose to identify as conservative and be treated like an alt-right LGBTQ+ and POC hating bible thumper
- Choose to identify as liberal and be treated like a vagina-hat man hating spineless radical feminist/SJW

or i can choose to identify as neither and have my views taken at least somewhat seriously. I know which one i'll pick. I support LGBTQ+ and POC and i support equal rights for both sexes, however i only believe in about 3 genders. I'm iffy on genderfluid. I have a severely limited set of genders and sexual orientations i believe in and i don't even remotely support things like witchcraft. I'm not alt-right or an sjw though.


----------



## n1ghtmar3w0lf (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Choosing whether to identify as liberal or conservative is not even close to a life or death situation. Both are ideologies and i share some aspects of both, but i don't want to choose one or the other. In this day and age i can either:
> 
> - Choose to identify as conservative and be treated like an alt-right LGBTQ+ and POC hating bible thumper
> - Choose to identify as liberal and be treated like a vagina-hat man hating spineless radical feminist/SJW
> ...


 

true... to hell with the right or left ,they both  fail


----------



## Saiko (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> In this day and age i can either:
> 
> - Choose to identify as conservative and be treated like an alt-right LGBTQ+ and POC hating bible thumper
> - Choose to identify as liberal and be treated like a vagina-hat man hating spineless radical feminist/SJW


Just to be clear, this is literally what I was talking about earlier lol. The whole “SJWs call everyone nazi’s” thing doesn’t help any with that.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> I am speaking for myself. If you want to pick sides that's your deal, but my statement of "that doesn't mean everyone needs to choose a side" still stands. You're not everyone and just because you want to pick sides doesn't mean everyone else has to. If people want to pick sides they're free to do so but those who want to stay in the middle have just as much a right to speak their mind as those who lean left or right.
> 
> And yes i'm referring to the fact that i, someone who doesn't lean at all, will continue to give my opinion despite this.



Yes, you were speaking for yourself. What side have I picked? I've picked the side of, "liberal democratic governance and human civil rights ethics." If you think either US parties represent those rights, you're not paying very close attention. Although, some democrats come close to what I believe, and I usually agree with Democrats over Republicans. But I'm really more of an Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders person, the latter more than anything.

"You're not everyone"

True, I'm me, and you are you, and everyone else is also themselves. 

"just because you want to pick sides doesn't mean everyone else has to"

Who said I was picking sides? I don't pick sides. That's my assertion. But I'm also not a centrist. I view centrists as people who deliberately are trying to avoid picking sides so that they don't get stepped on by either side. But simply being a centrist makes you a prime recruitment target if you're not solid in your beliefs and convictions.


----------



## Open_Mind (Nov 23, 2017)

I still wish we could just shake hands, agree to disagree, and all go on our furry way. Or so help me I'll start posting science memes again.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> [...]and are destroying our liberal democracy.



If we ever had one of these, this might actually be an issue.  

We are a Constitutional Republic, not some random interpretation.  Our laws are based on the Constitution, and we _have_ democracy, but we are officially a Constitutional Republic.  It's that simple.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 23, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> If we ever had one of these, this might actually be an issue.
> 
> We are a Constitutional Republic, not some random interpretation.  Our laws are based on the Constitution, and we _have_ democracy, but we are officially a Constitutional Republic.  It's that simple.



What might be an issue? 

Of course we're a constitutional republic, and not some random interpretation, or what do you mean? Modern western society is inherently liberal-democratic by nature. Our country is actually, as it stands, a federal constitutional democratic republic. Liberals like to call it a democracy, and conservatives like to call it a republic. But since all aspects are included in the Framer's experiment, this is the most accurate descriptor for what our country is.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 23, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Choosing whether to identify as liberal ... Both are ideologies and i share some aspects of both, but i don't want to choose one or the other.



Liberalism is a political philosophy, and a political philosophy is a distinct concept from ideology:


> ...Philosophy means something along the lines of the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. As such, it is a practice, rather than a set of beliefs. An Ideology, by comparison, would be a set of beliefs, a body of doctrine.
> 
> ( What is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology? - Quora )



Ideology is a concept closer to religious doctrine than political philosophy. So we have liberalism:


> Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.
> 
> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings...
> 
> (Liberalism - Wikipedia )



Then we have Conservatism, another political philosophy:


> Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions, emphasizing stability and continuity while the more extreme elements called reactionaries oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
> 
> The first established use of the term in a political context originated with François-René de Chateaubriand in 1818, during the period of Bourbon restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics...
> 
> ( Conservatism - Wikipedia )



So there's more confusion here when we apply this lens to present majority political power in the US right now. You'll notice that most of the people identifying as "conservative" aren't credibly defending things at all, it's functionally as if they're trying to tear down most of the 20th century and they definitely don't have any better ideas to replace it with, leaving a figurative apocalyptic wasteland behind where people are bereft of what progress they had enjoyed. The expectation is that this will create market opportunity for their corporate and oligarchical masters, the ones who pay them for results, even results that harm the constituency. It's not inherently better "across the aisle."

You notice that few people claiming to be "liberal" or "progressive" in US mainstream politics rationally derive their positions purely from liberty and equality, and that can sometimes makes them 'failed liberals' on important issues. Sanders was the rare exception, but then, he wasn't cut from the Democratic party's cloth. His presence in the election was like a brilliant beacon outshining a turpid gas light whose flickering brightness made one question oneself. Imagine if he had been elected. Things would be happening right now that strengthened the country and bolstered the free world, civilization, because Sanders was all about equality and liberty and all the wholesome political patterns that project from those concepts.

Talking about a political philosophy gets a little confusing when corruption creeps in, because most of the discussion and definitions presume a good faith system without money subverting everything utterly.

Anyway. Getting back to you-- because these two political philosophies are at tension with one another, you can't generally pick a la carte from each.  In historical terms, one's about freedom, the other's about enslavement to the parochial predilection of some often-foolish arrogant troglodyte who hides his endless exploitation under political farce. There are now exposed these darker undertones of a subcult of men trying to preserve a distinct arrogant worldview whose political expression favors them structurally and culturally to the disadvantage of other genders.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 23, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> What might be an issue?
> 
> Of course we're a constitutional republic, and not some random interpretation, or what do you mean? Modern western society is inherently liberal-democratic by nature. Our country is actually, as it stands, a federal constitutional democratic republic. Liberals like to call it a democracy, and conservatives like to call it a republic. But since all aspects are included in the Framer's experiment, this is the most accurate descriptor for what our country is.



An official democracy requires directly voting on federal laws, which does not happen.  A republic, on the other hand, has elections for representatives, who then, in turn, vote for laws.  You can't have both, as they are different systems. 

An actual Democracy would actually send this country straight into the shitter, because the overwhelming majority silences any minority.  An odd, but serious fact, that seems to escape the ones using it the most.  They would have the most to lose, actually, which is laughably ironic.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> An official democracy requires directly voting on federal laws, which does not happen.  A republic, on the other hand, has elections for representatives, who then, in turn, vote for laws.  You can't have both, as they are different systems.
> 
> An actual Democracy would actually send this country straight into the shitter, because the overwhelming majority silences any minority.  An odd, but serious fact, that seems to escape the ones using it the most.  They would have the most to lose, actually, which is laughably ironic.



No, Legacy, democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive. Further, your last description represents a misunderstanding of democracy. What you are referring is *direct democracy, *which yes, is not a very stable form of governorship. I usually encounter this fundamental misunderstanding of democracy from people who have only been taught about direct democracy. For some reason, these people have been taught the sheep-wolf analogy, and this would usually appear to be their sole education on the matter. 

In actuality there are many types of democracy. Most developed countries have various forms of liberal democracy, which insofar appears to be the most stable form of government in the history of the world.

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/POLSC221-4.1.5-TypesDem-FINAL.pdf



> *Representative Democracy *
> 
> As political communities change and evolve, so does our understanding of how democracy should be implemented. The second major type of democracy is referred to as representative democracy. This political arrangement establishes an intermediary political actor between the individual and the policy outputs of the state. Through the electoral process, one person or a group of people are elected and assigned with the task of making decisions on behalf of the group of citizens that they represent. In the United States, we have multiple intermediaries. Each state has two representatives in the upper house, or Senate. In the lower house, or House of Representatives, the number of intermediaries appointed is based on the population size of each state. It is important to note that while the power of the individual is diminished slightly, political representatives are still beholden to the group that they represent, also known as their “constituency.” In the US, members of both the House of Representatives and Senate face regular elections, during which the public evaluates their performance. If citizens are pleased, then it is expected that the representative will be re-elected. This repetitive process creates a relationship of accountability between voters and those that they put into power. Electoral defeat serves as a deterrent to a politician’s temptation to err from the preferences of his or her constituency.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> An official democracy requires directly voting on federal laws, which does not happen.  A republic, on the other hand, has elections for representatives, who then, in turn, vote for laws.  You can't have both, as they are different systems.
> 
> An actual Democracy would actually send this country straight into the shitter, because the overwhelming majority silences any minority.


I think you are not referring to an 'official' or 'actual' democracy, but rather a 'direct democracy,' e.g.: not a representational system such as a republic. You can have both, for example, states have direct balloting on constitutional questions, e.g.: how Colorado legalized Cannabis to be regulated equitably with alcohol, and it's more common still on a county or local ballot question. I don't think it makes sense for a countrywide question (e.g.: Brexit was a sham), but I wanted to get back to something else you said-- 

"overwhelming majority silences," I think this is a bit fraught, but you'd have to get into political philosophy. For example, if the majority were elevating liberty and equality in good faith, then they can't be silencing, can they? In any event, you certainly don't want an overwhelming majority enslaved to some kooky minority with toxic ideas for the world that simply are not credible. If you beg to differ, then I don't think you're on the same page with how constitutional republics operate democratically.

The point of this, I guess, is just to say that the US system is in a failed state, functionally, in ways on days. There are reasons ranging from SCOTUS 1976 Buckley v Valeo "because it's unlikely to be abused by politicians and monied interests, Money == Speech," and that's been like a creeping disease on electoral purity every since, with completely astonishing results lately that call the integrity of elections start to finish into question, and cast a withering light on policy preference as expressed by elected officials where conflicts-of-interest with constituent will exist, as per Stanford research.


----------



## Kezi Avdiivka (Nov 24, 2017)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

OH GOD MY GATORADE IS ALL OVER MY MONITOR


----------



## Telnac (Nov 24, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I don't "name call" as a general MO, and so you must be confused between the use of pejoratives and the use of actually-descriptive labels appropriately applied to the subject matter in good faith and outside "post-facts" "reality." Why don't you quote what you're specifically referring to and I'll try to address your concern, whatever it may be.
> 
> True conservatives are good guys because they want to preserve that which must be defended, as in conservation. You know, of classic and ancient gods and philosophies, culture and art, traditions in agriculture, humanity, civilization, planet Earth. Radicals who demagogically claim they are conservative, well. They are not so good and they tend to leave a path of exploited and destroyed things in their wake. They're basically cultists, pirates, vandals, and/or would-be new-aristocracy feudal lords. It's all soft power these days, with a few harshly-timed extralegal sucker-punches to move things along in their direction.
> 
> The whole thing festers. It is sordid, it is beneath us, it is _disgusting_, and _yet_... now it seems to have _authority_ over us. How about _that_!





BahgDaddy said:


> It's not an ad hominem when it's directed at a political bloc, or a specifically carved out ideological function. Personal insults are usually directed at an individual, for instance, "you're dumb," etc. Calling conservatives depraved and unscrupulous is, I think, valid at this point. Just look at the garbage the Rs are willing to support - Sessions the marijuana troll, Roy Moore the pedo, Trump the womanizer.
> 
> But these insults cheapen the process. Rather these people are unethical, have greed as their primary motivation, and are destroying our liberal democracy. This is quite concerning, and at some point, people are going to go from "this is concerning" to taking action.


Apologies.  I thought you were branding all conservatives as depraved and unscrupulous.  I re-read the original post and now realize you were specifically talking about those on the extreme end of the political spectrum not just all conservatives.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I think you are not referring to an 'official' or 'actual' democracy, but rather a 'direct democracy,' e.g.: not a representational system such as a republic. You can have both, for example, states have direct balloting on constitutional questions, e.g.: how Colorado legalized Cannabis to be regulated equitably with alcohol, and it's more common still on a county or local ballot question. I don't think it makes sense for a countrywide question (e.g.: Brexit was a sham), but I wanted to get back to something else you said--
> 
> "overwhelming majority silences," I think this is a bit fraught, but you'd have to get into political philosophy. For example, if the majority were elevating liberty and equality in good faith, then they can't be silencing, can they? In any event, you certainly don't want an overwhelming majority enslaved to some kooky minority with toxic ideas for the world that simply are not credible. If you beg to differ, then I don't think you're on the same page with how constitutional republics operate democratically.
> 
> The point of this, I guess, is just to say that the US system is in a failed state, functionally, in ways on days. There are reasons ranging from SCOTUS 1976 Buckley v Valeo "because it's unlikely to be abused by politicians and monied interests, Money == Speech," and that's been like a creeping disease on electoral purity every since, with completely astonishing results lately that call the integrity of elections start to finish into question, and cast a withering light on policy preference as expressed by elected officials where conflicts-of-interest with constituent will exist, as per Stanford research.



Yes, you are correct about me referencing Direct Democracy.  However, I did specify Federal law making specifically, in regards to not having both systems.  There's other differences, such as who is elected vs. appointed, but that's not for here. 

For how it would function, you'd have to take that gamble on the population would divide itself.  There is no census information on morality, especially when it's a subjective topic. Philosophy is certainly going to be a large part of this, as while an individual feels one particular way now, how would he act with legitimate power?  Would they become more militant in their positions, or would they relax?  So many variables to play with, so many possible unique outcomes.  That would be a several week long discussion, to just bench race the idea. 

In regards to your example, any majority in this country can be just as dangerous to any other minority.  Imagine where we would be, if this system existed in the early 60's?  Astronomical levels of everything I know you (and I as well) dislike, would exist today.  With a majority, comes indoctrination, so theoretically if you get on top, you can easily stay there.  I'd like to believe the majority is good to the core, but we are talking about the same majority that refused the same-sex marriage for quite some time.  

I can't disagree with you on corruption. It's right there, facts and all, but nobody is doing anything measurable to fight it unfortunately.  Both parties are at fault here, and it starts with lobbyists, closely followed by "legal" insider trading.  It's embarrassing to watch.  It's about money.  



BahgDaddy said:


> No, Legacy, democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive. Further, your last description represents a misunderstanding of democracy. What you are referring is *direct democracy, *which yes, is not a very stable form of governorship. I usually encounter this fundamental misunderstanding of democracy from people who have only been taught about direct democracy. For some reason, these people have been taught the sheep-wolf analogy, and this would usually appear to be their sole education on the matter.
> 
> In actuality there are many types of democracy. Most developed countries have various forms of liberal democracy, which insofar appears to be the most stable form of government in the history of the world.
> 
> https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/POLSC221-4.1.5-TypesDem-FINAL.pdf



Yes, I am referring to a Direct Democracy.  This entire response is in retort to you implying that our "Liberal Democracy" was threatened.  Since we are not a Liberal Democracy (and you also agreed to this) there is no threat to something that does not exist.   This is the real misinformed statement. Simply having similar characteristics, does not allow one to correlate by dumbing the target down.  I'll skip the funny attack, and hold my 4.0 in Law School during my abbreviated tenure in shame.  At least your taxes paid for it


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Yes, I am referring to a Direct Democracy.  This entire response is in retort to you implying that our "Liberal Democracy" was threatened.  Since we are not a Liberal Democracy (and you also agreed to this) there is no threat to something that does not exist.   This is the real misinformed statement. Simply having similar characteristics, does not allow one to correlate by dumbing the target down.  I'll skip the funny attack, and hold my 4.0 in Law School during my abbreviated tenure in shame.  At least your taxes paid for it



Ooh, a 4.0, how fancy. 

"Since we are not a Liberal Democracy (and you also agreed to this)"

It's a shame your education did not teach you how to read people's posts, since I've never said we were not a liberal democracy, and in fact I shall now assert that we are much closer to a liberal democracy. We are not a direct democracy, this I have asserted.

time.com: 5 Reasons Why America Is Still a Strong Liberal Democracy



> Twenty years later, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted outthe following: “years ago @FareedZakaria wrote the book re illiberal democracies. i never thought this would fit the US but we r getting too close 4 comfort.” I am a big fan of Richard (and Fareed), but I disagree with Haass on this one. America remains a strong liberal democracy — however messy and dysfunctional — even in the age of Donald Trump. Here’s why.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> But these insults cheapen the process. Rather these people are unethical, have greed as their primary motivation, and *are destroying our liberal democracy.* This is quite concerning, and at some point, people are going to go from "this is concerning" to taking action.



Reading comprehension isn't an issue on my end.  That wasn't an attack, it was a defense against your weak attempt to establish my knowledge on how this subject works.  Sorry it backfired for you. 

Article 4, Section 4 clearly spells out what we are.  Time magazine isn't what I would call an SME on government, considering the same magazine gave a man "Woman of the Year".


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Reading comprehension isn't an issue on my end.  That wasn't an attack, it was a defense against your weak attempt to establish my knowledge on how this subject works.  Sorry it backfired for you.
> 
> Article 4, Section 4 clearly spells out what we are.  Time magazine isn't what I would call an SME on government, considering the same magazine gave a man "Woman of the Year".



On the contrary, it did not backfire, because I'm still claiming the same thing:



> *destroying our liberal democracy.*





> Since we are not a Liberal Democracy (and you also agreed to this)





> I've never said we were not a liberal democracy



I think I see the confusion. Please clarify what you mean by, "and you also agreed to this."

I find strict Constitutionalists amusing. That's so 1787.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Of course we're a constitutional republic



You baffle me.  You really do.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You baffle me.  You really do.



I don't see why. The following sentence was this one, which should have clarified the point I was trying to make. 

"Our country is actually, as it stands, a federal constitutional democratic republic."

Additional lite reading:

www.washingtonpost.com: Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 24, 2017)

To anyone who links sources. Please refer to this chart as a guide


----------



## Telnac (Nov 24, 2017)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> To anyone who links sources. Please refer to this chart as a guide
> View attachment 24116


Wat?!  Info Wars isn't a well-researched, unbiased news source?! 

Great chart.  Care to share the link to its source?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't see why. The following sentence was this one, which should have clarified the point I was trying to make.
> 
> "Our country is actually, as it stands, a federal constitutional democratic republic."
> 
> ...



Quoting that did you no favors in your defense of denying, that you agreed we were not, as previously stated. 

Please, for the love of God, do not post opinion articles as fact references.

Random reference.  

legaldictionary.net: Constitutional Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Quoting that did you no favors in your defense of denying, that you agreed we were not, as previously stated.
> 
> Please, for the love of God, do not post opinion articles as fact references.
> 
> ...



This conversation has become tiresome, because you've been reduced to lying about what I've written, despite the fact that I've said repeatedly I believe we are a liberal democracy - and also a repiblican federal constitutional experimental whatever. Labels like this are only useful if we actually understand them. I do not care to be at once the instructor and the arguer.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> This conversation has become tiresome, because you've been reduced to lying about what I've written, despite the fact that I've said repeatedly I believe we are a liberal democracy - and also a repiblican federal constitutional experimental whatever. Labels like this are only useful if we actually understand them. I do not care to be at once the instructor and the arguer.



Hey, it's not my fault you can't remember your own posts.  If quoting your exact post is lying, I guess I should have fact checked my source.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yes, you were speaking for yourself. What side have I picked? I've picked the side of, "liberal democratic governance and human civil rights ethics." If you think either US parties represent those rights, you're not paying very close attention. Although, some democrats come close to what I believe, and I usually agree with Democrats over Republicans. But I'm really more of an Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders person, the latter more than anything.
> 
> "You're not everyone"
> 
> ...



Good thing i'm solid in my beliefs and convictions then. Trust me the regressive left already tried to 'recruit' me and they failed. The alt-right doesn't even want me i'm pretty sure.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> Liberalism is a political philosophy, and a political philosophy is a distinct concept from ideology:
> 
> 
> Ideology is a concept closer to religious doctrine than political philosophy. So we have liberalism:
> ...



I don't even know what the fuck you're saying, maybe try using less big and obscure words next time. Or yknow, don't go off on a tangent just to say one thing. And i sure as hell can pick from both, the less extreme versions that is. Although i'm less of a mix and more of a hybrid, my slightly more conservative views affect my slightly more liberal views and the other way around.

Why did people start discourse with me because i commented on the fact that the article is probably just an SJW crying nazi? From experience only SJWs call people nazis and neo-nazis when they don't agree with said people and they need to learn what a real nazi was like.

I hate the extremes on both sides, can't we just agree on that? Why are you guys so obsessed with my personal opinions?


----------



## Saiko (Nov 24, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Why did people start discourse with me because i commented on the fact that the article is probably just an SJW crying nazi? From experience only SJWs call people nazis and neo-nazis when they don't agree with said people and they need to learn what a real nazi was like.


I started it because the majority of the thread has been rephrases of that same comment. Yours was just the most recent and most easily rewritten to make my point. Unfortunately others somehow found a way to politicize the claim “everyone on all sides keeps doing this stupid thing,” and you got caught in the middle of it. It’s not what I intended. >_<


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I started it because the majority of the thread has been rephrases of that same comment. Yours was just the most recent and most easily rewritten to make my point. Unfortunately others somehow found a way to politicize the claim “everyone on all sides keeps doing this stupid thing,” and you got caught in the middle of it. It’s not what I intended. >_<



Its cool, i only avoid labels because people make assumptions about a person based on the side they choose that are usually false and i don't want to be lumped in with groups i hate. If that weren't the case i'd pick a side but unfortunately it is.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 24, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Its cool, i only avoid labels because people make assumptions about a person based on the side they choose that are usually false and i don't want to be lumped in with groups i hate. If that weren't the case i'd pick a side but unfortunately it is.


And my core point was that the original post I commented on was an example of perpetuating those same assumptions. Charged labels like SJW and Alt-Right really only apply to a small portion of liberal and conservative constituents, yet they’re the only groups anyone ever responds to. It’s yet another case of only identifying as what you’re against rather than what you support, and the only way to control such a platform is to attack a nebulous label and recategorize people as needed. In this case people are repeatedly going after the SJW label because SJWs are obviously stupid (just like Nazis are obviously evil), and that completely subverts any meaningful discourse because now everyone who found contrary concerns in the article is just a stupid SJW.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> And my core point was that the original post I commented on was an example of perpetuating those same assumptions. Charged labels like SJW and Alt-Right really only apply to a small portion of liberal and conservative constituents, yet they’re the only groups anyone ever responds to. It’s yet another case of only identifying as what you’re against rather than what you support, and the only way to control such a platform is to attack a nebulous label and recategorize people as needed. In this case people are repeatedly going after the SJW label because SJWs are obviously stupid (just like Nazis are obviously evil), and that completely subverts any meaningful discourse because now everyone who found contrary concerns in the article is just a stupid SJW.



Yeah as for the article itself i definitely don't approve of things the alt-furries have done but i wouldn't call em neo-nazis because of it. They're not that bad, but they're getting there.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

]



-..Legacy..- said:


> Hey, it's not my fault you can't remember your own posts.  If quoting your exact post is lying, I guess I should have fact checked my source.



This is generally what happens when I debate other Americans using logic and rationalism. It's actually disappointingly predictable, and rather like installing a cartoon bomb in someone. After a while, of pointing out people's logical fallacies, correcting incorrect information, and providing a rigorous debate framework, the opponent generally dissolves into name calling, stops making sense, and resorts to bullying tactics. 

Generally I take that as I sign that I've caused some good cognitive dissonance, and then move on.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You forgot your misdirection tactics, and lack of any factual basis in your actual disagreement.  

Cool Pigeon vs. chessboard parody though.  You really brought it to life.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You forgot your misdirection tactics, and lack of any factual basis in your actual disagreement.
> 
> Cool Pigeon vs. chessboard parody though.  You really brought it to life.



What misdirection tactics have I used, and where have I used them? 

In actuality I've been quite clear in my claims, and consistent. Your claim of our being a constitutional republic was met with confirmation but modification - we are actually all of them, a federal democratic conditional (representative) republic. 

Further, I've provided articles and proofs to back up my claim that we, along with much of the western developed world, are liberal democracies. 

By contrast, you've vaguely referenced the Constitution, and attempted to discredit the entire TIME magazine, a classic dismissive fallacy used frequently by the "fake news" crowd. 

Anyone reading through here can readily see that I've been backing up my arguments with reason and data, whereas you have not, and in fact have misquoted me and refuse to admit it. I can't help but wonder if your education was at a religious college...


----------



## Saiko (Nov 24, 2017)

Jesus Christ you both are such Internet know-it-all’s. You both agree on the way the system works and are bickering over a term. Are either of you even studying government types?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Jesus Christ you both are such Internet know-it-all’s. You both agree on the way the system works and are bickering over a term. Are either of you even studying government types?



Well, usually I don't get hung up over terminology. In fact I dislike it. I'd rather agree on what the government system is in the country and then move on to discussing the ups and downs of different modes of government. Unfortunately, here we are ignoring basic facts about the objective reality of our government system.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 24, 2017)

This exchange here highlights one of the dimensions of political crisis in the United States of America today, and it's been a growing problem for quite some time-- the well of language has been poisoned, and people have become confused because the meaning of words have been willfully debased by establishment voices, leaving a pile of confused people who cannot communicate about politics, even when you provide them correction from credible sources with citation. 

This, I do feel, constitutes a very old-school attack on a civilization. It's like Nimrud's Tower of Babel all over again. Confusion of tongues. This is why people can't come together despite sharing values-- their language has been confused. Will they recognize what's been done and correct it in time? Do they have the intellectual approach they would need to even discover that they have been badly led astray by bad faith voices and abused language uncorrected? 

This is something folks in the international fandom should understand. They should realize this thing is a lot darker than it seems because the attack on US civilization is a broad-spectrum one, ranging from language to agriculture to economic policy to public education. Things are rapidly falling toward bedlam, now. And whatever percentage of us were not hoodwinked by the false discourse is small and fleeting. What are we to do? This is a sinking ship of fools, and what path can you chart when so many have been led into political delusion and neurolinguistically reprogrammed to refuse all correction? Don't look the other way and pretend this isn't happening, we in the US actually urgently need better answers and support from the international community against this rising dark mad tide.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Are either of you even studying government types?



Yes, it's the structure of Constitutional Law classes.  How they work, who has what authority, and responsibilities.



BahgDaddy said:


> What misdirection tactics have I used, and where have I used them?



Quoting sources that are not SME on the subject, and only in line with your beliefs.  If it was possible to not easily find sources contradicting the matter, I'd be inclined to agree.  It does share some similarities in function at certain levels, but it isn't a whole entity.   It surely doesn't exist today.  This is an oft-discussed topic, and has multiple viewpoints. 

Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, doesn't make them biscuits. 

 If they were the same, they wouldn't have different terms.  There are subtle differences.  An Electoral College appointee's ability to vote opposite of his district is notable for this.  Some states require a party vote, others do not.  Their vote can also be overturned in some cases by higher authority. That wouldn't fly in a Liberal Democracy structure, as the representives are capable of doing whatever they please, regardless of their constituents wish.  The power of the people is quite low nowadays. Being able to indefinitely detain anyone through NDAA, without cause, is also against the philosophy.  It's been argued extensively, that we stopped harboring Liberal Democracy since Sept 11, 2001.  Multiple forms of inequalities still exist. 



BahgDaddy said:


> In actuality I've been quite clear in my claims, and consistent. Your claim of our being a constitutional republic was met with confirmation but modification - we are actually all of them, a federal democratic conditional (representative) republic.



This is covered elsewhere in this response. 



BahgDaddy said:


> Further, I've provided articles and proofs to back up my claim that we, along with much of the western developed world, are liberal democracies.



You've posted a privately funded information excerpt, and two news magazine articles.  Both are subject to being created with opinionated scrutiny.  We can't be picky with references sometimes, I get that, but at least use established references when trying to make a case.  You mention you went to college, so that shouldn't be foreign in concept for discussion purposes.   Using a magazine article as a fact would have sent any one of my instructors nuclear.  I'm sure yours were no different. 



BahgDaddy said:


> By contrast, you've vaguely referenced the Constitution, and attempted to discredit the entire TIME magazine, a classic dismissive fallacy used frequently by the "fake news" crowd.



The constitution is not a vague reference.  It says exactly what we are, verbatim.   It's a pretty easy position to defend. 

I never said that Time was a false news crowd.  It was a solid example of why it it an opinion-based editorial magazine. The opinion-based example only supports this observation.   A person of your intellect should be able to make that connection.   I am part of no political "crowd", I assure you.  I look at facts, and make decisions based on those facts.  Party-line politics create some incredibly ignorant folks.  Both sides have their good ideas, but they lack the unity to make it work.  This is what Chromatic Rabbit pleads for constantly, as an example.  Drop all the current bull that plagues us, and unify.  If that ever happens, then we would without a doubt, be a Liberal Democracy.  Instead, we are heading towards a form of oligarchy on our current path.   You need money, or a lot of influence with the upper echelon, to exist politically.  



BahgDaddy said:


> Anyone reading through here can readily see that I've been backing up my arguments with reason and data, whereas you have not, and in fact have misquoted me and refuse to admit it. I can't help but wonder if your education was at a religious college



You agreed, then disagreed, then agreed in my eyes. You stated two different classifications, and they are not exact copies of each other. So for me to see you use both of the terms, shows differing positions.  To misquote would mean I changed your quote. Using the reply feature removes that possibility.  Anything I quote from you is direct verbiage.   Misinterpreting your views, I could have probably swallowed easier.  

My actual lack of religion, nor adherence to any particular political party for that matter, should have zero bearing on you attempting to identify my choice in schooling.  South University, a private institution, was my choice since you are curious.  Law is limited with interpretation to only vague rulesets.  Being purple, with 3 legs, and 4 arms, does not change how curriculum is taught for this area of study.  It's not a liberal arts program. 

And FWIW, you're the only one playing the labeling game.  I've yet to call you anything, and haven't resorted to shady argument tactics such as your repetitive Ad Hominim attempts.  I even ignored them, and will continue to do so.  I literally only go by what you write, without attacking you as a person.  That's just a weak debate trick, we all know that.  That's what people can also see.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> The constitution is not a vague reference.  It says exactly what we are, verbatim. It's a pretty easy position to defend.


How does the distinction between the structure of the system and current behavior of the system interact with this? That is, say the constitution states we’re a “constitutional republic” (or whichever term it is). But then suppose we continue along the same political path we’re on, and in practice it functions as some oligarchic system. Would the correct label for our form of government remain “constitutional republic” due to the original writing and persistent electoral/governmental structure, or would the correct label instead become “oligarchic whatever” to account for the importance of wealth in practice.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, doesn't make them biscuits.


I'm not sure that explains what "misdirection tactics" BahgDaddy employed. That's a fairly serious charge against a speaker, and so your case should be made strongly or not at all.



> The constitution is not a vague reference.  It says exactly what we are, verbatim.


It's debated endlessly, challenged and defended endlessly, and interpreted by the US Supreme Court. For example, the Second Amendment seems to say one thing, and SCOTUS interprets something very different. A more recent pending battle might be one's Constitutional Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government (even when the information comes from a middleman, like an Internet cloud storage provider). So it goes, but that's the role of justice. This thing is alive and the more it is examined the more one may observe growth and change in it.



> Party-line politics create some incredibly ignorant folks.  Both sides have their good ideas, but they lack the unity to make it work.  This is what Chromatic Rabbit pleads for constantly, as an example.


To be clear, I want people to unify together under a shared set of positive values, whatever people could agree to. A false unity where people don't come together around core values intended to bolster the community would just be pointless because the community would be ripping at itself cross-purpose on elemental things endlessly, and for what?

The problem with party-line politics is that it describes dogma, and it's useless because the parties in question are functionally corporate brand exercises, they don't seem like actual traditional values-based political organization by for and of The People. It's hard to look at the system as credible any longer, there are tons of reasons I would say so, but the root cause is money buying power; it's functionally corruption on a systemic scale. I think from what you said you wouldn't disagree here with respect to the US incumbent political parties in the Capital city.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I'm not sure that explains what "misdirection tactics" BahgDaddy employed. That's a fairly serious charge against a speaker, and so your case should be made strongly or not at all.



That's a lead into the following statement.  It's an old Southern saying. 

Just because it seems to meet similar qualifications, doesn't make it true.  




ChromaticRabbit said:


> It's hard to look at the system as credible any longer, there are tons of reasons I would say so, but the root cause is money buying power; it's functionally corruption on a systemic scale. I think from what you said you wouldn't disagree here with respect to the US incumbent political parties in the Capital city.



No I don't disagree at all, that's where the oligarchy comment stems from.   

That frustration breeds the topic of this thread.  People want change, but instead of overall good, they see it as a chance to push fringe agendas that had no chance prior.  It's been a mess for many years, and it'll take a while to level out.  Where will it level, nobody knows.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 24, 2017)

I think a large part of this chaos is that the old coalitions that held the two major parties together are falling apart. The far left & far right have taken control of the two parties and those stuck in the middle feel unrepresented and have for a long time. There is no bipartisanship any more. Any attempts at bipartisanship is seen as betraying the cause.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 24, 2017)

I'm not sure why the site stopped alerting me about posts on this thread, but I'm glad it did


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 24, 2017)

So I think it's interesting. We start talking about neo-nazi themed furs and have contemporary political discussion pop up fast, more or less saying pejoratively that someone who cares about The Good should probably just sit down and shut up about the whole thing. It's a bit more than just tonedeaf in the US context of 2017. 



> Drayne the Wolf, the convention’s chairman (his real name is Randy Hill), agreed.“We did not set out to make a political statement,” he says of the ban. “But we had to make sure the attendees felt safe.”
> 
> (OP Article)


You were also preventing those dudes (and let's face it, they were pathetic dudes) from turning your fandom event into their political megaphone and circus and dragging you deeply into an appearance of support and/or sympathy. What they would parasitically do to all the hard work and preparation that went into you event would be like what they do to the fandom generally and its efforts. You definitely don't want these optics associated with the fandom and its events after RMFC. I point this out assuming you do pay attention to such developments. Let's hope so!


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> How does the distinction between the structure of the system and current behavior of the system interact with this? That is, say the constitution states we’re a “constitutional republic” (or whichever term it is). But then suppose we continue along the same political path we’re on, and in practice it functions as some oligarchic system. Would the correct label for our form of government remain “constitutional republic” due to the original writing and persistent electoral/governmental structure, or would the correct label instead become “oligarchic whatever” to account for the importance of wealth in practice.



I think calling us an oligarchy [in pracyics] is accurate. When I call us a liberal democracy, that's really quite optimistic. What we actually have is something fast approaching feudalistic Europe, except with executives and corporate leaders instead of barrons and landlords.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 24, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think calling us an oligarchy [in pracyics] is accurate. When I call us a liberal democracy, that's really quite optimistic. What we actually have is something fast approaching feudalistic Europe, except with executives and corporate leaders instead of barrons and landlords.


Throw career politicians & lobbyists in that mix too. The fact that Congress can exempt itself or any preferred group from Federal laws is unforgivable. The law should apply equally to everyone or to no one.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Throw career politicians & lobbyists in that mix too. The fact that Congress can exempt itself or any preferred group from Federal laws is unforgivable. The law should apply equally to everyone or to no one.



I completely agree. Lobbying is supposed to be so special interest groups can make their voices heard as a function of a healthy representative political system. Instead, lobbyists are functioning as the method of companies purchasing their way through the legal system. Our laws have been created by people to prevent corruption, but the more rules you create, the more corruption you invite. Big pharma employs two lobbyists for every senator. That should be downright illegal.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> How does the distinction between the structure of the system and current behavior of the system interact with this? That is, say the constitution states we’re a “constitutional republic” (or whichever term it is). But then suppose we continue along the same political path we’re on, and in practice it functions as some oligarchic system. Would the correct label for our form of government remain “constitutional republic” due to the original writing and persistent electoral/governmental structure, or would the correct label instead become “oligarchic whatever” to account for the importance of wealth in practice.



Apologies for missing this earlier.  Long day here. 

We can have tendencies or select points that refer to other systems, but we can't change unless the Constitution is removed or amended.  That was the original purpose of that document.  To preserve the original intentions.  It's been beaten to death, yet it's rarely required alterations.  It's held up, even with all that was impossible to predict.  There's no telling if being vague on some points was intentional, or not.  

Specifically with the observations of what appear to be the beginnings of Oligarchy in our system, we arent capable of actually having one.  A constitution would defy most forms of oligarchy, except maybe a technocracy (which may have a lot of issues with religious sects, being based on science and technology).  Out of the 14? types of oligarchy, none would have a chance of blossoming but that one.  It's still pretty far-fetched to even consider. Corruption kills every system, until it comes to a (usually) violent end.  It's extremely rare to hear of otherwise.  Our corruption currently takes the form of what appears to be an elite ruling class, of who some seem disconnected from their constituents.  

That's not to say it can't have similar points.  That's the off color saying I brought up.  Just because it looks like it, doesn't always make it so.  We can have corruption in our current system, but that doesn't change the foundation.  We unfortunately have to see the system work efficiently, as intended, to remove the corruption.  If the original system fails entirely, then welcome to the North American version of Argentina as they try to regain control. 

One could even say a Cabal exists, but that is even more difficult to prove due to its nature.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 24, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Specifically with the observations of what appear to be the beginnings of Oligarchy in our system, we arent capable of actually having one... Out of the 14? types of oligarchy, none would have a chance of blossoming but that one. It's still pretty far-fetched to even consider...


Is it really?


> *Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy*
> _BusinessInsider, Zachary Davies Boren / The Telegraph,  Apr. 16, 2014_
> 
> The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
> ...



Back to the dark-memed anti-fandom vandals this topic's actually for, as time goes on, it's probably likely these groups will try to disrupt clubs and other conventions or events. Events and web resources will have standard code-of-conduct or terms-of-service type requirements, and these will be gamed or ignored endlessly.  I think the bigger concern is when they operate dark and infiltrate an organization like RMFC or even community groups online. It's about the memes, it's about the values, it's about the fast talk sell of the dark side. Their direct attacks on civility and corrosive ethos is the essence of the issue, it creates this siege mentality very much like the United States's society generally, now.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 24, 2017)

I declare this topic throughly expended.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 25, 2017)

It literally has spent almost no time on the topic, but I declare the off-topic expended. In fact, won't this thread need to be around and updated until the problem in the wider fandom is a bad memory of a transient cultural paucity?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 25, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> It literally has spent almost no time on the topic, but I declare the off-topic expended. In fact, won't this thread need to be around and updated until the problem in the wider fandom is a bad memory of a transient cultural paucity?



I'd say it's more of a societal problem honestly, not specific to the fandom in any way. The fandom is a part of society.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 25, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'd say it's more of a societal problem honestly, not specific to the fandom in any way. The fandom is a part of society.


The fandom wasn't like this in '06-08, but that's not a contradiction of what you're saying. The question really keeps coming back to, how does an international fandom respond to an international fascist insurrection, and all the memes that go with it, and all the malaise that implicitly follows it, and all the ways the fandom is antithetical to fascism and therefore gets a target projected upon it more and more as time goes on. 

What's the plan, because no plan is bad news, and they're already like half-a-decade ahead of this society collectively already, to all appearances. If your thought is "well, hey. I'm in the fandom, but I don't feel like I'm being called out by these sociopaths, so I don't see a problem here," please understand they're banking on people like you not being in solidarity with the individuals or groups they pick off individually for their degradation.


----------



## Troj (Nov 25, 2017)

I'm concerned about the things people are willing to do or condone in the name of fighting off some boogeyman or enemy. Once you've decided that your enemy must be stopped at all costs, and that they basically aren't even human, the sky's the limit.

I'm also disappointed that "social justice" has become a kind of slur.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 25, 2017)

Troj said:


> Once you've decided that your enemy must be stopped at all costs, and that they basically aren't even human, the sky's the limit.
> 
> I'm also disappointed that "social justice" has become a kind of slur.


I would hate most of all to see the best elements of the fandom community pushed undeground, and yet it seems sometimes as if, "Then _where_ are they?" Where are the best minds and spirits of this fandom, within that core community, right now. Have they all fled to the hollow center of the Earth because it does seem almost as if there are as many people _here_ who denounce the idea of the fandom community as who are actually sympathetic to a notion of its existence, but you'd expect someone piping up as a convention planner, site operator, or some more invested role within the fandom community. There seem to be chirping crickets, and that's fascinating.

That suggests the core _isn't here on FAF_, or there's some other level of inequity walling that off here and we are somehow on the wrong end of it. That's the other natural response, the fandom could become passive-aggressively defensive and operate less openly than is generally recognized. I'd hate to see that sort of outcome become real because that's the point at which the fandom community has walled itself off from view and access entirely, and that would be a thing badly antithetical to any fandom, would it not?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 25, 2017)

Troj said:


> I'm concerned about the things people are willing to do or condone in the name of fighting off some boogeyman or enemy. Once you've decided that your enemy must be stopped at all costs, and that they basically aren't even human, the sky's the limit.
> 
> I'm also disappointed that "social justice" has become a kind of slur.



This is the big issue, as escalation is a very steep slope.  

You're stuck being vocal, or doing possibly illegal acts.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 25, 2017)

The energy spent to type all of the words in this thread will probably light my phone for 5 minutes. Enough for me to jerk off to some fine bear ass


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 25, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> The fandom wasn't like this in '06-08, but that's not a contradiction of what you're saying. The question really keeps coming back to, how does an international fandom respond to an international fascist insurrection, and all the memes that go with it, and all the malaise that implicitly follows it, and all the ways the fandom is antithetical to fascism and therefore gets a target projected upon it more and more as time goes on.
> 
> What's the plan, because no plan is bad news, and they're already like half-a-decade ahead of this society collectively already, to all appearances. If your thought is "well, hey. I'm in the fandom, but I don't feel like I'm being called out by these sociopaths, so I don't see a problem here," please understand they're banking on people like you not being in solidarity with the individuals or groups they pick off individually for their degradation.



I support the rights of all groups too coordinate and operate in whatever fashion they want. So if someone starts picking on the furry fandom, with actual legislature and actions, you can be damned sure I'll be fighting those people with words, money, and votes. 

The fandom is very much the opposite of fascism, that much is true. But it's also just as susceptible to tribalism as any other group of people out there. Difference is furries are unlikely to mobilize and behave in belligerent manners.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Nov 25, 2017)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> The energy spent to type all of the words in this thread will probably light my phone for 5 minutes. Enough for me to jerk off to some fine bear ass



"Save a Panda - Donate your virginity."

Um. To the panda?


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 25, 2017)

Troj said:


> I'm also disappointed that "social justice" has become a kind of slur.


Social justice have in a way always been a slur: Ignoring due process and the law. Guilty because people said so, in other words, no innocent until proven guilty. Character assassinations. Guilt by association. Label anyone who disagrees "the enemy" and must be fought my any means necessary, even illegal means, sacrificing your morals and principles along the way. The list goes on and on.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Nov 25, 2017)

Because the thread's topic has been thoroughly lost, I am closing it up.


----------

