# Calling out the YouTube crap....don't fall for it



## rknight (Nov 6, 2018)

By now I'm sure everyone has seen this bullshit video by kothorix.
1st off...has with any fandom there always a very small few controversial figures..however to throw the whole furry Community under the bus is where I draw the line!

Cars and fan fiction writing is what got me into the furry fandom in the mid-90s
I'm a proud furry....cause of the fandom, I've meet great people made lots of lifelong friends, gone back to school to finish my degree and became a small business owner!

Has a former content creator on YouTube ( who's now on Mixer.com ) I know how the game is played I know about how to make bullshit click videos to get money...and that's what this all about! It's about someone who's too lazy to find a real job and wants to make money the easy way by starting YouTube drama!

if you click on any FA account it shows then you first signed up to FA, and a lot of these people coming over here starting drama are new accounts...often times with nothing posted but a link back to a Youtube page

The fact of the matter is,  this troll is making videos like this just so he can get views and pump up his YouTube account! So don't fall his clickbait videos

If you don't like the fandom then leave... but leave without spilling your garbage on YouTube for clicks!


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 6, 2018)

Pretty sure its just someone burned by a bunch of bad stuff in the fandom talking about it. Being upset doesn't make someone a troll.


----------



## Troj (Nov 6, 2018)

That is indeed a game people play, but his grievances sounded real and sincere to me, at least.

Certainly, we can all be unconsciously or half-consciously influenced to produce certain content, display particular behaviors, or fixate on certain issues because we've been rewarded for doing so, but even that doesn't necessarily make us "trolls" per se.


----------



## Scales42 (Nov 6, 2018)

Its called having an opinion, and he is in fact allowed to share his. I dont agree with him either, but for entirely different reasons.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2018)

Someone sees the fandom that he loves as having problems, points them out and can't deal with them anymore. Then this thread pops up. 

So what are you going to do about the problems he specified(and haven't specified) in the video?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

Given that Kothorix had made a slew of videos on subjects such as 'Nazi furs', paedophilia, bestiality, Trump and _Len Gilbert_ of all people, maybe the OP does have a point that the subjects were chosen because they're very clickbaity.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 6, 2018)

Calling him a troll seems too much.
He's just burned out and I don't blame him, the fandom has been under a lot of pressure lately thanks to the Kero and SnakeThing situation, not to mention that other pedo guy from last week.
Being critical of the things you love doesn't make you a troll/hater


----------



## Troj (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Given that Kothorix had made a slew of videos on subjects such as 'Nazi furs', paedophilia, bestiality, Trump and _Len Gilbert_ of all people, maybe the OP does have a point that the subjects were chosen because they're very clickbaity.



Possible motives for generating "clickbait" could include:

Intentional trolling; wanting to sow drama
Attention-whoring

Arrogance/hubris; thinking your take or reaction will necessarily be "the Best" and/or the most essential.

Relishing drama
Wanting to profit/benefit from drama
Feeling you have an ethical, professional, or other duty to weigh in on a topic
Wanting to correct misconceptions or myths about the topic

Wanting to re-adjust, reframe, or otherwise improve or fix the larger conversation or dialogue around the topic

Needing/wanting to vent emotions
Needing/wanting to organize thoughts out loud to gain a greater sense of clarity around the topic 

Wanting to learn more about a topic
Wanting to start a dialogue about the topic 

Wanting social approval and support for your opinion and/or just for weighing in
Virtue-signalling; wanting to feel like a good person


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 6, 2018)

While he did seem to talk often about controversial topics(whether for views or not) 
I don’t think that’s necessarily a clickbait video.
(Needs a “You won’t believe why I quit the furry cult at 3:33am “ title :V) Those issues do exist here, but I would say that there’s a sort of bias within his experiences. He got involved with the drama, erotica, and politics,(Idk why tbh) thus why he had a higher chance/concentration of said issues.


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2018)

I think even if I was in solitary confinement for 10 years with nothing to watch at all, I would still not watch one of his videos, if it was offered as entertainment; I'd sooner continue stare at the wall, and dream!

But to each their own; the more I read about these ranting you tube furs, the less desire I have to have anything to do with them. This bitchy You Tube alt-right star part of the fandom holds no appeal to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Possible motives for generating "clickbait" could include:
> 
> Intentional trolling; wanting to sow drama
> Attention-whoring
> ...



Oh for sure. I don't think he is a troll; that's certainly not the vibe I got from speaking to him. 

I think the attention and 'my take is the best take' is probably what's going on with that. It's certainly not virtue-signalling because nobody wants to signal how virtuous they are by defending cub porn. x3


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

He's not a troll, just somebody who lacks any sort of self awareness and is very thin skinned.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 6, 2018)

I didn't find his video to be troll-y or clickbait-y. In fact I agree with most of the things he talks about, and I can understand why he's upset with the fandom. I however don't get this "im leaving the fandom 4ever"thing. So? What is it that you leave exactly? A website? Is he never ever going to watch anything furry-related again? It's weird to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

Rimna said:


> I didn't find his video to be troll-y or clickbait-y. In fact I agree with most of the things he talks about, and I can understand why he's upset with the fandom. I however don't get this "im leaving the fandom 4ever"thing. So? What is it that you leave exactly? A website? Is he never ever going to watch anything furry-related again? It's weird to me.



You mean nobody ever gave you access to our secret website?


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You mean nobody ever gave you access to our secret website?



MonkaS


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

He did sound genuine to me, at least in his voice.
I wish he did give more solid evidence in his video of his claims, but he did, at least, sound like he believed what he was saying.


----------



## Baalf (Nov 6, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> Calling him a troll seems too much.
> He's just burned out and I don't blame him, the fandom has been under a lot of pressure lately thanks to the Kero and SnakeThing situation, not to mention that other pedo guy from last week.
> Being critical of the things you love doesn't make you a troll/hater



My biggest problem with people like the OP mentioned is that when one furry does something horrible, the entire fandom is blamed instead of just that one individual. Other people in other groups don't have that kind of ultimatum, yet when it comes to furries, apparently we have strict rules to follow and if even one person breaks those rules, the entire fandom gets punished.


----------



## Troj (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the attention and 'my take is the best take' is probably what's going on with that. It's certainly not virtue-signalling because nobody wants to signal how virtuous they are by defending cub porn. x3



Ah, depends on the virtues somebody thinks they're signalling!

Thinking outside of the box a bit, somebody might be very happy to broadcast their controversial stance on a topic because the "virtue" they're trying to signal is that they're Too Cool for School, More Rational and Skeptical Than the Average Bear, or 2 Edgy 4 Normies.  Some people take great pride in always playing Devil's Advocate, because it allows them to signal that they "don't care" about social approval, and/or that their moral or intellectual reasoning is beyond that of mere men. In all of these cases, they are communicating to some imagined audience that they possess some desired trait or "virtue" in spades.

I'd say Kothorix generally fits into the "Rational Skeptic" camp. From his point of view, his status as a Rational Skeptic also allows him to be an objective moral arbiter---so, yes, inwardly, he probably does see himself as offering the Best/Definitive Take on current events and hot topics, like you said. (I can relate to that for sure, so I'm not just throwing stones here!)

Like many of us, he also may derive some enjoyment from being involved with/aware of/current on the latest hot mess--because who doesn't love some hot gossip, and who doesn't love being able to show they're "in the know?"


----------



## Baalf (Nov 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Ah, depends on the virtues somebody thinks they're signalling!
> 
> Thinking outside of the box a bit, somebody might be very happy to broadcast their controversial stance on a topic because the "virtue" they're trying to signal is that they're Too Cool for School, More Rational and Skeptical Than the Average Bear, or 2 Edgy 4 Normies.  They are communicating to some imagined audience that they possess some desired trait or "virtue" in spades.
> 
> ...



In other words, they think they are the high-tom titty.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

As someone said in the previous thread before it got derailed, he's been on the front lines defending the fandom for 10 or so years.
Honestly, I can understand why he'd want to take a break.


----------



## Troj (Nov 6, 2018)

Well, and especially when you're talking about geek communities, neurotypes like autism also play an important contributing role in these situations. This isn't an occasion or excuse to be mean, condescending, ableist, dismissive, or shitty to people, mind you; it's another reminder that people often have reasons for being the way they are.

When you have trouble reading and understanding social cues and getting into other people's heads, you can either turn into Sheldon Cooper at one extreme or Dobby on the other, or oscillate wildly between the poles.

Thinking of the various furry Youtubers, youth, inexperience, and naivete can also cause somebody to bite off more than they can chew for sure, by jumping into shark-infested waters or weighing in on topics that are way above their pay grade.

Anywho, the point still being that not everybody who makes "clickbait" is a troll.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

It was a sticky situation, indeed.
I think maybe he was self-aware, though.
Maybe he's leaving the fandom because he realizes he's not the best person to defend it. (Maybe he never thought he was the BEST, but you know what I mean)
It takes a seriously strong-willed person to realize when you're not effective and the best thing to do is walk away.


----------



## Troj (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> It takes a seriously strong-willed person to realize when you're not effective and the best thing to do is walk away.



It does. It requires a kind of humility and wisdom to give up on something you've tried so hard and want so badly to salvage, when you realize it's beyond repair, or that you're not the One to do it.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

As I mentioned in the last thread. He inserted himself into drama and spoke about contentious topcis, then complains that people said mean things about him. He is a youtuber, and if you ever get to a point where you start bemoaning and complaining that people are too toxic, look at the line of work you chose for yourself. I won't rehash the apologist stuff he did for 'particular subjects' but that should be kept in mind before people start claiming he 'defended the fandom for 10 years.'


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I won't rehash the apologist stuff he did for 'particular subjects'


Considering I've already dealt with them


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Considering I've already dealt with them


You ended up agreeing there was a point to be made about normalizing that content, actually and that it could be dangerous going forward.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You ended up agreeing there was a point to be made about normalizing that content, actually and that it could be dangerous going forward.


Not exactly.
This isn't the time nor place for this, though.
PM me and I will remind you.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 6, 2018)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Other people in other groups don't have that kind of ultimatum


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Not exactly.
> This isn't the time nor place for this, though.
> PM me and I will remind you.


Remind me that most people agreed with the point I was making? Sure, you can PM that.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Remind me that most people agreed with the point I was making? Sure, you can PM that.


Ad populum fallacy


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Ad populum fallacy


I reasonably debated your points, so that's a strawman. I merely pointed out that I made my point better than you recall.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I reasonably debated your points, so that's a strawman. I merely pointed out that I made my point better than you recall.


You don't know what a strawman is lol


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Ad populum fallacy



I spot fallacy of  'argument ad latinum' ! ;3


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> You don't know what a strawman is lol


A purposeful misrepresentation of my position that is easy to knock down, do you actually know what an ad populum fallacy is? Because you seemed to think that a simple statement encompassed my entire position.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> A purposeful misrepresentation of my position that is easy to knock down, do you actually know what an ad populum fallacy is? Because you seemed to think that a simple statement encompassed my entire position.


Yeah. And ad populum argument is an appeal to the idea that something is valid due to there being a large group of people in support of an idea rather than empirical evidence.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Remind me that most people agreed with the point I was making? Sure, you can PM that.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Yeah. And ad populum argument is an appeal to the idea that something is valid due to there being a large group of people in support of an idea rather than empirical evidence.



My side had empirical evidence, I cited a source, in response to yours. Though, I suppose admitting that is alot less one sided, isn't it?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

It is okay to have a discussion in friendly terms, rather than regimented "scholarly" debate.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> My side had empirical evidence, I cited a source, in response to yours. Though, I suppose admitting that is alot less one sided, isn't it?


Your source was invalid because it was discussing a different subject matter entirely.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Your source was invalid because it was discussing a different subject matter entirely.


It was discussing the effect of underage pornography, it's pretty related, no it's not a perfect match, but it perfectly applicable to the debate. It doesn't need to be an exact match to the situation, and to conclude that using those sources is irrelevant to the debate is asinine.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> It was discussing the effect of underage pornography, it's pretty related, no it's not a perfect match, but it perfectly applicable to the debate. It doesn't need to be an exact match to the situation, and to conclude that using those sources is irrelevant to the debate is asinine.


Underage REAL pornography.
We were talking about depictions, which is what the subject matter was.
So no, it wasn't applicable whatsoever.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Underage REAL pornography.
> We were talking about depictions, which is what the subject matter was.
> So no, it wasn't applicable whatsoever.



Serves the same needs to a particular group of people, hence, perfectly applicable. It doesn't matter how much you plug your fingers in your ears and drown out what is being said, it doesn't change the huge correlation between the subjects.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Serves the same needs to a particular group of people, hence, perfectly applicable.


Except one has victims and the other, according to the evidence, reduces the number of victims.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Except one has victims and the other, according to the evidence, reduces the number of victims.


What 'evidence'? The amount of stories coming out from people who used cub as a way to talk about their interest in pedophilia and enact illegal activities is disturbing and worrying.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> What 'evidence'? The amount of stories coming out from people who used cub as a way to talk about their interest in pedophile and enact illegal activities is disturbing and worrying.


Holy shit, you didn't even read the article I posted.

Dude, you're full of shit.
I'm done with you.

For anyone ELSE who's interested:
www.hawaii.edu: Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan


----------



## Baalf (Nov 6, 2018)

Blah blah blah blah blah.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Holy shit, you didn't even read the article I posted.
> 
> Dude, you're full of shit.
> I'm done with you.
> ...



Looks who's talking, lol.

From the NCPCA
web.archive.org: NCPCA Child Sexual Exploitation Update Newsletter Volume 1, Number 3, 2004

Another study making the same conclusion. Shocking. 
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Pornography use and sexual aggression: the impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual offenders. - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 6, 2018)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah.


*angered response* :v


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> *angered response* :v


*speaks solely in ad hominems* >:V


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

My whole take on that.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 46660
> 
> My whole take on that.


A study article that cites...
... I don't even want to count that many sources.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> *speaks solely in ad hominems* >:V


*responds by bringing up out of context incident from last January* >:0


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> *responds by bringing up out of context incident from last January* >:0


*Prepares a diatribe ultimately blaming you for your great-great-great-grandfather's crimes.*
D:<


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> *Prepares a diatribe ultimately blaming you for your great-great-great-grandfather's crimes.*
> D:<


*no u*


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> *no u*


legit lol'd


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 46660
> 
> My whole take on that.


But my article's subject was done on Japan! Which isn't at all a completely different country and culture but disregard that, it vindicates my claims.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Looks who's talking, lol.
> 
> From the NCPCA
> web.archive.org: NCPCA Child Sexual Exploitation Update Newsletter Volume 1, Number 3, 2004



_"While statistical absolutes are impossible to draw in an arena such as this, evidence from actual investigations and experience tells us it is a small leap from viewing child pornography to molesting children. Individuals who find pleasure in viewing images of children engaged in sexual activities have already violated social norms with their deviant sexual interests. Therefore, it is not a farfetched idea that a viewer of child pornography will emulate the crimes being committed in those images"_

That article is about actual child porn, not about drawings of wolves wearing diapers and sucking dicks

It's pretty amusing to see you jump through these hoops trying to explain how drawing can have the same effect as actual child porn while in the previous thread you said that non-consensual is A-OK because it's just a fantasy and that it's hard to see it go beyond that. 
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe some people like to FANTASIZE about anthropomorphic wolves sucking dick? You know, because you can't find those running around outdoors


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Well, sorry for derailing again. Though, I think people said all they had to say on Koth already.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Well, sorry for derailing again. Though, I think people said all they had to say on Koth already.


Or we are just expert derailers


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> _"While statistical absolutes are impossible to draw in an arena such as this, evidence from actual investigations and experience tells us it is a small leap from viewing child pornography to molesting children. Individuals who find pleasure in viewing images of children engaged in sexual activities have already violated social norms with their deviant sexual interests. Therefore, it is not a farfetched idea that a viewer of child pornography will emulate the crimes being committed in those images"_
> 
> That article is about actual child porn, not about drawings of wolves wearing diapers and sucking dicks
> 
> ...


Other researchers have found similarly. In Denmark homosexual child molestation decreased more than 50 percent from 74 cases in 1966 to 20 cases in 1969 (Ben-Veniste, 1971; pp. 254). These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.

Please note that they make a clear differentiation between childporn and "childporn"

Read articles completely next time.

EDIT: Not directed to you Croc. Just making that clear


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> _"While statistical absolutes are impossible to draw in an arena such as this, evidence from actual investigations and experience tells us it is a small leap from viewing child pornography to molesting children. Individuals who find pleasure in viewing images of children engaged in sexual activities have already violated social norms with their deviant sexual interests. Therefore, it is not a farfetched idea that a viewer of child pornography will emulate the crimes being committed in those images"_
> 
> That article is about actual child porn, not about drawings of wolves wearing diapers and sucking dicks
> 
> ...



Again, a body that largely mirrors a human child, what's more, the non con shite is between consenting adults (outside the art) and is largely a victim fantasy. There was a little more nuance than you let on. Though, here's a serious question. Where is the line drawn? Sure it is a fantasy, but when is it ok to dismiss something, and when it is ok to be concerned? Because just letting it all fly doesn't seem responsible honestly, I feel like that's what led to things like the zoosadist group being allowed to proliferate in the first place. So when is it ok to put your foot down? When it is 'ok' to say, "Wow, this is a little worrying, maybe we shouldn't let it be spread about on the site?" And this is an honest question, and I want a genuine take on it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> That article is about actual child porn, not about drawings of wolves wearing diapers and sucking dicks



Fortunately you can indulge your diaper-wearing wolf fetish in this fandom *without* consuming porn with underage characters in it.



Spoiler



Colt3n


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Fortunately you can indulge your diaper-wearing wolf fetish in this fandom *without* consuming porn with underage characters in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No thanks, I prefer big tatas


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Fortunately you can indulge your diaper-wearing wolf fetish in this fandom *without* consuming porn with underage characters in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Man, I really effing hate diapers.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Fortunately you can indulge your diaper-wearing wolf fetish in this fandom *without* consuming porn with underage characters in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Omg man, you're being such a puritan, jumping through mental hoops!


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Man, I really effing hate diapers.


----------



## rknight (Nov 6, 2018)

RIGHT!!!!!!!



BennyJackdaw said:


> My biggest problem with people like the OP mentioned is that when one furry does something horrible, the entire fandom is blamed instead of just that one individual. Other people in other groups don't have that kind of ultimatum, yet when it comes to furries, apparently we have strict rules to follow and if even one person breaks those rules, the entire fandom gets punished.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Nov 6, 2018)

Wut the fuk did I just read?


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Nov 6, 2018)

I don't think he's trolling.

In fact, I think he's right about everything, but in the sense that your experience is mostly defined by what you associate with and it's not exclusive to furries. I'm not on furry site most of the time, and I just don't see a difference when it comes to political drama and shitty people, creeps, pedophiles, and people with no boundaries. The internet is a shithole.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> I don't think he's trolling.
> 
> In fact, I think he's right about everything, but in the sense that your experience is mostly defined by what you associate with and it's not exclusive to furries. I'm not on furry site most of the time, and I just don't see a difference when it comes to political drama and shitty people, creeps, pedophiles, and people with no boundaries. The internet is a shithole.


I agree. If there's one thing I like about the Furry fandom, it's that it doesn't come preloaded with a bunch of politics or dogma.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> dogma



Don't you mean dog-ma?



 

Sorry, I couldn't help it


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> I don't think he's trolling.
> 
> In fact, I think he's right about everything, but in the sense that your experience is mostly defined by what you associate with and it's not exclusive to furries. I'm not on furry site most of the time, and I just don't see a difference when it comes to political drama and shitty people, creeps, pedophiles, and people with no boundaries. The internet is a shithole.



I feel the same, it's a human nature thing, largely. There will always be shitty people. Though it doesn't make what was revealed any less disturbing. Credit where credit is due, he did touch on some legitimately worrying trends.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 46664


Robin: I wonder if the third image wi-
Batman: *smacks* Welp third times the charm....

Besides that why does every argument devolve into fetishes and pron on this forum? I am not trying to troll.... But didn't the YouTube creator that this thread counter argument against complained that furries have an obsession with sex?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Robin: I wonder if the third image wi-
> Batman: *smacks* Welp third times the charm....
> 
> Besides that why does every argument devolve into fetishes and pron on this forum? I am not trying to troll.... But didn't the YouTube creator that this thread counters argument against complained that furries have obsession with sex?


People keep bringing up the fact that Koth defended stuff like cub imagery because it more or less helped keep people from hurting real people.

People don't like it and try to attack him for it, but with evidence we have available, he isn't exactly wrong.

Fake porn =/= real porn, simple as that.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> People keep bringing up the fact that Koth defended stuff like cub imagery because it more or less helped keep people from hurting real people.
> 
> People don't like it and try to attack him for it, but with evidence we have available, he isn't exactly wrong.
> 
> Fake porn =/= real porn, simple as that.


I understand that and I do agree his video on that topic bothers me a lot too! *shudders*


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand that and I do agree his video on that topic bothers me a lot too! *shudders*


Yeah it's a pretty gnarly thing.
I personally can't stand that sort of thing, but if it helps keep people from harming actual children, then so be it
*shrug*


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Nov 6, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Yeah it's a pretty gnarly thing.
> I personally can't stand that sort of thing, but if it helps keep people from harming actual children, then so be it
> *shrug*



It'd atleast be nice if FA didn't allow "aged up" underage characters and questionable/ uncanny feral porn. I'd rather they have their own space and not be associated with everyone else, plus they'd be easier to moderate that way.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 6, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> It'd atleast be nice if FA didn't allow "aged up" underage characters and questionable/ uncanny feral porn. I'd rather they have their own space and not be associated with everyone else, plus they'd be easier to moderate that way.


I recommended something similar.
I like FA having more adult-oriented imagery (of adults) but I don't want to explicitly put people out because they like certain illustrations.
I think that sort of thing would be better relegated to their own forums with their own responsible moderators to ensure that only depictions are used and no illegal imagery is uploaded.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 6, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> It'd atleast be nice if FA didn't allow "aged up" underage characters and questionable/ uncanny feral porn. I'd rather they have their own space and not be associated with everyone else, plus they'd be easier to moderate that way.



Agree, even discarding the extremely feral/child anatomy, there is this presumption that the FA/whatever art site, would want to be associated with like CP or FP and expect that the current userbase extend an open invitation towards people who participate in CP/Fp so they could integrate into that community.

I don't say that to be a dick, but I mean, having them have their own area to do that stuff in, would be better than just plopping them back on FA.


----------



## Lexiand (Nov 6, 2018)

I just got done watching the video. Honestly It breaks my heart seeing him leave...
As a guy like him saying all those things and warning us about that then There is a bunch of issues that we need to take action on.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

I think Kothorix was actually _part _of the problem, rather than a 'defender' of the fandom anyway. 
Excusing drawn child porn makes you an embarrassment to the fandom, not a defender of it. 
...and interviewing people like Len Gilbert, after Len had publicly dismissed bad reviews of his book on the grounds they were 'probably submitted by Jews',
doesn't exactly improve our fandom either, because those *aren't* the sorts of folk one should be playing cosy-cosy with. 

Him stopping that is part of the 'solution'...you know, the solution to the problem he _was_ partly responsible for.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> ...and interviewing people like Len Gilbert, after Len had publicly dismissed bad reviews of his book on the grounds they were 'probably submitted by Jews',
> doesn't exactly improve our fandom either, because those *aren't* the sorts of folk one should be playing cosy-cosy with.


Did Koth agree with Gilbert, though?
It's honestly pretty benign to just talk to someone.

Or is this just a 'guilt by association' thing?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> *Did Koth agree with Gilbert, though?*
> It's honestly pretty benign to just talk to someone.
> 
> Or is this just a 'guilt by association' thing?



*Yes* *he did*, but even if he disagreed do you think it would somehow magically be acceptable? :\

Kothorix agreed with Len's defense of his book...his book in which a platoon of Nazis stumble into an alternate dimension and defend a group of furries from an invading race of 'Grime-skins'...you do the maths with what_ that _could possibly represent.
(Kothorix doesn't spot that obvious subtext though; he asks Len if the book features 'social darwinism', Len says 'no', and Kothorix takes him at his word. ._. )

The characters in Len's book often share the names of *real *Nazis, whose stories Len Gilbert believes have been censored and 'muzzled by history' which is unfair because they 'didn't do anything wrong'.
Kothorix's entire response to that was simply to say that he doesn't agree with people saying 'Nazi this, or Nazi that', at which point he confessed his knowledge of the second world war was limited and proceeded to defer to Len Gilbert's better knowledge of the history of the second world war...something you might not want to do, considering that Len's previously expressed his view that _Hermann fucking Goering_ didn't do anything wrong. :S

The bottom line is that, if you have a talk show with 20,000 followers, it's irresponsible to have a friendly chat episode with an antisemite.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> even if he disagreed do you think it would somehow magically be acceptable?


Would it be acceptable to have a discussion with someone you disagree with?
Yes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Would it be acceptable to have a discussion with someone you disagree with?
> Yes.



There's a sea of nuance you're ignoring, but the two chaps happened to agree with one another anyway.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a sea of nuance you're ignoring, but the two chaps happened to agree with one another anyway.


You just don't like that I disagree with you that having someone like that on my theoretical show of thousands of viewers is a bad thing.

Thoughts like yours has led to the firebombings of places of education.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> You just don't like that I disagree with you that having someone like that on my theoretical show of thousands of viewers is a bad thing.
> 
> Thoughts like yours has led to the firebombings of places of education.



Could you explain to me why you believe my personal view that we should carefully consider who we provide platforms to is a dangerous ideology that leads to terrorism?

I think you're being silly.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 7, 2018)

UHM! The nuances are clearly mental _hoops_. Kothorix did nuffin wrong.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Could you explain to me why you believe my personal view that we should carefully consider who we provide platforms to is a dangerous ideology that leads to terrorism?
> 
> I think you're being silly.



Deplatforming someone because of his/her beliefs is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to express their opinions no matter how stupid and backwards they might seem.

People should only be punished when they call for acts of violence

You might think that silencing someone because of his "dangerous ideology" is ok because they are bad people but try to think this a little further. The"dangerous ideology" goalposts gets moved all the time and one day it could affect you.

Remember when some news outlets, Facebook and Twitter tried to downplay and defend pedophilia and then everyone laughed at them? What would have happened if suddenly criticizing "an oppressed minority such as pedophiles" was considered a dangerous bigoted ideology?

The best thing you can do to combat "dangerous ideas" is to try and educate people into using more critical thinking and to develop ideas of their own.

Having the government/media/companies deplatform "dangerous ideas" is the worst thing you can do to freedom of expression and it will only hurt you on the long run

Hope that was clear enough for you


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Could you explain to me why you believe my personal view that we should carefully consider who we provide platforms to is a dangerous ideology that leads to terrorism?
> 
> I think you're being silly.


I'm a bit more worried about the actual terrorism happening than the supposed fear of one that hasn't developed.

Lest I remind you, the people who firebomb schools, Antifa, are federally recognized as terrorists.


----------



## Lexiand (Nov 7, 2018)

Going to put my Last thought in here. I really think Kothorix is a guy who's just expressing his opinions on the things he likes or hate and that's nothing bad sure all the stuff may seem clickbait and controversial but Kothorix is only doing this to point out problems that we can't see anyways. He is a guy with common sense. Something that I wish everyone had. I guess I'm missing the point or something but if we all United as a community and put our differences aside and be mature enough to handle all the little things we could definitely fix most the issues in the fandom.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I'm a bit more worried about the actual terrorism happening than the supposed fear of one that hasn't developed.
> 
> Lest I remind you, the people who firebomb schools, Antifa, are federally recognized as terrorists.



You think I'm a member of Antifa because I criticised Kothorix? ._.



CrookedCroc said:


> Deplatforming someone because of his/her beliefs is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to express their opinions no matter how stupid and backwards they might seem.
> 
> People should only be punished when they call for acts of violence
> 
> ...



Refusing Len Gilbert an interview on your youtube channel isn't 'unconstitutional', and nor is it a threat to the ephemeral notion of 'freedom of speech'. 

It sounds like your understanding of those concepts has been formulated on youtube. :\

In the real world, private entities are completely within their remit to decide who they offer a platform to, and this is an important part of encouraging free and civil debate, rather than a threat to it.


----------



## Troj (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a sea of nuance you're ignoring, but the two chaps happened to agree with one another anyway.



It's irresponsible and lazy to have a "friendly chat" with somebody whose main claim to fame is that they've been involved with unethical, immoral, illegal, controversial, or otherwise-bad things.

Nazism isn't a joke. Anti-Semitism isn't just a "different" point of view.

It's additionally irresponsible to freely allow, or even more, encourage such a person to play the victim in such a conversation, without _any_ pushback. Even if you fundamentally don't believe the allegations against or rumors about somebody, it's still irresponsible and lazy to just ignore the elephant in the room _entirely_.

If you see yourself as someone who values truth, accuracy, justice, fairness, good ethics, and all that jazz, you don't get to interview Kero like you'd interview Majira Strawberry.

I'd bet a lot of folks who don't see the problem here would've positively shit a brick if Kothorix had interviewed, say, Deo.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You think I'm a member of Antifa because I criticised Kothorix? ._.


Who the heck said that?


----------



## Lexiand (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You think I'm a member of Antifa because I criticised Kothorix? ._.


Honestly i think hes not doing that.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You think I'm a member of Antifa because I criticised Kothorix? ._.



I think you might need glasses because he is clearly implying that people should worry more about recognized terrorist groups instead of wrong thinking


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> Deplatforming someone because of his/her beliefs is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to express their opinions no matter how stupid and backwards they might seem.
> 
> People should only be punished when they call for acts of violence
> 
> ...


The topic is a talk show host’s responsibility to prevent dangerous ideologies from using his show as a platform. No one said anything about getting the government to do it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> I think you might need glasses because he is clearly implying that people should worry more about recognized terrorist groups instead of wrong thinking



Earlier on, Prometheus accused me of having the same mindset that leads to people firebombing places of education. 

I'm not clear why he thinks this or what it has to do with Antifa. Hopefully he can articulate that for me?


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Saiko said:


> The topic is a talk show host’s responsibility to prevent dangerous ideologies from using his show as a platform. No one said anything about getting the government to do it.



The government part is an example, that's why I said "government/media/companies" and not just government.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> The government part is an example, that's why I said "government/media/companies" and not just government.



Do you recognise that it is not unconstitutional for companies or media outlets to refuse to interview somebody?


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> The government part is an example, that's why I said "government/media/companies" and not just government.


Then you’ve extended the scope of first amendment to prevent individuals and companies from moderating the content of their own media, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the amendment’s purpose. That’s even worse.

The US constitution is not a document about interpersonal morality. It’s a set of laws restricting our government, no more and no less.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Earlier on, Prometheus accused me of having the same mindset that leads to people firebombing places of education.
> 
> I'm not clear why he thinks this or what it has to do with Antifa



Because you're clearly advocating for silencing "the wrong opinion"


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Earlier on, Prometheus accused me of having the same mindset that leads to people firebombing places of education.
> 
> I'm not clear why he thinks this or what it has to do with Antifa. Hopefully he can articulate that for me?


Can't you see the irony?
You're blaming people of having an ideology that supposedly produces terrorism.
I've produced an ideology that actual terrorists have that align with what you've said.
Now you think I'm calling you Antifa.
Maybe if people like you didn't run around calling everyone Nazi, you'd get it.

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Can't you see the irony?
> You're blaming people of having an ideology that supposedly produces terrorism.
> I've produced an ideology that actual terrorists have that align with what you've said.
> Now you think I'm calling you Antifa.
> ...



Antisemitism doesn't 'supposedly' produce terrorism. :S

Honestly, I don't think it's very sensible to compare me to somebody firebombing a university because I suggested Kothorix shouldn't have given a platform to Len Gilbert.
You need to think in a more nuanced way.



CrookedCroc said:


> Because you're clearly advocating for silencing "the wrong opinion"



Do you think his position is reasonable and that I am genuinely not intellectually distinct from somebody throwing  a firebomb?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> *You need to think in a more nuanced way.*


Wow.
I'm awestruck.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Wow.
> I'm awestruck.



So, Troj made an excellent and very nuanced post. I feel if you read through it it will help you understand what other users mean here when we suggest that you haven't perceived important nuances in this discussion.

Nobody's accusing you of being bad in anyway here; you might just find it helpful if you take another look at the topic with a cooler head.

Here is Troj's post:



Troj said:


> It's irresponsible and lazy to have a "friendly chat" with somebody whose main claim to fame is that they've been involved with unethical, immoral, illegal, controversial, or otherwise-bad things.
> 
> Nazism isn't a joke. Anti-Semitism isn't just a "different" point of view.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you think his position is reasonable and that I am genuinely not intellectually distinct from somebody throwing a firebomb?



I seriously doubt that you are molotov hurling idiot but you aren't helping your case when advocating for deplatforming someone for having "dangerous ideas" since that's usually the excuse used to make riots at universities


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So, Troj made an excellent and very nuanced post. I feel if you read through it it will help you understand what other users mean here when we suggest that you haven't perceived important nuances in this discussion.
> 
> Nobody's accusing you of being bad in anyway here; you might just find it helpful if you take another look at the topic with a cooler head.


Just stop talking to me.
Please.

It's obvious we're running on two different wavelengths and to be honest, I do think you're legitimately trying.
Plus you seem nice.
But you seriously can't hold a discussion nor, in your words, think in a more nuanced way.
I've had more than enough experience with you to say this with sincerity.

So I'm dropping it.
I'm not going to block you or anything like that.

Just please. Stop talking to me.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I'm a bit more worried about the actual terrorism happening than the supposed fear of one that hasn't developed.
> 
> Lest I remind you, the people who firebomb schools, Antifa, are federally recognized as terrorists.


You are litteraly taking the word of breitbart at face value. Breitbart is a white supremist publication with a longstanding history of outright conspiracy theories, lies, and anti-semitism. 

And even breitbart admits the Mosque had ties to a fascist group calling for the genocide of the Kurds. Islam in Turkey is tied up with facism there the same way Christianity often ties up with facism here. Some churches have night congregations with white hoods....

Furthermore, being opposed to pedophilia doesn't make one a radical leftist. Nor does being opposed to wilfully giving a platform to Nazis. You are never entitled to someone elses platform, it is freely given. And what you put on your own platform is your responsibility. K regularly supported far right fuckwads, including Donald Trump. 

Trumps administration recently decided to remove all mentions of gender from government sites in a plan cooked up by his DHS to tie biological sex at birth to gender, and chromosomal dna. This plan calls for further legislation to abolish gender as a concept, which would make trans discrimination legal, including in healthcare and mental healthcare. Their aim is to replace it with gay conversion therapy. 

That plan originally comes from the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBT religous extremist group. They also have plans for gays and lesbians. They have "donated" generously to multiple Republicans, including Donald Trump. 

We were telling you from day one Trump would do this shit, and y'all didn't listen. 

Kothorix didn't listen, and felt it necessary to defend a literal Neonazi, and cub porn. That was the hill he chose to die on. If he can't take the criticism that comes with it, he shouldn't be on youtube, because fucking LetsPlayers get hatemail for existing on that site. He's the finest example of the hypocrisy of the right screaming "triggered" and "soft skinned" at the left when they themselves send rabid mobs to attack their critics, and have outright breakdowns on camera because someone used "they" as a singular pronoun.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> I seriously doubt that you are molotov hurling idiot but you aren't helping your case when advocating for deplatforming someone for having "dangerous ideas" since that's usually the excuse used to make riots at universities



Maybe you should take some care to read the reasons that I view Len Gilbert's ideas as harmful, so that you can satisfy yourself that I am justified, and not simply making an ad-hoc comparison. 

I feel like I should also encourage you, if you don't like it when somebody's perspective is automatically dismissed because an ad-hoc comparison is made to a nefarious group, to avoid doing exactly that yourself. 

I'm a researcher who works at a university. You understand that I'm not the sort of person who would be involved in rioting, so maybe when I suggest that somebody shouldn't be given a platform you shouldn't just automatically go 'well you're like a rioter then aren't you?'.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You are litteraly taking the word of breitbart at face value. Breitbart is a white supremist publication with a longstanding history of outright conspiracy theories, lies, and anti-semitism.
> 
> And even breitbart admits the Mosque had ties to a fascist group calling for the genocide of the Kurds. Islam in Turkey is tied up with facism there the same way Christianity often ties up with facism here. Some churches have night congregations with white hoods....
> 
> ...


I uh... don't know why you needed to quote me here.
I don't even like Breitbart.
Nor Trump, for that matter.

*shrug*


----------



## Troj (Nov 7, 2018)

Once again, I think folks who are more panicked and outraged about Antifa and/or SJWs than they are about people who believe that some people are inherently inferior by virtue of their race, religion, disability, gender presentation, nationality, and/or sexual orientation could stand to sit down and ask themselves why they feel that way.

This reaction comes across as particularly strange and irrational when the actual statistics on terrorism, hate crimes, and related violence point to right-wing terrorism being more prevalent and more deadly than left-wing terrorism. Dem facts literally do not care about your feels.

Everyone has their biases and implicit assumptions, but it pays to be aware of your own as a starting point.

Me personally, I resent people softpedaling or handwaving away the threat posed by right-wing extremism because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they're not on the "hit list," and they don't care about the people who are or might be.

If you believe Antifa is dangerous because they believe in punching people whose ideas post a threat to other people and/or civilization itself, you should be _at least_ as concerned about people who believe that some people are inferior and deserve to be s_ubjugated, dominated, or killed_ because of their race, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, religion, or the like.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> I seriously doubt that you are molotov hurling idiot but you aren't helping your case when advocating for deplatforming someone for having "dangerous ideas" since that's usually the excuse used to make riots at universities


Why are you using quotes? We’re explicitly  talking about antisemitism. We literally fought a world war over it.

Why is there even doubt that engaging with an antisemite as a talk show host  is a bad thing?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I uh... don't know why you needed to quote me here.
> I don't even like Breitbart.
> Nor Trump, for that matter.
> 
> *shrug*


And yet you are using political claims originated from that circle of charlatans?


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You are litteraly taking the word of breitbart at face value. Breitbart is a white supremist publication with a longstanding history of outright conspiracy theories, lies, and anti-semitism.
> 
> And even breitbart admits the Mosque had ties to a fascist group calling for the genocide of the Kurds. Islam in Turkey is tied up with facism there the same way Christianity often ties up with facism here. Some churches have night congregations with white hoods....
> 
> ...



You're telling me Kothorix shouldn't be a thin skinned crybaby and accept responsibility for the outrageous and controversial things he says? I dunno, that sounds a little _toxic, _my body is not ready for this.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Once again, I think folks who are more panicked and outraged about Antifa and/or SJWs than they are about people who believe that some people are inherently inferior by virtue of their race, religion, gender presentation, nationality, and/or sexual orientation could stand to sit down and ask themselves why they feel that way.


Because when it comes down to brass tacks, actions speak louder than words.
Whenever a far-right extremist pops up, they deserve to be shut down just the same as a far-left extremist does.

Honestly, the concern comes from the apparent pass people like Antifa get from the media (though thankfully, news media is starting to get the picture)


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> And yet you are using political claims originated from that circle of charlatans?


The Department of Homeland Security was said to have classified their activities as domestic terrorism."

Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> I seriously doubt that you are molotov hurling idiot but you aren't helping your case when advocating for deplatforming someone for having "dangerous ideas" since that's usually the excuse used to make riots at universities


Just to be clear for one moment: Are you saying that Nazism / Nazi Whitewashing doesn't have dangerous ideas?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

It's funny how antifa is only ever mentioned when people are criticising antisemitism isn't it? :\

'You want to criticise this antisemite...well, what about antifa? Shouldn't you be criticising them?'.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> SSo when is it ok to put your foot down? When it is 'ok' to say, "Wow, this is a little worrying, maybe we shouldn't let it be spread about on the site?" And this is an honest question, and I want a genuine take on it.


I mean if you're wanting an honest take, I realize you've already kind of heard from me, but to explain further...
Well, my foot has always been put down when things involve real people in some manner.
An easy example of this would be looking at the popular/infamous artist Shadman. I feel as if he as an artist goes WAY too far. The thing that makes him go too far in my eyes is that he's drawn porn of actual real living human children. Keemstar's daughter as an example. (and people still support him and don't think anything of it which really bugs me). If you're using real people that can't consent in the creation of your artwork, there's not really any way I can think of to defend it as its exploiting real human beings. Of course, from what you've said before, I'm sure you'd prefer to have the foot put down a little sooner than that. (and like I said, I don't blame you!; I get the worry)

On another note, I've mentioned it before, but an art site I really like is Pixiv.
Its basically Japanese DeviantArt and it allows pretty much anything art wise, with its only condition being that all pornography must have censored genitalia (as a result of Japanese pornography laws).


DimskyTheOwl said:


> It'd atleast be nice if FA didn't allow "aged up" underage characters and questionable/ uncanny feral porn. I'd rather they have their own space and not be associated with everyone else, plus they'd be easier to moderate that way.





Prometheus_Fox said:


> I recommended something similar.
> I like FA having more adult-oriented imagery (of adults) but I don't want to explicitly put people out because they like certain illustrations.
> I think that sort of thing would be better relegated to their own forums with their own responsible moderators to ensure that only depictions are used and no illegal imagery is uploaded.


Can I make a personal complaint about this line of reasoning?
The thing I've found exceedingly common is that whenever most sites ban a certain type of content, when another site allows it, that site becomes almost exclusively filled with that sort of content. While you might say "well cool, this means these people get their own little hole and I don't have to see it" which is fair, but look at it from the perspective of people who might use both sites. One of the most annoying this about this constantly happening is that it means that there's no easy way to have access to everything you want all in one place from a consumer perspective. I like variety; its one of the reasons I like Pixiv. Its somehow immune to this issue, which I (possibly misattribute) attribute to it being largely built on Japanese sensabilities.
One of my biggest issues with, say, Inkbunny, is that its almost exclusively just cub art, which is boring. Seeing only one type of art makes a site less than ideal to use as its inconvenient to go back and forth between multiple places just to find all the art you want.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's funny how antifa is only ever mentioned when people are criticising antisemitism isn't it? :\
> 
> 'You want to criticise this antisemite...well, what about antifa? Shouldn't you be criticising them?'.


That's seriously not what happened.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I mean if you're wanting an honest take, I realize you've already kind of heard from me, but to explain further...
> Well, my foot has always been put down when things involve real people in some manner.
> An easy example of this would be looking at the popular/infamous artist Shadman. The thing that makes him go too far in my eyes is that he's drawn porn of actual real living human children (and people still support him and don't think anything of it which really bugs me). If you're using real people that can't consent in the creation of your artwork, there's not really any way I can think of to defend it as its exploiting real human beings.
> 
> ...


That's understandable.
I am open to a better idea.
Maybe some sort of proposition that makes a second tier of filtering? (Is that a thing already on FAF? I don't know)


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Maybe some sort of proposition that makes a second tier of filtering? (Is that a thing already on FAF? I don't know)


To bring up yet another site, one thing that's really cool about say, e621, is that its tagging system is REALLY good.
Like you can make sure you only see what you want to see and don't see what you don't want to due to how its search system works and due to how works are tagged. If FAF had a tagging system THAT good that would be incredible.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Because when it comes down to brass tacks, actions speak louder than words.


By any chance are you familiar with the phrase "Stochastic Terrorism"?


Prometheus_Fox said:


> That's seriously not what happened.


Another quick question, since you specified "the actual terrorism happening": Might I ask whether you consider the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting to be as much?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> That's seriously not what happened.



I thought you didn't want to speak to me?

I feel antifa is most frequently mentioned as an 'ah, but you as well' argument. (Tu qoque if you want me to use formal language).


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Because when it comes down to brass tacks, actions speak louder than words.
> Whenever a far-right extremist pops up, they deserve to be shut down just the same as a far-left extremist does.


Or you could just not let them pop up in the first place - by not giving them a platform.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Put simply, the radical left tried the peaceful option in germany during the rise of the Nazis at first, and got slaughtered as a result. Lessons learned.


Prometheus_Fox said:


> Because when it comes down to brass tacks, actions speak louder than words.
> Whenever a far-right extremist pops up, they deserve to be shut down just the same as a far-left extremist does.
> 
> Honestly, the concern comes from the apparent pass people like Antifa get from the media (though thankfully, news media is starting to get the picture)


You mean the picture that right-wing terror is on an alarming rise and that we have literal internment camps, and a president regularly threatening to violate the constitution? That our government deployed troops to razorwire the border against asylum seekers from a country that was destabilized in the lifetime of mamy US citizens by our government? That we have had multiple mass murders motivated by Fascist principles in the past month's time? That our planet is hurtling headlong into a climate disaster that will likely mean the death of 2 billion and misery for the rest? The the liberals continue to try to reach across the isle to politicians with KKK endorsements? That the Republicans think sending death threats to kids who disagree with them on gun control is acceptable behavior? That our president is trying to incite the gunning down of asylum seekers at the border?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

And all of that is tame compared to what is going on in the middle east and Europe. Oh, and Brazil, which pretty much gurantees climate catastrophe, and has already resulted in Fascist Gestapo style interviews with professors.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Attaman said:


> By any chance are you familiar with the phrase "Stochastic Terrorism"?
> 
> Another quick question, since you specified "the actual terrorism happening": Might I ask whether you consider the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting to be as much?


I'm familiar with it, yeah.

The synagogue thing, in my opinion, is a little less cut and dry than some make it out to be.
The guy who (supposedly? was he charged yet?) did it was clearly off his rocker, blaming both Jews and Trump for similar things. Apparently Trump was a globalist in his opinion, too.
I don't know if it would honestly fit under terrorism as I don't know if it was driven by political reasoning, but by absolute hatred.

So to be honest, I don't know.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I'm familiar with it, yeah.


 Then you understand how it applies to the discussion at hand, yes?



Prometheus_Fox said:


> The synagogue thing, in my opinion, is a little less cut and dry than some make it out to be, I would say.
> The guy who (supposedly? was he charged yet?)


 ... 



Prometheus_Fox said:


> did it was clearly off his rocker, blaming both Jews and Trump for similar things.





Prometheus_Fox said:


> Apparently Trump was a globalist in his opinion, too.





Prometheus_Fox said:


> I don't know if it would honestly fit under terrorism as I don't know if it was driven by political reasoning,


... 

Seriously, _*what the flying fuck?*_


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I'm familiar with it, yeah.
> 
> The synagogue thing, in my opinion, is a little less cut and dry than some make it out to be.
> The guy who (supposedly? was he charged yet?) did it was clearly off his rocker, blaming both Jews and Trump for similar things. Apparently Trump was a globalist in his opinion, too.
> ...



Yes, the shooting at Squirrel hill was terrorism. 
The gunman was convinced that wealthy Jewish people, like George Soros, were funding the formation of migrant caravans in Mesoamerica, with the intent to overwhelm the USA with subversive refugees.


----------



## Troj (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's funny how antifa is only ever mentioned when people are criticising antisemitism isn't it? :\
> 
> 'You want to criticise this antisemite...well, what about antifa? Shouldn't you be criticising them?'.



1) I've had lefties screech at me for voicing my personal criticisms of Antifa and the whole "punch Nazis!" fad in left-wing circles.
2) Call me when left-wing extremists start shooting up places of worship, sending bombs through the mail, running over people with cars, proposing or enacting legislation or policies designed to deny others' basic rights or literal humanity, infiltrating law enforcement organizations en masse, and/or preemptively forming mobs to seek out and attack innocent/unarmed people. Call me when Antifa's body count rivals the number of just black trans women killed in the past year.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> I'm familiar with it, yeah.
> 
> The synagogue thing, in my opinion, is a little less cut and dry than some make it out to be.
> The guy who (supposedly? was he charged yet?) did it was clearly off his rocker, blaming both Jews and Trump for similar things. Apparently Trump was a globalist in his opinion, too.
> ...


That is litteraly Fascist rhetoric. 

The FBI and CIA ignored right wing terrorism and continues to do so, as do you. The results are in the blood on the streets.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

But god forbid we allow a communist organization that prevents police from brutalizing black folk, or that provides food to the needy. We need COINTELPRO ASAP for that shit.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Yeah.
Sounds idyllic, doesn't it?

I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way.

But hey, good luck with your endeavors.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Appeals to the US government as an authority on left and right wing radicals ignores a clear bias, and the fact that the government has and is being infiltrated by literal white supremists. The days of Jim Crow and McCarthyism are not so far behind us in history as to have no influence on contemporary politics.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Attaman said:


> Just to be clear for one moment: Are you saying that Nazism / Nazi Whitewashing doesn't have dangerous ideas?



No, maybe you should read the thread more carefully before saying such things.

My whole point is that people shouldn't try to silence "dangerous ideas" since the meaning of that term tends to change from time to time. Remember when woman and gay rights was a "dangerous idea" because "it presented a risk to the integrity of the family"?

Instead of censoring someone and making a martyr out of him just teach people why their "dangerous idea" is wrong



Fallowfox said:


> I'm a researcher who works at a university



That's seriously concerning considering that you didn't take the time to read my post. Nowhere in there I called you a rioter or anything like that, I just commented how the "dangerous idea" banner is also used by people that like to deplatform people that have different opinions. 
And the same thing can apply to people preaching for freedom of speech since lately "freedom of speech" has been used as a shield by antisemites


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> But god forbid we allow a communist organization that prevents police from brutalizing black folk, or that provides food to the needy. We need COINTELPRO ASAP for that shit.


Now I realize why I have not been on this forum lately........


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> That's seriously concerning considering that you didn't take the time to read my post.



I _know_. I'm a danger to the foundation of western acadaemia. I must be stopped.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I _know_. I'm a danger to the foundation of western acadaemia. I must be stopped.



See how fast you replied without reading the whole thing?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> No, maybe you should read the thread more carefully before saying such things.
> 
> My whole point is that people shouldn't try to silence "dangerous ideas" since the meaning of that term tends to change from time to time. Remember when woman and gay rights was a "dangerous idea" because "it presented a risk to the integrity of the family"?
> 
> ...


I have debated Fascists and Reactionaries often in an atempt to educate them, but any evidence contrary to their position is fake news, liberal propoganda, and part of a Jewish/Cultural Marxist conspiracy. You win few battles this way, and that still leaves a large number of people who believe in genocide to deal with after. Nazis don't operate on the principles of reason. 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> See how fast you replied without reading the whole thing?



Only more evidence that concerns should obviously be expressed about my suitability for my job, of course.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Saiko said:


> Or you could just not let them pop up in the first place - by not giving them a platform.


Sure, let's force everybody to live in echo chambers and let the pressure build up.
The public won't know what hit them.

This is probably a good way to start a civil war.
I mean if war is your thing, good for you. I guess.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Sure, let's force everybody to live in echo chambers and let the pressure build up.
> The public won't know what hit them.
> 
> This is probably a good way to start a civil war.
> I mean if war is your thing, good for you. I guess.



Do you understand that the gunman who shot Jewish people at squirrel hill had become enraged after using the social media site Gab, where antisemitic posting is rife?

Most social media companies don't permit ethnic or religious hatred posts. Reducing the spread of that propaganda could prevent potentially violent people from getting indoctrinated into extremist ideas.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 7, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I mean if you're wanting an honest take, I realize you've already kind of heard from me, but to explain further...
> Well, my foot has always been put down when things involve real people in some manner.
> An easy example of this would be looking at the popular/infamous artist Shadman. I feel as if he as an artist goes WAY too far. The thing that makes him go too far in my eyes is that he's drawn porn of actual real living human children. Keemstar's daughter as an example. (and people still support him and don't think anything of it which really bugs me). If you're using real people that can't consent in the creation of your artwork, there's not really any way I can think of to defend it as its exploiting real human beings.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your perspective. The line for me has always been cub porn due to how closely it resembles a human child's anatomy. Now, yeah I understand it is a fantasy, but it is a fantasy that I feel isn't that far removed from the sexual attraction towards actual children, there's just animal heads and fur now. Animal heads that are very child like in appearance I should add.

I understand this is a contentious topic though, the fact that a source posted a while ago in the thread was met with a source that directly contradicts it (by Ncpca, an organization dedicated towards curbing child abuse) shows that even academically it's a contentious topic, what effect underage porn has on those people.

As for the speration argument, I stick by my guns on it, I'm pf the opinion cub content should not be public anyways, but if when it absolutely must be public, I prefer it be separated, because just from a more self serving image perspective, I don't want to have that attached to what the fandom is about. If that sounds mean, sorry, but honestly the fandom already has image problems. There is a need here, to become less open and to push the cub porn artists and that community to make their own. Their interests are too morally questionable to a great many furies to coexist without some disagreements. This choice allows both communities to better focus on what they desire as and pull together.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> No, maybe you should read the thread more carefully before saying such things.
> 
> My whole point is that people shouldn't try to silence "dangerous ideas" since the meaning of that term tends to change from time to time. Remember when woman and gay rights was a "dangerous idea" because "it presented a risk to the integrity of the family"?


 You're wish-washing and rambling. Your argument for "No" is "I'm going to put dangerous ideas in square-quotes a second time and insinuate that Nazism being called a Dangerous Series of Ideas is no different from inferring the same of gay and women's rights".

Nazism is, quite literally, a dangerous idea because it calls at _*the *_*absolutely most benign* _*interpretation*_ for ethnic cleansing, more often than not _literal genocide, racial supremacy, eugenics, and various other horrendous things._ Such ideas - particularly when being presented by somebody who is clearly both ready and willing to fill in the blanks of somebody's historical knowledge with such dribble, which is specifically who's being referred to - aren't relative in their dangerous-ness in any way. One can make a slippery slope argument in various contexts, but this one _*really*_ isn't up for debate.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you understand that the gunman who shot Jewish people at squirrel hill had become enraged after using the social media site Gab, where antisemitic posting is rife?
> 
> Most social media companies don't permit ethnic or religious hatred posts. Reducing the spread of that propaganda could prevent potentially violent people from getting indoctrinated into extremist ideas.


We've been through this before.
I thought we already established that I'm practically a free-speech absolutist, just without the fancy terminology.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Sure, let's force everybody to live in echo chambers and let the pressure build up.
> The public won't know what hit them.
> 
> This is probably a good way to start a civil war.
> I mean if war is your thing, good for you. I guess.


Says the person drawing their information on the left from a right wing echo-chamber. 

The whole point of Fascists using the public platform is to radicalize the common folk with deliberate lies and misinformation, without being contested due to the appeal to the authority of their given platform. The more prestigious the platform, the more validity the lie gains. And if the owner of the platform should push back in debate then it becomes yet more proof to existing fascists of the grand (usually jewish) conspiracy in such institutions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> We've been through this before.
> I thought we already established that I'm practically a free-speech absolutist, just without the fancy terminology.



Oh...I'm surprised if we'd discussed this before that you were unsure whether the events at squirrel hill constituted terrorism.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh...I'm surprised if we'd discussed this before that you were unsure whether the events at squirrel hill constituted terrorism.


Nah, that was the first time someone brought it up to me.
Honestly haven't thought about it all that much, which is why my answer was "I don't know"




Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Says the person drawing their information on the left from a right wing echo-chamber.
> 
> The whole point of Fascists using the public platform is to radicalize the common folk with deliberate lies and misinformation, without being contested due to the appeal to the authority of their given platform. The more prestigious the platform, the more validity the lie gains. And if the owner of the platform should push back in debate then it becomes yet more proof to existing fascists of the grand (usually jewish) conspiracy in such institutions.


Maybe I have hope that people have a little more agency than what you're letting on.
I feel as if the people who were going to commit violence were already going to do so anyways, regardless of whichever medium they used.

As far as Gab goes, it was hardly prestigious, but now that it was all over the news, and the site is still apparently up (Haven't logged in, but the screen is there, at least) it and other social network sites like it have become MORE prestigious.
So ah... good one, that.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh...I'm surprised if we'd discussed this before that you were unsure whether the events at squirrel hill constituted terrorism.


Being fair, I'm sure the discussion was easy to forget the details of. What with probably being a couple months ago, involving a different username or three, being about a different bunch of Neo Nazis, that sort of thing.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Even if we assume deplatforming is invalid, we should still deny our existing platforms on the basis that Fascists intend to use them in bad faith. These are platforms that nobody has any inherent right to. As for free speech absolutism, at what point do we hold people accountable for their words. Trump, as I stated, is attempting to insite violence on behalf of US troops against unarmed civilians, which would be a crime against humanity. He has lied constantly to demonize those asylum seekers, in hopes of justifying the use of violence against them. At what point did screeming fire in a crowded theatre to cause panic and death become a right? 

Fascists depend on people being uneducated, unintellectual, and lazy. They rely on people who want to appear smart and skeptical without the honest rigor of true skepticism. This is how you get useful idiots on youtube spewing literal Neo-Nazi propoganda while claiming to be centrist bastions of reason and logic. The Fascist makes his propoganda easy to understand by the lay man, and unthreatening in verbiage. The truely academic and skeptical counterpoint is by nature difficult to comprehend, oft filled with complex verbiage, and filled with hard truths. Thus Fascism is more appealing and takes root much easier than reasoned positions, and once rooted all assaults against it are lies to that Fascist.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Even if we assume deplatforming is invalid, we should still deny our existing platforms on the basis that Fascists intend to use them in bad faith. These are platforms that nobody has any inherent right to. As for free speech absolutism, at what point do we hold people accountable for their words.


People should be held accountable for their actions.
One may hear a call to violence, but that person hearing the call still made the decision to go out and commit said violence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

Continuing on from what @Misha Bordiga Zahradník said, the 'deplatforming' I suggested should be applied to Len is simply that Kothorix shouldn't have invited him onto his talkshow. 

If not being invited onto a talk show was 'unconstitutional deplatforming' then I could sue Kothorix for not interviewing me.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

These methods of manipulating a populace have been studied and understood since the thirties, and rather than inoculate the populace against them, they were put into petty practice in day-to-day politics. 


Prometheus_Fox said:


> People should be held accountable for their actions.
> One may hear a call to violence, but that person hearing the call still made the decision to go out and commit said violence.


So Nazi leaders that ordered but did not personally commit the atrocities should have been excused the gallows at Nuremberg?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> These methods of manipulating a populace have been studied and understood since the thirties, and rather than inoculate the populace against them, they were put into petty practice in day-to-day politics.
> 
> So Nazi leaders that ordered but did not personally commit the atrocities should have been excused the gallows at Nuremberg?


That's not the same.
Those orders came from military pressure.
It isn't the same when it's just some rando on the internet with a chip on their shoulder calling for it.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> That's not the same.
> Those orders came from military pressure.
> It isn't the same when it's just some rando on the internet with a chip on their shoulder calling for it.


And what of the pogroms committed by the Nazis before they came to power?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

People seem to have forgotten that the Nazis also committed random acts of violence against Jews and Communists in prelude to their reign over Germany. These are patterns that have previously repeated themselves in history more than once.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> And what of the pogroms committed by the Nazis before they came to power?


The pogroms were condoned by the local governments, though.
Or at least approved.

This also constitutes more power than randos on Twitter rip-off sites.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

People cannot have agency if emotions and misinformation rules them. It is the art of Fascism and authoritarianism to relieve the people of their agency that they may be used as tools to the state.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> People cannot have agency if emotions and misinformation rules them. It is the art of Fascism and authoritarianism to relieve the people of their agency that they may be used as tools to the state.


Funny how those who support communism have the gall to talk about authoritarianism as if it's against their principles.
You can miss me with that idiocy.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> The pogroms were condoned by the local governments, though.
> Or at least approved.
> 
> This also constitutes more power than randos on Twitter rip-off sites.


The Nazis didn't have government support. The party commited acts of violence and terror, and this was considered heinous and illegal. The party was at one point banned from holding office, renaming themselves in order to regain that privilege.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 7, 2018)

/


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Funny how those who support communism have the gall to talk about authoritarianism as if it's against their principles.
> You can miss me with that idiocy.


There is a line in the Internationale about shooting the generals on our own side for sacrificing the workers to their pride. Marx and Engles supported a democracy dominated by mass support of Communism. We litteraly have a book about how modern governments manufacture consent of the governed in interests of the wealthy and powerful.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Not to mention Anarchists, who want all forms of government abolished first and foremost.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Hell, the Bolsheviks killed people for trying to put Marxism into practice, and purged Communists who followed them while using techniques of manipulation to rally the peasantry of Russia against their opponents.


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 7, 2018)

Misha would make a killing as a salt miner.


----------



## idkthough120 (Nov 7, 2018)

how did this switch to koth talking about a fandom to this? i'll (thankfully) never know. 

although it's a bit unnecessary tbh-


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

whyt31 said:


> how did this switch to koth talking about a fandom to this? i'll (thankfully) never know.
> 
> although it's a bit unnecessary tbh-



I was part of the discussion and I still can't figure out how.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Misha would make a killing as a salt miner.


I'm a Bastion main. Enough said.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I was part of the discussion and I still can't figure out how.


I keep making the mistake of addressing red herrings.

Also people being individually garbage and needing to curate their content better is a freedom of speech issue.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Misha would make a killing as a salt miner.


Great now I am wondering whether or not unrefined salt would be painful for the miner if they are dieing slowly from their wounds! Thanks.....


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Great now I am wondering whether or not unrefined salt would be painful for the miner if they are dieing slowly from their wounds! Thanks.....


Salt particles in the air would make being injured in a salt mine particularly painful.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Misha would make a killing as a salt miner.


Just make sure he doesn’t get too salty about it
*gets hit by a tomato*


----------



## KimberVaile (Nov 7, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Just make sure he doesn’t get too salty about it
> *gets hit by a tomato*


Better dead than red.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Better dead than red.



Unless we're talking about spankings.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Nov 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Better dead than red.


**Communisting Intensifies**


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 7, 2018)

I think this thread is officially off topic now...
Might as well post before threadlock :v
Did I kill this thread? Yay for me? :v


----------



## Someguy69 (Nov 7, 2018)

rknight said:


> By now I'm sure everyone has seen this bullshit video by kothorix.
> 1st off...has with any fandom there always a very small few retards..however to throw the whole furry Community under the bus is where I draw the line!
> 
> Cars and fan fiction writing is what got me into the furry fandom in the mid-90s
> ...


Errrrrr. I wouldn't quite call something trolling garbage if there are real problems. Hell if you just look on this website there's far righters in every thread. I've met furries who actually were into screwing dogs. Like 3 if I remember correctly. I have never stumbled upon someone into zoophilia outside of the furry fandom. I think there are some very valid concerns from people about the fandom. They want to see it better most likely and aren't sure just how to voice their frustrations about these things.


----------



## rknight (Nov 30, 2018)

has with any fandom there always a very small few retards....( more like 10, and their not even furries ) however to throw the whole furry Community under the bus for a few YouTube dollars!
Those are the people who should get called out!


----------



## rknight (Nov 30, 2018)

If there's is a problem, its trolling garbage here at FA these aren't furries...these are right-wing trolls with nothing better to do than start crap, FA needs to do a far better job at monitoring the site.

I'm on the staff at 2 big furry conventions, and I've never seen anyone talk about abusing animals in any way!






Someguy69 said:


> Errrrrr. I wouldn't quite call something trolling garbage if there are real problems. Hell if you just look on this website there's far righters in every thread. I've met furries who actually were into screwing dogs. Like 3 if I remember correctly. I have never stumbled upon someone into zoophilia outside of the furry fandom. I think there are some very valid concerns from people about the fandom. They want to see it better most likely and aren't sure just how to voice their frustrations about these things.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 30, 2018)

Weird didn't this thread got locked at some point???


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 30, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Weird didn't this thread got locked at some point???


It’s kinda like a big family/friend group
There’s so many you tend to accidentally forget one or two or five


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Nov 30, 2018)

Youtubers are clickbaiting for views.
Large companies don't care about you.

In other news grass is green.
Ik this was made in 6th November... But surely you should've known those two points even before he made it.

I admit the guy makes SOME good points, but the clickbait thing is Youtube, like what Youtube would say: "Don't like it, then scram. We'll just recommend it to you anyway."


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 30, 2018)

I get my youtube information from logan paul, he's a reputable news source


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Nov 30, 2018)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> In other news grass is green.


I find this statement suspicious and think you're trying to manipulate me.
I must go investigate the color of grass.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 1, 2018)

Investigation complete, Grass is white.


----------



## idkthough120 (Dec 1, 2018)

what? idk what youtube is....


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Dec 1, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Investigation complete, Grass is white.


: panic:
No gardens to raid now


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 1, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> I get my youtube information from logan paul, he's a reputable news source


You mean the guy who made the infamous web video of filming of dead Japanese suicide victims and making a video electrocuting dead rats? EW! I sincerely hope you are joking as Logan Paul is a creep that does not deserve recognition he gets at all. Edited: I corrected the information but it stills stands that he is a creep.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 1, 2018)

Kjellberg & Paul 2028


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 1, 2018)

I watch a lot of the dude's contents

I don't see how he's trolling or him being alt-right as people are claiming 

So quick to label a person a far right if you don't agree with their views eh?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 1, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I watch a lot of the dude's contents
> 
> I don't see how he's trolling or him being alt-right as people are claiming
> 
> So quick to label a person a far right if you don't agree with their views eh?



I've spoken with him 1 to 1 in the past and _whatever_ he is he's _some_ kind of nutty.

He ended up trying to convince me that you can't trust NASA for example, because he thinks its scientists make evidence for global warming up in order to defraud the American government of money through expensive research grant applications.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Dec 1, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I've spoken with him 1 to 1 in the past and _whatever_ he is he's _some_ kind of nutty.
> 
> He ended up trying to convince me that you can't trust NASA for example, because he thinks its scientists make evidence for global warming up in order to defraud the American government of money through expensive research grant applications.


I remember him doing reviews on furry media, doing collabs, etc. His liking for conspiracy theories and some controversial ideas is something I wouldn't have expected out of him, but looking back I can see where it came from. I never saw it in him before, but there are a few factors that I think suckered him into it.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 1, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> *I've spoken with him 1 to 1 in the past and whatever he is he's some kind of nutty.*
> 
> *He ended up trying to convince me that you can't trust NASA for example, because he thinks its scientists make evidence for global warming up in order to defraud the American government of money through expensive research grant applications.*


WHAT?....... You are talking about Kor right?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 1, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I've spoken with him 1 to 1 in the past and _whatever_ he is he's _some_ kind of nutty.
> 
> He ended up trying to convince me that you can't trust NASA for example, because he thinks its scientists make evidence for global warming up in order to defraud the American government of money through expensive research grant applications.


If you don't post screenshot or evidence of him saying that

Then I'll call that bullshit


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 1, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> WHAT?....... You are talking about Kor right?


Kothorix, yeah. 

He published a video about climate change that contained factual errors. At the time he had 10,000 followers and I thought to myself 'that's 10,000 people who he could be misinforming'. 
Since the research I'm doing related to climate change I thought I'd message him, in the hope that it would prompt him to release a video correcting the errors. 

But after talking to him I was just kinda left feeling that he was so far gone that it was a lost cause.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 1, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Investigation complete, Grass is white.


Of course it'd be white after no nut november.

W-what, you actually believe in the grass, pfft. You got manipulated.



Fallowfox said:


> Kothorix, yeah.
> 
> He published a video about climate change that contained factual errors. At the time he had 10,000 followers and I thought to myself 'that's 10,000 people who he could be misinforming'.
> Since the research I'm doing related to climate change I thought I'd message him, in the hope that it would prompt him to release a video correcting the errors.
> ...


Haha, oh dear.
If you get the pictures of that it'll defiantly make my week.


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 1, 2018)

I’ve been watching Kothorix on and off for a while now. Primarily for the sake of hearing an opinion that I might not agree with. Plus it means I get some kind of understanding of how peeps outside my viewpoint see things. No fandom is perfect, and I can see how YouTubers make videos for the sake of getting views / clicks / that sweet sweet ad revenue. That said, I think his video started a conversation that _might_ be needed for some fans. Not all, but some. Which I don’t think is a bad thing. It’s good to acknowledge the plus sides of fandom, but also good to talk about what fans consider to be the downsides. Share the good as well as the bad.

If I got off topic somewhere just lemme know!


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 1, 2018)

pandasayori said:


> I’ve been watching Kothorix on and off for a while now. Primarily for the sake of hearing an opinion that I might not agree with. Plus it means I get some kind of understanding of how peeps outside my viewpoint see things. No fandom is perfect, and I can see how YouTubers make videos for the sake of getting views / clicks / that sweet sweet ad revenue. That said, I think his video started a conversation that _might_ be needed for some fans. Not all, but some. Which I don’t think is a bad thing. It’s good to acknowledge the plus sides of fandom, but also good to talk about what fans consider to be the downsides. Share the good as well as the bad.
> 
> If I got off topic somewhere just lemme know!



I would discourage people from watching the channel because it makes the channel more popular and therefore youtube more likely to recommend it to other people. 
And those other people might by naive enough to be persuaded by Kothorix when they come across his videos claiming climate scientists are lying, or that cub porn isn't really that bad.


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I would discourage people from watching the channel because it makes the channel more popular and therefore youtube more likely to recommend it to other people.
> And those other people might by naive enough to be persuaded by Kothorix when they come across his videos claiming climate scientists are lying, or that cub porn isn't really that bad.



That’s understandable and I agree, but it’s not the point of the discussion I was referring to in my original reply. I was just talking about the video that OP mentioned at the very beginning. I consider myself to be a liberal thinker, but I’m also open to hearing thoughts and opinions different from my own even if I don’t agree.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I would discourage people from watching the channel because it makes the channel more popular and therefore youtube more likely to recommend it to other people.
> And those other people might by naive enough to be persuaded by Kothorix when they come across his videos claiming climate scientists are lying, or that cub porn isn't really that bad.


On the topic of cub porn, that shit's utterly fucking revolting/repugnant and I sure as fuck don't want that shit anywhere near any public sphere or anywhere near me. As for it being just as bad, I don't know. It's a grey area, and there are no ways to properly identify if it's equally as bad or not as there are no studies or proper research to go by.

Kothorix have some interesting videos here and there. The video in question and as the thread's topic it shouldn't automatically be dismissed because someone doesn't really like and/or trust the maker. Automatic dismissal is a slippery slope. The video itself could have easily gone more in depth on the Identitarianism going on in the fandom. 

As someone else stated earlier in the thread(can't remember who did or what the exact statement was), but Kothorix have hung around all kinds of people. Some of those people have shown to be utter trash, and he got the flak he deserved for it. 

Quite frankly this fandom have problems that needs to be identified and properly dealt with as good a manner as possible.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 2, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> On the topic of cub porn, that shit's utterly fucking revolting/repugnant and I sure as fuck don't want that shit anywhere near any public sphere or anywhere near me. As for it being just as bad, I don't know. It's a grey area, and there are no ways to properly identify if it's equally as bad or not as there are no studies or proper research to go by.
> 
> Kothorix have some interesting videos here and there. The video in question and as the thread's topic it shouldn't automatically be dismissed because someone doesn't really like and/or trust the maker. Automatic dismissal is a slippery slope. The video itself could have easily gone more in depth on the Identitarianism going on in the fandom.
> 
> ...



I've already created a detailed explanation for why cub porn is bad, so I'll just repost it:







I think one of the problems in our fandom is that a lot of us don't understand, as Troj put it, that you 'Can't interview Len Gilbert like you would have a nice pleasant chat with Majira Strawberry'.

We need to make sure we don't make it 'cool' to hang around with creepy weirdos, and we have to avoid getting ourselves into echo chambers where we become _so divorced_ from normal public opinion that we end up having to debate whether pornography of underage characters is acceptable.

If average people/ 'normies' see us doing that, they would be completely justified to think we're awful. S:


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I've already created a detailed explanation for why cub porn is bad, so I'll just repost it:


Glad we agree on the cub porn. 



Fallowfox said:


> I think one of the problems in our fandom is that a lot of us don't understand, as Troj put it, that you 'Can't interview Len Gilbert like you would have a nice pleasant chat with Majira Strawberry'.


Conversation will cure a lot of the shit going on, and a willingness to actually hear each other out even if you disagree. Len is more than willing to have a conversation, unlike a lot of people I have seen opposing him.

It's easy to believe a "he said she said" scenario, especially when the ones you hear it from is on your "side". What is hard is hearing the opposition out. The problem isn't the presence of people you don't like. The problem is people's unwillingness/refusal for conversation, ending up with creating delusionary strawmen that they then chase.



Fallowfox said:


> We need to make sure we don't make it 'cool' to hang around with creepy weirdos, and we have to avoid getting ourselves into echo chambers where we become _so divorced_ from normal public opinion that we end up having to debate whether pornography of underage characters is acceptable.


Not being willing to have a conversation is in and of itself creating an echo chamber. It's conversation, nothing more. It's nothing to fear, unless you fear the conversation itself. That could quite easily show uncertainty of someone's foundation, not to mention uncertainty of someone's arguments. Or, it could even be an indication that they _*know*_ that what they are saying is wrong/false and don't want to be caught lying. I don't fear conversation, and neither should you.

Public opinion is public opinion. It's just that: Opinion. In this case, an opinion a/the majority have. Opinions vary a lot and have every bit of nuance to it. And just because a majority have X view doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, tho in a decent amount of cases it's more than just a fallacy. 

Tho I will agree with you that conversation with some people is rather repugnant. In some cases unacceptable even. 



Fallowfox said:


> If average people/ 'normies' see us doing that, they would be completely justified to think we're awful. S:


Normies see the most loud-mouthed and/or socially inept morons first usually, so of course they may think we're awful. Especially when you have trash like Kero being defended by people. 

Another example is Sangie:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069071028490461184An ANTIFA Fur who have been grooming children. Yes, you read that right: ANTIFA Fur _*grooming children.
*_
Moral degradation. Moral degradation to the point where they don't have any. And believe me, this is nothing more than the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues this fandom have.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 2, 2018)

@Yakamaru   Inviting Len Gilbert into a chat-show setting and allowing him to 'educate' the audience on his _version_ of WW2, with no push back,* is not the cure.*
What Kothorix unwittingly did there was provide his audience with an entry point to Holocaust denial. :\
You need to remember that Len's points of view included that Hermann Goering was an innocent man. When Len Gilbert previously registered on this forum, I exposed his blog posts that showed him making a pilgrimage to the grave of suspected Nazi collaborator Jack G Wheelis.

Do you remember Kyr? Who* constantly* invited people to have 'discussions' about the validity of Holocaust denial?
You need to realise these folk's pleas for a 'conversation' are about getting access to platforms because of the opportunity this gives them to spread their poison.
If publicity actually 'cured' these things, people like Len, people like Kyr, would shrink *away *from opportunities to proselytise, instead of making armies of alts so they can continue begging for a 'conversation'.

You know what they do with those alts? They all upvote one another's posts, and submit bogus reports to try to have users who criticise them removed from the discourse. 
When they say they want an honest conversation, *it's a lie*.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 2, 2018)

Again, conversation is nothing to fear unless you fear the conversation itself. 

I've linked this before, but you should read up on the Streisand Effect:
Streisand effect - Wikipedia
Mix that with the Butterfly Effect, and voila. 

And yes, I linked you your beloved Wikipedia and its gospel.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 2, 2018)

@Yakamaru 

You're really naive if you believe these guys' pleas for a conversation are actually about having an honest conversation. :\

What can I say? 

Pointing out that having a discussion about the merits of cub porn or the 'innocence' of Hermann Goering would repel almost all ordinary people isn't merely an appeal to popularity. 
Normal people don't need to have conversations about these things because they are already moral enough to know they are bad and already smart enough to realise that apologism for those things comes from dark, sinister motivations. Not a motivation for dialogue.


----------



## idkthough120 (Dec 2, 2018)

just came here to say:

i thought this was about youtube and stuff...


----------



## rknight (Dec 2, 2018)

For those enjoying MFF, I take you back 3 years ago to the " skunk fucker " incident...where a YouTuber now radio host named Dan proft paid kids 300 dollars to walk around Rosemont with t-shirts that said " I'm a skunk fucker " the shirts also had his YouTube logo on the back....

The purpose of the stunt was to raise money so he could buy airtime on a.m. 560 in Chicago...and he raised a little over half a million dollars and almost got MFF kicked out of Rosemont.

It's one thing to have an honest conversation that's a good thing....HOWEVER what you need to understand most YouTubers DON'T

 it's bullshit for clicks and people ( especially. Furries ) keep falling for it


----------



## Troj (Dec 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think one of the problems in our fandom is that a lot of us don't understand, as Troj put it, that you 'Can't interview Len Gilbert like you would have a nice pleasant chat with Majira Strawberry'.
> 
> We need to make sure we don't make it 'cool' to hang around with creepy weirdos, and we have to avoid getting ourselves into echo chambers where we become _so divorced_ from normal public opinion that we end up having to debate whether pornography of underage characters is acceptable.
> 
> If average people/ 'normies' see us doing that, they would be completely justified to think we're awful. S:



Thanks for the friendly name drop  and quote .

In my view, when you're dealing with nuanced and/or high-risk topics, you need to be extraordinarily careful, thoughtful, and mindful about when, where, why, and how you talk about them, and who you "allow" to join the discussion. When the stakes are sufficiently high, it's perfectly fair to question the motives and credentials of those who choose to weigh in, especially when they choose to do so in favor of the "controversial" or "high-risk" point of view.

So, I absolutely think social scientists should continue to conduct and discuss research on whether and how porn consumption translates into real-world behavior, and that it's perfectly right and fair to cite, debate, and discuss such research in good faith.

At the same time, I think it's also perfectly right and fair to table discussions if the conditions aren't appropriate, and to outright refuse to humor bad-faith or counterproductive debate.

Since a critical mass of furries struggle with basic fucking social skills, and since there are unfortunately predators who are eager to exploit that naivete, I genuinely worry about introducing too many grey areas, complexities, fringe cases, and "yes buts" when it comes to (for example) consent without first laying down some _very_ clear parameters.

TL;DR, when in doubt, just tell people cub is fucking gross. Do not allow them to hedge, distract, or concern-troll in the name of debate, discussion, or "freeze peach."


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 2, 2018)

whyt31 said:


> just came here to say:
> 
> i thought this was about youtube and stuff...



Based on OPs post at the beginning, that was the original intent of this thread. Talking about a particular video that was made. o:


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 2, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> You mean the guy who made the infamous web video of filming of dead Japanese suicide victims and making a video electrocuting dead rats? EW! I sincerely hope you are joking as Logan Paul is a creep that does not deserve recognition he gets at all. Edited: I corrected the information but it stills stands that he is a creep.


r/whoosh


----------

