# Anthro vs Furry??



## SevenArms (Jul 8, 2016)

Hi everyone! I don’t know if there’s a thread about this already, but I have this doubt and I want to see the opinion of the rest of the world.

Recently I have seen a lot of discussions of people complaining that his/her character is an anthro not a furry. Is there’s a difference? It really matters??

I’m really curious about it, because to me, and to my friends, it’s almost the same. Maybe the only difference (or at least the only one we came to) will be, well, the fur.

I like characters from humans to ferals, pasing by furries, anthros or monsters. I’m mean, if your character/sona have a great background, or a good design, or simply makes you happy, I personally don’t care if it’s a cherry tree with fussy tentacles and bat wings.

What do you think about it?


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Jul 8, 2016)

Anthro refers to anthropomorphing a non-human thing to have human-like qualities. Not necessarily limitted to animals or even living things. Take for instance the Brave Little Toaster.
Furries are anthrofied animals that are...well...furry.
The terms vary from person to person. The word "furry" also might carry extra meaning and baggage that an artists might not like whether their character is furry or not. Lizards and scalie characters can also be called furries but again, the terms are subjective.

Me, i don't care one way or the other. i use "furry" across the board in reference to all animal characters, biped or feral, but that's just me.


----------



## SevenArms (Jul 8, 2016)

Yes, I also understand an anthropomorphic character is any character with human traits, like you say, the Brave Toaster or Thomas the train or Potato Pete. It’s wrong (at least to me) to say that a potato is a furry.

But, for example, I have seen people that draw, let’s say, an anthro tiger lady in a couch. And then someone try to add the image to a furry group and the creator makes a tantrum that his character is not a furry.

It’s curious and confusing to me that this happens, I know it’s something really subjective but I didn’t know that it was a sensitive theme. n_ñ


----------



## drawain (Jul 8, 2016)

I see a lot of anthros at university, because the mix of human and animal is an interesting subject to paint. Did not make me think the illustrators were furries though. I think the difference is, wether the art shall be seen as contribution to our subculture or not. There may also be artists that deny their furry self.


----------



## Sergei Nóhomo (Jul 8, 2016)

Furry and anthro are interchangeable at this point


----------



## DravenDonovan (Jul 8, 2016)

Here's what I gathered from it, and how I view them as being 'different' (but I won't get all hissy at anyone for not believing the same)

A Furry is someone's Fursona that happens to be an Anthromorphic animal of some sort.  Yes, typically they are the animal ones with fur, so there are Scalies and such, too.  From which they call themselves, Scalies?  Scalsonas of themself.

Where as if someone just calls their Anthro animal just a plan ol' Anthro, than it is because they aren't really considering themselves a Furry and their characters aren't Fursona representations of themselves, or anyone else at that.

So.. It is possible to have a Furry character, which is your Fursona, and other characters that don't represent you that you just call Anthros.  

Some will argue that the difference is the design of the body, too.  How Furry's have a more Human Aspect to their design, while an Anthro will have more of the animal to their design.  
I personally think it's just all in how it is your Fursona, so it can look either way xD
But
It is a perspective thing.


----------



## SniperCoon2882 (Jul 9, 2016)

I'd say that it has to meet some criteria that you establish for being "furry" (anthro animal with fur for example) before you could call it furry, though this is somewhat subjective.

Anthropomorphic can apply to anything whereas furry applies to anthro animals specifically. Whether or not u consider it to be anthro or furry is up to the discretion of the viewer imho.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Jul 9, 2016)

SniperCoon2882 said:


> I'd say that it has to meet some criteria that you establish for being "furry" (anthro animal with fur for example) before you could call it furry, though this is somewhat subjective.
> 
> Anthropomorphic can apply to anything whereas furry applies to anthro animals specifically. Whether or not u consider it to be anthro or furry is up to the discretion of the viewer imho.


Aye, I agree.  Though it needs to make some sense, too.

What do I mean?

I mean if you want to say that all Anthromorphs with fur are Furry's, but yet we call ourselves Furry's, though we don't actually think we, ourselves, are Anthromorphic animals, but people who like to dress like them, than it can get a little.. Confusing?  How can we be Furry's, but claim not to be Furry's?
So that is why I thought that Furry's are people who like to dress up like Anthromorphic, cartoony, animals and our suits or characters are Fursonas, and it's ok to call them Furry's, but not every Anthro animals are Furry's.  They are just Furry.


----------



## SevenArms (Jul 9, 2016)

Mmm I think I'm starting to understand it, but still it's a little confusing hehe


----------



## DravenDonovan (Jul 9, 2016)

Basically Furry is a made up word created by Fursuiters for themselves and their Anthromorphic Personas.  
They have a pashion for Anthro Animals, originally gotten from the cartoony Anthro Animals, like Looney Toons.
Of course some people got into the fandom for just their pure love of Anthro Animals, or because they're into the darker side of the Fandom.

However..

People who are non-Furry, or perhaps really don't like the ideas behind Furry (or what they think those ideas are), and also love Anthro Animals, usually don't like to be Associated with the term 'Furry' and therefore actually get a little huffy when their Anthro characters (OC's that aren't in any association with themselves; not their Fursona, and would rather not have one).

There isn't anything wrong if you choose to say Furry's are just another word for Anthromorphic Animals.  Though the fact is the word is the Fandoms made up name for them, and it is ok if non-Furry's don't want to call them that.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 7, 2016)

If we're going to be clinical about this:

Anthro: (n) A being that is anthropomorphic; (adj) Short form for ANTHROPOMORPHIC.

Furry: (n) An individual with an interest in anthropomorphic entities (esp. animals).

At the rate that both terms are used interchangeably within the Furry Fandom however, as mentioned before, this is a somewhat moot point in common speech where its value is intrinsic.

I do prefer the more neutral Anthro moniker if I can help it (perhaps with a -fan suffix to denote the interest), but Furry is simple and straightforward enough to use in common verbiage without skipping a beat.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 7, 2016)

In short 'anthro not furry' is the mantra of a furry who doesn't want to admit they're a furry.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 7, 2016)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> If we're going to be clinical about this:
> 
> Anthro: (n) A being that is anthropomorphic; (adj) Short form for ANTHROPOMORPHIC.
> 
> ...


On another note, defining something as being "furry" can be equivocally interpreted as something being hairy and all that the descriptor could mean. This ambiguity works well for puns, but not so much for serious discussion.


----------



## Ziplone (Aug 8, 2016)

While toasters are sexy, I still good old fashioned animals are where it is at!


----------



## KuraSilwood (Aug 10, 2016)

Far as I know if you honestly put Anthros and Furries out in the wild together figuratively they'd still do it like animals as they say.
Honestly many artists can be overly sensitive more than the subject about furry foxes of the "norms" are. 

It's up to that artist to either find himself, or just plain out deal with it. By the end of the night Anthros and Furries are coexisting things
"ART" made by billions of people, and art shouldn't be shunned just because of memes, norms, or he-said-she-saids about the art community.

Overall everyone has a goal with their passion, some to strike big and rich, some to get notoriety and fame, others games & company deals,
so really as long as you work hard and love whatcha do, shouldn't matter whether its Furry, Anthro, Scalies, Anime, Realism, or even Alienism.


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 11, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> In short 'anthro not furry' is the mantra of a furry who doesn't want to admit they're a furry.


if someone likes anthro creatures but doesn't particularly care for anthro creatures based on animals with fur, they're not exactly a furry, are they?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 11, 2016)

Sl0shy said:


> if someone likes anthro creatures but doesn't particularly care for anthro creatures based on animals with fur, they're not exactly a furry, are they?



Nobody who likes anthropomorphic rocks goes around calling themselves an 'anthro' if we're honest.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 11, 2016)

People who prefer the term 'Anthro' and doesn't want to accociate with 'Furries' don't necessarily call themselves 'Anthros' either


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 11, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Nobody who likes anthropomorphic rocks goes around calling themselves an 'anthro' if we're honest.


that still doesn't necessarily mean anyone who identify themselves as 'anthro not furry' is a furry in denial. you're still wrong if we're honest.


----------



## Very Hairy Larry (Aug 11, 2016)

Ziplone said:


> While toasters are sexy, I still good old fashioned animals are where it is at!


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 12, 2016)

Sl0shy said:


> that still doesn't necessarily mean anyone who identify themselves as 'anthro not furry' is a furry in denial. you're still wrong if we're honest.



Almost everybody who does is though, if you're honest.


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 12, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Almost everybody who does is though, if you're honest.


in that case, you're /almost/ not wrong. still wrong


----------



## Shadowblackwolf (Aug 12, 2016)

I was unaware there was a difference


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 12, 2016)

You're only a Furry if you call yourself a Furry.  You can like furry Anthros without being a Furry, for Furry is just a title one chooses to use.  Or chooses not too.  
Just like you can have sexual relations with someone, but not be in a relationship.  You can like them, but not in the sense you want to be with just them.


----------



## Nataku (Aug 13, 2016)

Frankly any anthro art is also furry art. Was Looney Tunes originally created as 'furry'? No, but that's what we all view it as. The artist that doesn't want their anthro art recognized as also being furry is really just not fond of the association's they think the name brings. But as is the nature of any art you post publicly, you aren't the only one who gets to decide. And at this stage of the game, if you posted anthro art, it's gonna get called furry eventually too.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 13, 2016)

Nataku said:


> Frankly any anthro art is also furry art. Was Looney Tunes originally created as 'furry'? No, but that's what we all view it as. The artist that doesn't want their anthro art recognized as also being furry is really just not fond of the association's they think the name brings. But as is the nature of any art you post publicly, you aren't the only one who gets to decide. And at this stage of the game, if you posted anthro art, it's gonna get called furry eventually too.


Actually, in all honesty, a majority vote (taking all humanity into count) would say that 'Looney Tunes' is not Furry.  
'Furry' is a term Furries use for their themselves.  If you say that all Anthromorphic animals are Furries, but then clam that you, yourself, are not an Anthromorphic animal, but yet claim you are a Furry, how does that make a lick of sense?


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 14, 2016)

Nataku said:


> Frankly any anthro art is also furry art.


uh yea except that not all anthro art is based on fur animals. there's anthro characters based on amphibious, reptilian, fish too ya know. news flash, those creatures dont. have. fur.
kind of a reason furry art is called FURry art, kthnx.


----------



## Nataku (Aug 14, 2016)

DravenDonovan said:


> Actually, in all honesty, a majority vote (taking all humanity into count) would say that 'Looney Tunes' is not Furry.
> 'Furry' is a term Furries use for their themselves.  If you say that all Anthromorphic animals are Furries, but then clam that you, yourself, are not an Anthromorphic animal, but yet claim you are a Furry, how does that make a lick of sense?


Not a fair nor relevant poll considering the vast majority has never heard of 'furry.' Of course, let's bebhonest, most humans are also idiots and have no idea what anthropomorphic is either. They'd call Looney toons talking animals. Guess what furries are? Talking animals. Same damn thing, even if you don't know the term.


Sl0shy said:


> uh yea except that not all anthro art is based on fur animals. there's anthro characters based on amphibious, reptilian, fish too ya know. news flash, those creatures dont. have. fur.
> kind of a reason furry art is called FURry art, kthnx.


And we're using furry here as a generic term to include anything anthro. News flash, I have lots of characters that aren't covered in fur. They're still posted on a furry art site because they are anthro And thereby fall in the furry umbrella. The terms are interchangeable at this point in time in this community. If you tried to split every 'type' of anthro animal/thing into it's own category that was mutually exclusive you would fracture an already small community into a nonfunctional bunch of sects that would likely not communicate well with each other. What a shame and loss of diversity.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 14, 2016)

Only one problem, the term 'Furry' was created by Furries.  It is a title, not an actual being. 
You're still ignoring the fact that it doesn't make any sense to call Anthros Furries if calling ourselves Furries doesn't mean we think we're Anthropomorphic Animals.  
Also, there are terms used for non-Furry Anthros.  Scalies is one for reptilian anthros.  So it's already been split up, mate.  Get with the times ;3
I should also add that just because some people refer to all anthros as Furries does not mean that everyone has to.  As I keep saying, 'it is a made-up-word' for the community.  Those not a part of the community do not have to refer to their Anthros as 'Furries' and it doesn't mean that all Anthros have to be Furries.  
You're only a Furry if you want to be a Furry, it isn't something that has to be just because you like the same shit.  Just like your Anthro Oc doesn't have to be a Furry.
 It's not an illness.. it's a community, and a desire to be a part of that community.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 14, 2016)

Nataku said:


> Not a fair nor relevant poll considering the vast majority has never heard of 'furry.' Of course, let's be honest, most humans are also idiots and have no idea what anthropomorphic is either. They'd call Looney toons talking animals. Guess what furries are? Talking animals. Same damn thing, even if you don't know the term.



Talking animals, funny animals, petting zoo people... take your pick.

While we can debate the interchangeability of the two terms however, the mistake here is referring to anthro enthusiasts as petting zoo people.



> And we're using furry here as a generic term to include anything anthro. News flash, I have lots of characters that aren't covered in fur. They're still posted on a furry art site because they are anthro And thereby fall in the furry umbrella. The terms are interchangeable at this point in time in this community. If you tried to split every 'type' of anthro animal/thing into it's own category that was mutually exclusive you would fracture an already small community into a nonfunctional bunch of sects that would likely not communicate well with each other. What a shame and loss of diversity.



Any more dysfunctional than it already is? 

The Furry Fandom as a whole is too loosely defined to be a unified community beyond a common interest in anthropomorphism. It's from this loose definition that the fandom gains its diversity through its niches, and it would follow that any attempt to "unify" the fandom further will result in a net loss of that diversity.


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 14, 2016)

Nataku said:


> And we're using furry here as a generic term to include anything anthro.


there is no 'we'. /you/ are using it as a generic term to include anything anthro and it's stupid. anthro isn't necessarily furry. end of fucking story.



Nataku said:


> News flash, I have lots of characters that aren't covered in fur. They're still posted on a furry art site because they are anthro And thereby fall in the furry umbrella.


that's because anthro and furry /do/ have a relation with one another. anthro art is often showcased within the furry community and that's where it arguably thrives the best. that much, i agree with. it still doesn't have to mean 'all anthro art is furry art'.
it doesn't take a fucking genius to understand that non-fur sonas are /not/ furry. if all anthro art was furry art, there would be no need to use the word 'anthro' in the first place and the word 'anthro' wouldn't be relevant to the community at all period. otherwise everything would just be called 'furry'. furry is called 'furry' because of FUR, why else would the word 'fur' be used? jesus fucking christ, are you even listening to yourself!!!?



Nataku said:


> The terms are interchangeable at this point in time in this community. If you tried to split every 'type' of anthro animal/thing into it's own category that was mutually exclusive you would fracture an already small community into a nonfunctional bunch of sects that would likely not communicate well with each other. What a shame and loss of diversity.


then lets get rid of all the categories in FA's search engine because who needs categories fracturing an already small community? categories exist for a reason. some people like furry art, and some people like anthro/nonfur art. the separation of those terms is used to more thoroughly find the art that fits people's desire without them having to look through a million and a half search results.
ALL FURRY ART IS ANTHRO ART. NOT ALL ANTHRO ART IS FURRY ART. face it, you were full of shit from the getgo and continuing your so called argument will just make you look more dumb. good fucking day!






edit:actually i guess not all furry art is necessarily anthro either. nvm that part


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 14, 2021)

SevenArms said:


> Hi everyone! I don’t know if there’s a thread about this already, but I have this doubt and I want to see the opinion of the rest of the world.
> 
> Recently I have seen a lot of discussions of people complaining that his/her character is an anthro not a furry. Is there’s a difference? It really matters??
> 
> ...


I say: I'm flipping tired of seeing ignorant morons either calling Anthros animals, beasts, creatures, Furries, animals w Human traits or being Furry, as all of these are just plain wrong and hella disrespectful. Anthros are Anthros and can only be classified as Anthros. Period. Point. Blank.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 14, 2021)

I personally don't care what label their of is under because I'm probably never going to be invested in their stories to begin with. 

Still kinda mean though, why you gotta hate on the potate?


----------



## Ratt Carry (Jul 14, 2021)

PlusThirtyOne said:


> Anthro refers to anthropomorphing a non-human thing to have human-like qualities. Not necessarily limitted to animals or even living things. Take for instance the Brave Little Toaster.
> Furries are anthrofied animals that are...well...furry.
> The terms vary from person to person. The word "furry" also might carry extra meaning and baggage that an artists might not like whether their character is furry or not.


Right here is the perfect answer. Especially the part about baggage. Though a softer (less accurate) way to put it would be "attracting a certain audience". There are for sure specific design languages that have a greater chance of appealing to certain demographics.

Some artists might like specific kinds of characters but understandably dont want to be associated with/brand as what WE all know "furry" means.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 14, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I personally don't care what label their of is under because I'm probably never going to be invested in their stories to begin with.
> 
> Still kinda mean though, why you gotta hate on the potate?


Because it's ignorant and confusing.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jul 14, 2021)

The Chad Mobian race vs Virgin furry/anthro race.

We have magic, superpowers, lasers, long plot narrative RPs,  lore, Eggman, shipping wars, and comics, oh, and Mobians can use vehicles. Also, furries are funneled into FA, DA, and certain high rise art sites. Sonic OC's are EVERYWHERE.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 15, 2021)

Simple fact of the matter is that Anthros can't be called Furries because: they're not Humans in that fandom, they're not animals covered in fur (they would be called Furry Anthros, or such) and they're not people with fur. Calling it Furry art means that it's Anthro art made by Furries, and calling it Anthro art means that it was either Anthro art made by Anthro fans who aren't Furries or just Anthro art not made by Furries. Ignorance and stupidity. I hate those two traits.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 15, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Simple fact of the matter is that Anthros can't be called Furries because: they're not Humans in that fandom, they're not animals covered in fur (they would be called Furry Anthros, or such) and they're not people with fur. Calling it Furry art means that it's Anthro art made by Furries, and calling it Anthro art means that it was either Anthro art made by Anthro fans who aren't Furries or just Anthro art not made by Furries. Ignorance and stupidity. I hate those two traits.



Is this in the official Furry handbook?


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> Is this in the official Furry handbook?


In the section describing the lengths people go to to avoid being called 'furry' I expect.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> In the section describing the lengths people go to to avoid being called 'furry' I expect.


Considering I was once in the fandom, that viewpoint is completely wrong. There's more Anthro fans than there will ever be Furries.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

Whatever you might have called yourself in the past, you still dredged up a thread from 2016 to make this complaint now.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> Whatever you might have called yourself in the past, you still dredged up a thread from 2016 to make this complaint now.


That I did, and it still rings true, as does the notion that a Anthro and Furry aren't the same thing, otherwise Anthros wouldn't be called Anthros.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

I'm not fussed however you decide to define it, but I wouldn't exactly get your hopes up about this distinction starting to matter broadly.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> I'm not fussed however you decide to define it, but I wouldn't exactly get your hopes up about this distinction starting to matter broadly.


You say you don't care yet you still comment. Plus, once people get over Furries and their antics, terminologies will go back to normal. Though, this isn't what this discussion is about.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

Like pretty much anyone else in the world, yeah, I do often talk about things that are not important to me lol. Since whether it matters is part of what the OP was asking all those years ago I'd say it's relevant to the thread.

Personally I consider myself someone who draws anthros, specifically anthro animals. Partly because I got into anthros before I knew about furries, partly because I don't have a fursona or take part in other fandom things like suits or conventions. I'm also aware that to loads of people the things I draw are furries and I am therefore a furry. I've never known that to make even the slightest bit of difference to my life so I don't think it's worth worrying about, and when people make a point to be seen as not-a-furry, it makes me wonder about them.

Also I find it kinda funny you seem to think terminology has a normal that it returns to or that you'll outlive furries as a concept.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> Like pretty much anyone else in the world, yeah, I do often talk about things that are not important to me lol. Since whether it matters is part of what the OP was asking all those years ago I'd say it's relevant to the thread.
> 
> Personally I consider myself someone who draws anthros, specifically anthro animals. Partly because I got into anthros before I knew about furries, partly because I don't have a fursona or take part in other fandom things like suits or conventions. I'm also aware that to loads of people the things I draw are furries and I am therefore a furry. I've never known that to make even the slightest bit of difference to my life so I don't think it's worth worrying about, and when people make a point to be seen as not-a-furry, it makes me wonder about them.
> 
> Also I find it kinda funny you seem to think terminology has a normal that it returns to or that you'll outlive furries as a concept.


Anthro fans are still a big thing whether or not you believe in that notion. And this is true simply because no one ever said you had to be part of a community or fandom to have the same interest/s as that community.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

I don't know why you're saying that like I claimed they're not 'a thing' or that you had to participate in any community.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> I don't know why you're saying that like I claimed they're not 'a thing' or that you had to participate in any community.


Really? (In the section describing the lengths people go to to avoid being called 'furry' I expect.)


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Really? (In the section describing the lengths people go to to avoid being called 'furry' I expect.)


Not thinking of yourself as a furry is a distinct thing from being preoccupied with ensuring nobody else thinks of you as a furry. That's why I said "being called 'furry'".


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> Not thinking of yourself as a furry is a distinct thing from being preoccupied with ensuring nobody else thinks of you as a furry. That's why I said "being called 'furry'".


Maybe, but there's still nu evidence to support the opinion that Anthros are Furries or that Anthros are Furry-related, since common sense would dictate that Anthro media, art and Anthros themselves as a concept came out decades before this fandom ever existed.


----------



## LameFox (Jul 16, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Maybe, but there's still nu evidence to support the opinion that Anthros are Furries or that Anthros are Furry-related, since common sense would dictate that Anthro media, art and Anthros themselves as a concept came out decades before this fandom ever existed.


I'm not much of a prescriptivist, personally. At least for mammals or mammalian-looking things, if you show people an anthropomorphic version of it a very wide portion of them will call it a furry. However they arrived at that point, it's functionally becoming something that doesn't just describe a community. None of which troubles me at all.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

LameFox said:


> I'm not much of a prescriptivist, personally. At least for mammals or mammalian-looking things, if you show people an anthropomorphic version of it a very wide portion of them will call it a furry. However they arrived at that point, it's functionally becoming something that doesn't just describe a community. None of which troubles me at all.


To each their own I suppose.


----------



## sushy (Jul 16, 2021)

I use anthro and furry like they are the same thing. ^^;


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

sushy said:


> I use anthro and furry like they are the same thing. ^^;


Though that's what confuses me, as it makes nu sense to call both Furry, but then again: Furries don't make any sense.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 16, 2021)

It's the difference between a broader, more general concept pared down to a form of slang/shorthand and a more specific descriptor that is ALSO slang/shorthand.  The other kinds of anthropomorphization are not typically referred to as "anthro" outside fandom and fandom-adjacent circles so while they are not interchangeable in full they're close.

That said the term "furry" now has a certain cache that someone might not wish to attach to their work, and if they prefer the term "anthro" it shouldn't be a big deal to oblige them.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> It's the difference between a broader, more general concept pared down to a form of slang/shorthand and a more specific descriptor that is ALSO slang/shorthand.  The other kinds of anthropomorphization are not typically referred to as "anthro" outside fandom and fandom-adjacent circles so while they are not interchangeable in full they're close.
> 
> That said the term "furry" now has a certain cache that someone might not wish to attach to their work, and if they prefer the term "anthro" it shouldn't be a big deal to oblige them.


Agreed. It's just that Furries like to always insert themselves in things that were never any of their business.


----------



## Troj (Jul 16, 2021)

"Oh, I draw anthros, not furries" or "I'm not a furry; I'm a Zootopian," is the equivalent of "I'm not gay, I'm an androphile."

By all means, respect and use the label someone prefers, but in these cases, I think at least a little gentle ribbing is warranted when someone is transparently rearranging the living room chairs and insisting the room is totally different.


----------



## Tattorack (Jul 16, 2021)

Anthro stands for "anthropomorphic" which is defined as:
1- described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes.
2- ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things.

Brave Little Toaster or Sausage Party both have anthro characters. The word "anthropomorphise" was even used in Star Trek, Measure of a Man, a TNG episode where Data's free will, an Android, was put on trial, in the context that Humans are prone to humanize or apply human traits to objects or things that otherwise don't have any.
Disney's Robin Hood, The Lady and the Tramp and Zootopia are also featuring anthro characters, but of a far more familiar kind; furries.

All furries are anthro. Yes, even "feral" ones, because the instant you describe a certain action or attribute through a Human context you've just anthropomorphised it.
But not everything that is anthro is furry. "Furry" is just the word we use to describe either;
1- animal characters that have been anthropomorphised.
2- a fan of said characters, or at least the concept of anthropomorphising animals.
3- sentient, sapient characters that aren't directly based on any particular existing animal species, but do carry features that we attribute to animals (i.e. fur, snout, large movable ears, digigrade legs, tail).

But through the process of common parlance "anthro" has almost become synonymous with "furry".


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 16, 2021)

When I see shows like TMNT I don't think furries. 
When I see a portrait of an animal, I don't think furries.

When I see a sparkle dog oc or anything with a lion king/balto style, I narrow my eyes at them suspiciously.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

Tattorack said:


> Anthro stands for "anthropomorphic" which is defined as:
> 1- described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes.
> 2- ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things.
> 
> ...


The whole debate is because people who aren't in the fandom keep using terms that the fandom use. People who aren't in the Furry fandom shouldn't be calling Anthros Furries, simple as that.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> When I see shows like TMNT I don't think furries.
> When I see a portrait of an animal, I don't think furries.
> 
> When I see a sparkle dog oc or anything with a lion king/balto style, I narrow my eyes at them suspiciously.


Understandable and relatable. I'm just tired of seeing idiots call Anthros Furries.


----------



## Paws the Opinicus (Jul 16, 2021)

I've always figured it as the 'characters being anthro, the furries being the term for the actual living people that made them'. Anyways, that's all I'm gonna say, there's enough potential bile building up in this thread as is.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

Paws the Gryphon said:


> I've always figured it as the 'characters being anthro, the furries being the term for the actual living people that made them'. Anyways, that's all I'm gonna say, there's enough potential bile building up in this thread as is.


Yup.


----------



## Balskarr (Jul 16, 2021)

As this has become relevant I think I'll chip in as an outsider. Anthros, furries, even scalies are all the same to me. I find the argument going on here quite childish too.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 16, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> The whole debate is because people who aren't in the fandom keep using terms that the fandom use. People who aren't in the Furry fandom shouldn't be calling Anthros Furries, simple as that.


I don't think this is worth turning into a sweeping language-policing exercise but clarity in communication is nice and should be encouraged, rather than ambiguous or clumsy communication being scolded or punished.  Just remember that communication is multidirectional and can be quite subjective and contextual.  That, and some hills are not worth waging battles to the death over.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> I don't think this is worth turning into a sweeping language-policing exercise but clarity in communication is nice and should be encouraged, rather than ambiguous or clumsy communication being scolded or punished.  Just remember that communication is multidirectional and can be quite subjective and contextual.  That, and some hills are not worth waging battles to the death over.


Makes sense. Still find it wrong to interuse the word "Furry" for both Anthros and Furry fandom members.


----------



## Foxridley (Jul 16, 2021)

I kind of tend to think about it as @Paws the Gryphon put it. The anthro is the character, the furry is the person who created it.

The problem is that the furry is a pretty nebulous thing overall and it never had well-defined boundaries. You might say the distinctions are fuzzy.

Puns aside, part of the distinction, I think, comes from where the appeal of the character is. Simply depicting an anthropomorphic animal is not furry art, and being a fan of something that contains anthropomorphic animals does not make you a furry. Furry starts somewhere in the range that the presence of anthro animals itself becomes a significant part of the appeal. But even then, the distinction is vague.

We want to organize things into neat little categories, but reality often does not fit such an approach.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 16, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Makes sense.





Foxridley said:


> I kind of tend to think about it as @Paws the Gryphon put it. The anthro is the character, the furry is the person who created it.
> 
> The problem is that the furry is a pretty nebulous thing overall and it never had well-defined boundaries. You might say the distinctions are fuzzy.
> 
> ...


True. Like a bag of Hot Wheels where one is a Burnt Umber and the rest are just Old Barn Red (I like my color shades).


----------



## Tattorack (Jul 16, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Makes sense. Still find it wrong to interuse the word "Furry" for both Anthros and Furry fandom members.


It's just common parlance. It doesn't always make sense, but it's simply what someone uses out of immediate convenience.
As long as people have some measure of technical understanding of said words/terms I could honestly care less.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2021)

I'll just say this--

As soon as somebody tries to tell me what I can and cannot say, especially if it's fucking asinine, somebody is going to get their feelings hurt. Quickly.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I'll just say this--
> 
> As soon as somebody tries to tell me what I can and cannot say, especially if it's fucking asinine, somebody is going to get their feelings hurt. Quickly.


It's a discussion of logicality, not freedom of speech.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> It's a discussion of logicality, not freedom of speech.


This aint a thing of freedom of speech either.
It's a thing of, "you're not going to tell me what to fucking do." Lol~.

Also, logically, we're also talking about anthropomorphic dogs and toasters. This is a really gatekeeper discussion that makes me itch. Aint anything I cannot stand more is gatekeepers in a community thats supposed to be fun.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

PercyD said:


> This aint a thing of freedom of speech either.
> It's a thing of, "you're not going to tell me what to fucking do." Lol~.
> 
> Also, logically, we're also talking about anthropomorphic dogs and toasters. This is a really gatekeeper discussion that makes me itch. Aint anything I cannot stand more is gatekeepers in a community thats supposed to be fun.


Welp, if you don't like the discussion content, then you should've stayed away, because simply saying that it makes you mad isn't going to solve or prove anything. Also, it's a civil discussion over the usefulness and correctness over a word. You're the only one typing angrily.


----------



## Bababooey (Jul 17, 2021)

@Blood_Shift






Edit: This is all I'm going to contribute to this thread. lol


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Chomby said:


> @Blood_Shift


Savage!


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I say: I'm flipping tired of seeing ignorant morons either calling Anthros animals, beasts, creatures, Furries, animals w Human traits or being Furry, as all of these are just plain wrong and hella disrespectful. Anthros are Anthros and can only be classified as Anthros. Period. Point. Blank.


It was a pointless nitpick five years ago, necroing it is merely adding an extra level to it. Shame on you


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> It was a pointless nitpick five years ago, necroing it is merely adding an extra level to it. Shame on you


Eh. And so is your anger towards other people's opinion. Get over it.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Welp, if you don't like the discussion content, then you should've stayed away, because simply saying that it makes you mad isn't going to solve or prove anything. Also, it's a civil discussion over the usefulness and correctness over a word. You're the only one typing angrily.


I dunno, awhile back you were talking about furries minding their own business. Sounds pretty angry to me--

Listen here, hun bunch. You seem like the type who hides behind a wall of logic and reasoning, yet all the while, using those things to rationalize YOUR OWN feelings. 

If thats really the case, you're a gatekeeper and a blowhard. You're not really fooling anybody. If you don't like the word, you don't like it. But don't act like you are at the top of some kind of pedestal just because you took a class in logic one time in high school.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Eh. And so is your anger towards other people's opinion. Get over it.


I mean, you were getting kind of testy over it.  Careful with those stones, that house of yours looks a little glassy.

Like I said, it's not a hill worth fighting to the death over.  As long as you can figure out what someone's talking about at any given time communication was at least marginally successful, the finer details aren't something one should be sweating about.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> I mean, you were getting kind of testy over it.  Careful with those stones, that house of yours looks a little glassy.
> 
> Like I said, it's not a hill worth fighting to the death over.  As long as you can figure out what someone's talking about at any given time communication was at least marginally successful, the finer details aren't something one should be sweating about.


Thats exactly my point. Trying to tell people what language they can use in a fandom is so fucking gatekeepy. It aint it.

Heck, this dude is also trying to tell me the feelings I can and cannot express now just because it seems like he doesn't find it to be in his liking. Where did this guy even come from.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 17, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Where did this guy even come from.


It's the Internet, this is strangely kind of normal on the Internet.  I can only guess at why, and it'd be a waste of time to agonize over it.  I have never seen anyone really change their mind and alter their behavior over an Internet argument, which just makes you wonder why Internet arguments are so common.  In general there's this weird notion people have that if you yell at someone angrily enough that will make them change course, and that really doesn't work that well in my experience.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

I'm not the one who never gives evidence to defend their opinion on why they're correct.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I'm not the one who never gives evidence to defend their opinion.


We're not doing this today.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> We're not doing this today.


Agreed. This argument has become pointless, like the people above. You say one thing people don't agree with and they start to throw hissy fits.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Agreed. This argument has become pointless, like the people above. You say one thing people don't agree with and they start to throw hissy fits.


More like-
When someone says your opinion is shitty, your first response is to tell them they are illogical. Lol.
Go ahead on with that, discount, off-brand, copyright neutral Spock. You're goofy as hell and its funny to me.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> It's the Internet, this is strangely kind of normal on the Internet.  I can only guess at why, and it'd be a waste of time to agonize over it.  I have never seen anyone really change their mind and alter their behavior over an Internet argument, which just makes you wonder why Internet arguments are so common.  In general there's this weird notion people have that if you yell at someone angrily enough that will make them change course, and that really doesn't work that well in my experience.


Lol, youre right.

I heard a saying awhile back that outrage is like a feast. It's a lot of fun to be angry. However, nothing comes of it. Usually, the main course at the feast is you.

The internet is definitely the place for pointless outrage.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Lol, youre right.
> 
> I heard a saying awhile back that outrage is like a feast. It's a lot of fun to be angry. However, nothing comes of it. Usually, the main course at the feast is you.
> 
> The internet is definitely the place for pointless outrage.


That it is.


----------



## BigFuzzyBenji (Jul 17, 2021)

For myself personally, "Furry" is a word used to describe someone who meets one criterion; they either do or can, envision themselves as anthropomorphic animals. Those people for whom their Fursona is an extension of their personality, an avatar to represent themselves, or an idea of who they'd like to be.

I think there is a substantial difference between liking Bugs Bunny, and literally envisioning yourself as a fellow cartoon rabbit.

Anthro, short for anthropomorphic, just means humanized non-human characters. However, at this point, it is interchangeable with furry, but generally when speaking to someone at least sem-familiar with the concepts in the community. Basically, if you're talking to a furry or someone who "gets" furries, then anthro can be interchanged without consequence. If used in conversation with someone unfamiliar, the word would be taken literally and not convey the meaning you intend.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 17, 2021)

BigFuzzyBenji said:


> I think there is a substantial difference between liking Bugs Bunny, and literally envisioning yourself as a fellow cartoon rabbit.


There used to be a verbal distinction ("funny animals" was parlance for characters like Bugs) but eventually "furry" became a catch-all to describe "funny animal fans", people who got deeper into the anthropomorphic aspect to the point of having more "serious" and less "cartoony" aspects to their art, and people who just flog their dolphin to any of the above.  In the end I find the distinctions/labels pretty pointless aside from the cache of "pornhound" the furry label has acquired, which some people understandably would rather not hang around their necks.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> There used to be a verbal distinction ("funny animals" was parlance for characters like Bugs) but eventually "furry" became a catch-all to describe "funny animal fans", people who got deeper into the anthropomorphic aspect to the point of having more "serious" and less "cartoony" aspects to their art, and people who just flog their dolphin to any of the above.  In the end I find the distinctions/labels pretty pointless aside from the cache of "pornhound" the furry label has acquired, which some people understandably would rather not hang around their necks.


Can I say that I like your euphenisms? A+. Joy to read.

There is a conversation to be had about the public's perception of the furry fandom in general. But it can be summed up as "that weird girl in high school who liked anime and thought she was a cat".

I for one, appreciated my local anime cat girl. I think she's a great example of living your truth, and I hope she's kept that energy into adulthood.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

It just depends on who you ask. Pick your spots.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I'm not the one who never gives evidence to defend their opinion on why they're correct.


I'd also like to add, mister logical fallacy, that you cannot 'defend' an opinion.

Opinions are not facts. They are not correct or incorrect.  However, *opinions can be informed*-- thats why we have folks with PhDs walking around. However, actual educated people ALWAYS have more questions then 'opinions'. Their knowledge stems from the fact that they can ask great questions.

This 'you have to have proof for your opinions or I am going to deem it to be illogical' bullshit is silly. It's goofy. It's pseudo-intellectualism through and through. Actual smart people can see through that shit. You're telling on yourself. 

Logic even isn't the stand all be all of thought. All your logical rationalizations go out of the window if the premise you start with is trash. If you're starting premise is that, "I think furries need to mind their own business and I'm going to bully them into using a different word," then...???
You sound like a clown.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I'd also like to add, mister logical fallacy, that you cannot 'defend' an opinion.
> 
> Opinions are not facts. They are not correct or incorrect.  However, *opinions can be informed*-- thats why we have folks with PhDs walking around. However, actual educated people ALWAYS have more questions then 'opinions'. Their knowledge stems from the fact that they can ask great questions.
> 
> ...


Says they one who's still replying as opposed to letting it lie. Simply put, you have your opinion, and I have mine. It's a discussion, clown.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Says they one who's still replying as opposed to letting it lie.


Says the one who hides behind fallacies when people call them out on their bullshit.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Says they one who's still replying as opposed to letting it lie. Simply put, you have your opinion, and I have mine. It's a discussion, clown.


You don't get to hide behind "bro leave it I just have an opinion" when you are attempting to assail others' opinions.  Play by your own rules or go sit and spin.  I don't expect you to be anything but consistent and you can't even manage that, and that makes you not worth any more time.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Says they one who's still replying as opposed to letting it lie.





PercyD said:


> Says the one who hides behind fallacies when people call them out on their bullshit.


You're the one upset last time I checked. I'm just here to state a opinion.


O.D.D. said:


> You don't get to hide behind "bro leave it I just have an opinion" when you are attempting to assail others' opinions.  Play by your own rules or go sit and spin.  I don't expect you to be anything but consistent and you can't even manage that, and that makes you not worth any more time.


Assail other people's opinion? Yet you're the one who can't accept me disagreeing with your point of view. How useless.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> You're the one upset last time I checked. I'm just here to state a opinion.
> 
> Assail other people's opinion? Yet you're the one who can't accept me disagreeing with your point of view. How useless.


Lol, there ya go again--
"YOU'RE UPSET SO YOU LOSE!"
Haha, discount Spock strikes again.

Your opinion is trash. Your premise is recycling at best. We disagree with you AND you're wrong. The way you're trying to justify yourself is just straight up clownish. I'd just as much respect your opinion if you were just like "I think this shit is dumb".

But no, you have to go and try to make yourself out to be superior because you can... *checks notes*
(Poorly) rationalize your shitty opinions with logical fallacies. Okay, sure homeskillet.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Look at you, all riled up. You get upset over a person's opinion, regardless of whether or not it's of sound mind. As opposed to speaking calmly and trying to understand whatever they're speaking on, you call them trash, their opinion/s trash and that they're acting like clowns. And then... Homeskillet, that's a new one. Also, I'm not swearing at you, so why swear at me? Even if my opinions are stupid and sound stupid, shouldn't you demonstrate some form of self-restraint? Oy, another debate turned into a argument.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jul 17, 2021)




----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

ASTA said:


>


Ok... And?


----------



## Foxridley (Jul 17, 2021)

I'll reiterate, the problem of this debate is the fact that "furry" is a vague term with no widely agreed-upon boundaries. The terms of the argument aren't clear.

Blood Shift, a few times you've mentioned people calling anthro art or anthro fans furry when they aren't furry. But where, by your reckoning, is the line? When is something furry art and when is it non-furry anthro art? What is the difference between a furry and an anthro fan?

I'm not calling what you say into doubt; I just want a clearer picture of your position.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

When it can be determined that a Furry fandom member made said art should it be described as such, and the same for Anthro art or digital artist art of Anthros is when the line should be drawn regarding art of Anthro anything. And the difference between a Furry fan and Anthro fan is that a Furry fan is in the Furry fandom and a fan of Anthros is just a Anthro fan.


----------



## Foxridley (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> When it can be determined that a Furry fandom member made said art should it be described as such, and the same for Anthro art or digital artist art of Anthros is when the line should be drawn regarding art of Anthro anything. And the difference between a Furry fan and Anthro fan is that a Furry fan is in the Furry fandom and a fan of Anthros is just a Anthro fan.


And "in the furry fandom" just means "considers themselves to be a furry" or something else?


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Foxridley said:


> And "in the furry fandom" just means "considers themselves to be a furry" or something else?


I mean that Furries call themselves Furry Fans as oppose to Anthro fans when discussing a liking for Anthros.


----------



## Foxridley (Jul 17, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I mean that Furries call themselves Furry Fans as oppose to Anthro fans when discussing a liking for Anthros.


So, you mean to say that people who like anthros are only furries if they consider/call themselves furries?


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 17, 2021)

Foxridley said:


> So, you mean to say that people who like anthros are only furries if they consider/call themselves furries?


Yes. The furry fandom is a community, where liking Anthros simply means you're a Anthro fan. And when it comes to Anthro fans, you would only find fan groups, which are just small-to-large... Groups. So similar to a fandom, but without the many problems that always follow them around.


----------



## Tattorack (Jul 18, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> When it can be determined that a Furry fandom member made said art should it be described as such, and the same for Anthro art or digital artist art of Anthros is when the line should be drawn regarding art of Anthro anything. And the difference between a Furry fan and Anthro fan is that a Furry fan is in the Furry fandom and a fan of Anthros is just a Anthro fan.


That is too complicated and will never stick. 
Nobody cares whether or not an anthro animal character was made by someone from the actual fandom, they're still going to be called "furry character", and it's perfectly fine, better even, than calling it an "anthro character" as that can mean literally anything. 
You say "furry character" and everyone is immediately on the same page about what is being referred, which is exactly what language is supposed to do.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 18, 2021)

Tattorack said:


> That is too complicated and will never stick.
> Nobody cares whether or not an anthro animal character was made by someone from the actual fandom, they're still going to be called "furry character", and it's perfectly fine, better even, than calling it an "anthro character" as that can mean literally anything.
> You say "furry character" and everyone is immediately on the same page about what is being referred, which is exactly what language is supposed to do.


It stuck before when "Anthropomorphic" was the word of the day and overstayed its welcome, and it'll stick again whenever the Furry fandom dies off (which isn't to say that it lost its meaning when the fandom became a thing), unless a new term comes around to replace it. And the only thing that's complicated is using two different names to discuss the same exact thing, especially when that second thing is literally the same name that's been given to members of a third thing.


----------



## KitsuneMaster20 (Jul 19, 2021)

like i said.
Anthros are like anthropomorphizing an animal is like a animal person that walks on 2 legs that acts human, some anthros might have social traits like i did for CanisChiroptera's Generator, they can do what realistic anthros that they can do for using animalistic traits and humanlike traits.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jul 19, 2021)

Anthro vs furry???!? is truly the question of our age, my life has been forever enriched by the content of this thread.



O.D.D. said:


> It's the Internet, this is strangely kind of normal on the Internet.  I can only guess at why, and it'd be a waste of time to agonize over it.  I have never seen anyone really change their mind and alter their behavior over an Internet argument, which just makes you wonder why Internet arguments are so common.  In general there's this weird notion people have that if you yell at someone angrily enough that will make them change course, and that really doesn't work that well in my experience.


Most internet arguments are about insecure people trying to claim they're smarter than strangers, or they quickly devolve into contests of who is better at getting under the other's skin. It's usually ego stroking bullshit rather than an attempt to do anything productive.

Still, keeps the popcorn industry going strong.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 19, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> Anthro vs furry???!? is truly the question of our age, my life has been forever enriched by the content of this thread.
> 
> 
> Most internet arguments are about insecure people trying to claim they're smarter than strangers, or they quickly devolve into contents of who is better at getting under the other's skin. It's usually ego stroking bullshit rather than an attempt to do anything productive.
> ...


Yup.


----------



## Filter (Jul 19, 2021)

There's overlap, but here's how I use the terms:

Anthro: General term for humanoid animal characters.
Furry: Humanoid animal characters made with the furry fandom in mind.

Both categories appeal to furry fans, but the latter is more specific to the fandom.

I have two FA accounts. One for my humanoid cat characters, mostly drawn in black & white with inked outlines. They're anthro, but not necessarily what comes to mind when most people think of furry. The other account is for characters drawn in more of a typically furry style. Bright colors, a little more pinup-like, more furry tropes are present etc.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 19, 2021)

Filter said:


> There's overlap, but here's how I use the terms:
> 
> Anthro: General term for humanoid animal characters.
> Furry: Humanoid animal characters made with the furry fandom in mind.
> ...


Agreed. Calling Anthros Furries also serves to bring more people to a website or post as well since the word Furry carries more controversy, which is what people feed off of nowadays. Even if it's still confusing and overused to call everything Furry.


----------



## TokoDoggo (Jul 19, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Agreed. Calling Anthros Furries also serves to bring more people to a website or post as well since the word Furry carries more controversy, which is what people feed off of nowadays. Even if it's still confusing and overused to call everything Furry.


I feel like a lot of people outside of the fandom- mostly the assholes who decided to poke fun at the community to compensate for their own lack of acceptance  and individuality- are the ones that just lump anyone who likes animal cartoons or creates/draws animal characters into the "Furry" category. All the while trying their hardest to make the term an insult. I was always called a furry when showing ppl my anthro art- as an insult- way before I joined the fandom. And the people that said this were always the asshole non-creatives that were just looking to try to feel like they were better than others. People in the general public also like to turn everything into extremes when they label people. I've talked to people outside of both the fandom and art world about this subject. They seem to all believe the same thing about EVERYONE in the fandom: You're a furry if you draw anthro animals, like Zootopia, watch any animal anime, do the fursuit thing, and yiff. Because the general public is mostly dumb they just assume all of these things. If you do any of these things, you do ALL of these things  Also, most of them have no idea what the term anthro even means. Because when I used that term to describe my art they had no idea what I was talking about, lol.
But within the community, obviously Anthro is better understood. It's more about character structure/ physique. And like most of you have already stated, furry is just a broad term that can umbrella anthro.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 19, 2021)

TokoDoggo said:


> I feel like a lot of people outside of the fandom- mostly the assholes who decided to poke fun at the community to compensate for their own lack of acceptance  and individuality- are the ones that just lump anyone who likes animal cartoons or creates/draws animal characters into the "Furry" category. All the while trying their hardest to make the term an insult. I was always called a furry when showing ppl my anthro art- as an insult- way before I joined the fandom. And the people that said this were always the asshole non-creatives that were just looking to try to feel like they were better than others. People in the general public also like to turn everything into extremes when they label people. I've talked to people outside of both the fandom and art world about this subject. They seem to all believe the same thing about EVERYONE in the fandom: You're a furry if you draw anthro animals, like Zootopia, watch any animal anime, do the fursuit thing, and yiff. Because the general public is mostly dumb they just assume all of these things. If you do any of these things, you do ALL of these things  Also, most of them have no idea what the term anthro even means. Because when I used that term to describe my art they had no idea what I was talking about, lol.
> But within the community, obviously Anthro is better understood. It's more about character structure/ physique. And like most of you have already stated, furry is just a broad term that can umbrella anthro.


I still don't see it to be true. But I do on some of your views of society: people always just assume someone's a Furry digital artist as opposed to gathering actual evidence.


----------



## Foxridley (Jul 19, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I still don't see it to be true. But I do on some of your views of society: people always just assume someone's a Furry digital artist as opposed to gathering actual evidence.


Though the difference may not be easy to find if the only difference is whether the person considers themselves a furry. I count myself as a furry. I don't hide this, at least not on sites where I have furry-related accounts, but I don't explicitly say it unless I'm asked.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 19, 2021)

Foxridley said:


> Though the difference may not be easy to find if the only difference is whether the person considers themselves a furry. I count myself as a furry. I don't hide this, at least not on sites where I have furry-related accounts, but I don't explicitly say it unless I'm asked.


Makes sense on the difference and not-telling-anyone thing.


----------



## perkele (Jul 19, 2021)

Furries are Downworlders. Anthros are Upworlders or Daywalkers


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 19, 2021)

perkele said:


> Furries are Downworlders. Anthros are Upworlders or Daywalkers


Anthros and Anthro Fans


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jul 19, 2021)

Join the Sonic fandom, we have an actual good movie and your characters get super powers! Plus, server Dr.Eggman and become a cool cyborg!


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 19, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Join the Sonic fandom, we have an actual good movie


there was a movie?

How the fuck does Sonic get a movie but Battletech doesn't


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jul 19, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> there was a movie?
> 
> How the fuck does Sonic get a movie but Battletech doesn't



With Jim Carrey, and it beat Birds of Prey. :3


----------



## BigFuzzyBenji (Jul 19, 2021)

Sonic succeeded where it absolutely should not have. Part of that can be attributed to them listening to us fans, and correcting the character model. But a large part was that is was just a good old fashioned silly family movie. It had some deep parts, some comedy, some action, but never tried to be too much of any of those (perhaps besides comedy, but I genuinely chuckled at some parts). It was just the kind of movie my folks would take my brother and I to when we were young, and it hit all the right notes.

Sorry to sidetrack.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 26, 2021)

BigFuzzyBenji said:


> Sonic succeeded where it absolutely should not have. Part of that can be attributed to them listening to us fans, and correcting the character model. But a large part was that is was just a good old fashioned silly family movie. It had some deep parts, some comedy, some action, but never tried to be too much of any of those (perhaps besides comedy, but I genuinely chuckled at some parts). It was just the kind of movie my folks would take my brother and I to when we were young, and it hit all the right notes.
> 
> Sorry to sidetrack.


I need to still see the new Sonic movie.


----------



## BigFuzzyBenji (Jul 26, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> I need to still see the new Sonic movie.



I was a huge Sonic mark as a kid, from the very first release. As someone who considers themselves a huge fan, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Worth checking out for sure.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Jul 27, 2021)

I just don’t see how this is a big deal, anthro just means a being was made to have a more anthro appearance, and furry is just a fandom.
Anthro is just used on furries because well, anthro animals.



Jaredthefox92 said:


> Join the Sonic fandom, we have an actual good movie and your characters get super powers! Plus, server Dr.Eggman and become a cool cyborg!


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 27, 2021)

BigFuzzyBenji said:


> I was a huge Sonic mark as a kid, from the very first release. As someone who considers themselves a huge fan, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Worth checking out for sure.


Cool





Jackpot Raccuki said:


> I just don’t see how this is a big deal, anthro just means a being was made to have a more anthro appearance, and furry is just a random.
> Anthro is just used on furries because well, anthro animals.
> 
> 
> View attachment 117153


ALL HAIL SIR EGGMAN!


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jul 27, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> Cool
> ALL HAIL SIR EGGMAN!



HE IS THE *E.G.G.M.A.N*, he has the master plan!


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 27, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> HE IS THE *E.G.G.M.A.N*, he has the master plan!


NNNYYYAAAHHH


----------



## Troj (Jul 27, 2021)

I've been cringing at the clickbait articles recently that have hooted about how Australia "accidentally" commissioned fursonas/furry art for the Olympics---cringing because these media outlets probably think they're being edgy and cool, but they're just revealing that they're desperately out-of-touch (and horny to boot).

Nothing says "I'm in middle school!" like announcing to the world that you just figured out that anthro animal characters are furries and furries are anthro animal characters. Nothing says "The pervert is actually me!" by announcing to the world that the Australian Olympic Committee has egg on their faces because _you_ think sexy thoughts when you see a cartoon kangaroo lift weights. 

Next they'll tell us that Avatar: The Last Airbender "accidentally" created anime,_ ROFLMAO, Nickelodeon must be sooooooo embarrassed._


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 27, 2021)

Troj said:


> I've been cringing at the clickbait articles recently that have hooted about how Australia "accidentally" commissioned fursonas/furry art for the Olympics---cringing because these media outlets probably think they're being edgy and cool, but they're just revealing that they're desperately out-of-touch (and horny to boot).


Like, I get that it would be mildly amusing if someone in the organization went to a random freelance or agency illustrator and went "hey, we want a cartoon kangaroo mascot for the Olympics, k?" and it turns out they unknowingly went to a furry. But it's not, like... mainstream newsworthy. At most it's something that'd be a fun curiosity to note on a furry "news" outlet or WikiFur or whatever.

(I've also heard claims that they didn't go to a furry illustrator, but did happen to provide some fandom art among the pieces in their "so this is the general type of thing we're looking for" brief. I'm not going to claim to know what the case here is; I'm just remarking on the generals.)


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jul 27, 2021)

Just my thoughts on it here, but I see "anthro" as a more technical term, that can apply to almost all furry characters, by it's definition.

I would consider the word "furry" to be a description that implies an identity or connection with the furry fandom.

The words are very similar in usageg, so I wouldn't say one is good or bad to the other.


----------



## Troj (Jul 27, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Like, I get that it would be mildly amusing if someone in the organization went to a random freelance or agency illustrator and went "hey, we want a cartoon kangaroo mascot for the Olympics, k?" and it turns out they unknowingly went to a furry. But it's not, like... mainstream newsworthy. At most it's something that'd be a fun curiosity to note on a furry "news" outlet or WikiFur or whatever.
> 
> (I've also heard claims that they didn't go to a furry illustrator, but did happen to provide some fandom art among the pieces in their "so this is the general type of thing we're looking for" brief. I'm not going to claim to know what the case here is; I'm just remarking on the generals.)



Apparently, the illustrator doesn't self-identify as a furry, and has expressed a stronger personal interest in anime---but, they've been very kind and gracious around the whole "furry issue," from what I've seen.

It makes perfect sense that a reasonable person would gravitate to the best examples of furry art when looking for or wanting to create a furry character, duh.

So, yeah, this a nothingburger for clicks, and anyone who is actually informed about these topics will see the kerfuffle as manufactured and ridiculous.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 27, 2021)

..This actually a thing people argue over? Sheesh. 

Talk about having too much spare time..


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 27, 2021)

Troj said:


> I've been cringing at the clickbait articles recently that have hooted about how Australia "accidentally" commissioned fursonas/furry art for the Olympics---cringing because these media outlets probably think they're being edgy and cool, but they're just revealing that they're desperately out-of-touch (and horny to boot).
> 
> Nothing says "I'm in middle school!" like announcing to the world that you just figured out that anthro animal characters are furries and furries are anthro animal characters. Nothing says "The pervert is actually me!" by announcing to the world that the Australian Olympic Committee has egg on their faces because _you_ think sexy thoughts when you see a cartoon kangaroo lift weights.
> 
> Next they'll tell us that Avatar: The Last Airbender "accidentally" created anime,_ ROFLMAO, Nickelodeon must be sooooooo embarrassed._


But only when it's confirmed a Furry actually drew the art.


----------



## VolatusArts (Aug 2, 2021)

*Now, this may get a little weird, as I'm not good with words. Never been my strong suit, but I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hope you can get what I mean based on the other side, OP and others. Forgive me if I misspeak, let me know how I can correct any terminology, but again, I don't mean to speak in a way that will hurt anyone or offend anyone.:*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


_I personally don't identify as a furry. I just don't believe I am in the lifestyle enough. And really, most my sonas are feral babies or some anthros who I draw for venting, uplifting or otherwise my own, enjoyment purposes. I know other who also say their anthro characters do not define them as a furry, and their primary commissions are refs of anthro commissions for people who do identify as furry. _

_Whether you believe that I am in denial or what, I believe this is our choice on what label, if we choose to use one, and how far we want to go into the fandom. 

As for the comparison to Looney Tunes in the earlier threads of this topic, I do not believe Looney Tunes has furries in it, more so classic anthros with a twist (more so just an artist's point of view, but the debate could make me rethink it. SpaceJam in particular. The style is very furry-isk. Not a bad thing, just honestly, does seem like an art change from the original cartoons, but there were new artists added.). 


Drawing any anthropomorphic animal shouldn't downright label someone as a furry, in my opinion. That's not to say I'm insulted to be called a furry. On the contrary, I am honored to be a part of this community, although I don't personally identify as a full out furry. I have had people who have called me furry, which is fine. I take pride, as I said, in any community I stand in, whether fully or not. Those who have called me a furry even for feral work, however, just showed their ignorance for being so demeaning towards a loving community who accepts almost anything (within reasoning). At one point, I did think I was going to label myself as a furry, but I just personally feel as though I'm an artist with a tendency to love the furry art style vs anthro for my characters if I do draw them upright than so much the lifestyle.

Another thing, I would call myself a furry, but I don't think I deserve the title, either. I cannot buy a fursuit, nor would I have the courage to wear it. Takes a lot of guts, and honestly, with my anxiety, especially with how hateful people can be, I'd be shaken up with any little altercation. Right now, off my pills, you can blow on me, and I'll rattle. I'm a mess. Other members? So strong, so proud and not afraid of it. Wearing their cute suits with pride. I couldn't call myself a full furry and have shame in my heart like that when someone scolds me, and I know I would because I am a child at heart who cannot help but cry a little when scolded. Just wouldn't seem fair to the community I represent. . ._

*Summary: *
_Maybe others can also testify, but I love the art style of furry animals vs some anthros. Much more cartoony, expressive and I love it.
I just personally cannot say I'm a full furry when I feel as though I cannot represent the full lifestyle and pride of the label. _
*
Others may have different reasons, but these are mine.*



Now Edit: Are they the same? Sort of. Anthropomorphic is just anything with human qualities, it's just the style in how you draw it. I do draw my art as furries. I just cannot identify as a furry, as I feel like I'd be misrepresenting a wonderful community. So yes, you're not wrong to say anthros are furries and furries are anthros. But for commission sakes, if the artist has a whole list like this:



May wanna choose the right one, i.e furry or anthro.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Again, I know this maybe still may not make sense to some of you, but those are my reasons. I ask for no hate. None of this was supposed to upset anyone, and if I can reword it or change this to make sense and not hurt anyone, please do let me know how. I just wanted to say why I personally think this way, and why I may not want to label myself as something to not further upset anyone.*


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 2, 2021)

VolatusArts said:


> *Now, this may get a little weird, as I'm not good with words. Never been my strong suit, but I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hope you can get what I mean based on the other side, OP and others. Forgive me if I misspeak, let me know how I can correct any terminology, but again, I don't mean to speak in a way that will hurt anyone or offend anyone.:*
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> ...


While I can see the logic in this (i.e. is it a person with animal attributes or an animal with human attributes?), one notion I disagree with is that the difference between "Furry" and "not furry" comes down to the anatomy of the character, and even something as trivial as whether they have plantigrade or digitigrade feet. It seems very superficial.

I count myself as a furry, even though my fursona is feral.

I really think it has more to do with the intentions of the artist/creator than with superficial things like character design.

For instance, Fox McCloud would count as a furry character under the classification given above. But if someone draws fanart of him, not because he's a fox, but because they like the Star Fox or Smash Bros games, I wouldn't count that as furry art.

If a furry artist draws him out of the appeal of him being a fox, that likely count as furry art.


----------



## VolatusArts (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxridley said:


> While I can see the logic in this (i.e. is it a person with animal attributes or an animal with human attributes?), one notion I disagree with is that the difference between "Furry" and "not furry" comes down to the anatomy of the character, and even something as trivial as whether they have plantigrade or digitigrade feet. It seems very superficial.
> 
> I count myself as a furry, even though my fursona is feral.
> 
> ...


Furry in art vs anthro is what I meant. Anthros are different, refer to the image above. Furry as a lifestyle, if you choose to label yourself as such, feral OC or not, sure, you're a furry. 

It all depends on context, in all honesty. Are we talking about your label to the community or how the character is supposed to be drawn?


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 2, 2021)

VolatusArts said:


> Furry in art vs anthro is what I meant. Anthros are different, refer to the image above. Furry as a lifestyle, if you choose to label yourself as such, feral OC or not, sure, you're a furry.
> 
> It all depends on context, in all honesty. Are we talking about your label to the community or how the character is supposed to be drawn?


And I mean in art as well. What I'm saying is, whether the art (or character) is furry or not depends on the intentions of the artist and/or creator of the character in creating it, rather than the details of the character design.

My fursona is feral, but since he was created by a furry for use in the furry community, he is a furry character and art of him is furry art.


----------



## Kinguyakki (Aug 4, 2021)

Definitions within the fandom are going to be more specific.

It's probably not a good idea to try to have lengthy conversations to "educate" people who aren't necessarily interested in the fandom, because it just comes off as kind of weird and they're really not going to care about it enough to learn anything.

Within the fandom, there's no real point in debating over what the correct terminology for "furry" or "feral" or "anthro" is.  Just have fun with it.


----------



## MidnightorCoffee (Aug 4, 2021)

Tbh i think its the same i dont think that it really matters alot just saying-


----------



## VolatusArts (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxridley said:


> And I mean in art as well. What I'm saying is, whether the art (or character) is furry or not depends on the intentions of the artist and/or creator of the character in creating it, rather than the details of the character design.
> 
> My fursona is feral, but since he was created by a furry for use in the furry community, he is a furry character and art of him is furry art.


I can respect this, even if I, myself, still would like a commissioner to be a little more exact. But yes, if you define your character as a furry and he is a feral, call him what you wish. It is truly what you are comfortable with.


----------



## Ex-Sketch (Aug 6, 2021)

Hello! Found this page in some googling about the topic and decided to make an account to chime in.

To me, Furry in this context has 2 meanings.
1 - The art or creation. An Anthropomorphized animal of some kind.
2 - The person. Someone who considers themselves a furry.

So yeah, "Anthro" can mean anything. You can make an Anthropomorphized Storm like Cloudy Jay or Anthropomorphize a concept like time or space. It just means giving something not human traits that are human.
To me, Furry-1 is just the catch-all for Anthropomorphized Animals (regardless of fur) or Animal like beings. No art style or skeletal anatomy rules need to apply. Some styles and anatomy are more popular within the subculture, but the core concept is simply "Anthropomorphized Animals/ Animal like things". Bugs Bunny and Mickey are anthropomorphized animals, so they fall under that term. Fictional creatures like Minotaur also fall under that term.

As for the person part, it's simple to me. A Furry is someone who takes up that title. You don't have to go to cons or have a fursona or do fur suits or look for yiff or w/e. But in that same note, I don't really think you can tell someone that they are a furry. I couldn't tell someone they're a Trekky just because they watched 1 Star Trek movie and even if someone watched all the seasons of all the series and all the movies because they enjoy Sci-fi ... they may not consider themselves a Trekky and that's fine.
Your connection and engagement to these types of fandoms as well as what you want to go by is wholly personal.

So yeah, IMO furry as it relates to art/ creation/ depictions is just another word for "Anthropomorphized animal of some kind". As such, it has a lot of overlap with a lot of other fandoms and such.
One does not have to consider themselves "Furry" to make furry art or like things that fall under that term. 

This has been my Ted Talk.


----------

