I'm quoted on SomethingAwful.com!

[pyesetz]

There's a thread on SomethingAwful.com where they make fun of furries who have offspring.  Many of their posts quote from my Sozont story.  I'd like to reply to them, but I refuse to pay $9.95 for the right to post at their website, so I'll just put the comments here.

> [A quoted paragraph from my furryparents post] WTF?  Seriously.  WTF? [A quoted sentence from episode #1]
Please try harder, aliensex.  I understand that this story doesn't match your cardboard-cutout mental picture of Furries, but if you ever intend to get anywhere in your life, you need to try harder to understand how your fellow humans think--yes, even the Furry ones.

> [Same post quote] Fun for the whole family.
Well, no, Shii.  Sozont is rated NC-17.  We're talking about "furry parents" here, not "furry families".  But your confusion is understandable, since it seems your mental age is still at the level of "dead baby" jokes and you cannot wrap your head around the idea of ever becoming a parent yourself.

> [The story has other objectionable elements as well: M/M, M/F...]  If you look away from the fact that it's a furry story we're talking about here: When did old fasioned male/female sex become objectionable? Or am I just misinterpreting the acronyms here?
In this case, ymgve, you can't look away from the fact that it's furry.  Many furs are gay and might object to a story about straight furs.

> The acronyms are advertisements more than they are warnings.
Correct, IMJack!  While some would object to M/F, furry parents would be expected to like that sort of thing.

> According to this guy, lesbian sex is the only non-obectionable form of sex.
No, it's just the only kind of sex that doesn't appear in the story yet, although Marth admits to being an active lesbian in #22.

> [#5 quoted in entirety, no comment]
Yeah, that's a good episode for trolls!  Too bad it's the last funny episode in the story (why does Sozont have to eat *Bambi*?).  I had hoped to continue the humor further, but the story acquired a mind of its own and went in a different direction.

> [holodeck-style Furry World]  Is this the missing link between trekkies and furries?
Gee, nerdfish, you think maybe so?  Is the lightbulb in your head starting to glow just a little?  BTW, the holodeck stuff doesn't show up until episode #7.  It doesn't seem that any goon was able to read that far.

> what the fuck does he meain by intrusive politics?
How nice of you to ask!  See #18, #20, and #23.  Just some RL politics I felt like throwing in, which intrudes on the furry story.

---

Okay, now for the really bad stuff:

> furries wish they were born as animals with knotted dicks
All SA'ers wish they were throwaway characters on Beavis & Butthead.

> I understand that you're a monsterously depressed individual unable to interact without a social, mental, and often physical mask to hide behind; you need professional help, now
Yes indeeed, IRQ, it's clear that you understand what your problem really is.  So when will you start counseling?

> "Hi kids...daddy has a special need to put on an animal suit and have random sex with strangers. Of course, this may sound strange to you/your friends/the known world but I do it to express my individuality/sexuality/weirdness. If any of your friends make fun of you, tell them that you don't need friends that make fun of your parents."
So, Sventek, what exactly is wrong with this scenario?  And why do you mention it?  It isn't *my* secret desire--is it yours?

> I mean they're actually, truly, undoubtedly doing harm to children.
Not as much as you, Exilechamp.  SA is an "attractive nuisance", corrupting unsuspecting nerdy youths who accidentally come across it on the web.

> I wonder if there is a license to hunt furries.... I'm not trying to be funny, I really want these sick fucks OFF my planet
So, Golobulus, would it make you proud to grow up to be a murderer?  Killing people is immoral, even if they're wearing fursuits.

> I think now is the time we implement the final solution to the furry problem.
All SA'ers are Nazis and should be placed in concentration camps.

> someone put this fur-hole in a fur-nace like a bunch of unwanted Jewish kittens at the SPCA.
You are going straight to hell, Nazi scum.  And you already know that, don't you?  It's interesting that all mass murderers begin by torturing kittens.

---

Okay, six days later and the goons are still at it, adding more posts to their thread.  What a bunch of obsessos!  Tobu was my tool and mentioned this journal entry there, so some goons stopped by to post comments here.  It seems that the goons who are still interested in this topic are very shy; most of them posted anonymously and most of their comments were of no redeeming social value, so I deleted them and disabled anonymous comments for now.  If you've got something to say here, put your name on it or hold it in until next week.

> Oh no, replying with immature generalisations? Pot, kettle, black, grease stain in a fursuit...
Perhaps NMR understands what I was trying to say in this post.  I merely substituted "goon" for "furry" in the same generalizations that SA'ers were making.  If that hurts, you're just as hypersensitive as the ones you're making fun of.

> [All SA'ers wish they were throwaway characters on Beavis & Butthead] Awesome!
If NMR is admitting here that that he really *would* like to be a throwaway B&B char, he is exempt from my "Nazi scum" generalization because he is willing to look at himself.

> that is on a whole new level of furry dumbfuckery
I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  I have invented a whole new level of something?  Go me!

> Animals dont get off on sex
Um, what planet are you from, Serious Spam?  Do you have any idea how many times a day a male chicken has sex with female chickens?  Do you think he feels like a robot while he's "doing it"?

> Now stop being so damn funny, I have to get some work done today!
Oh, all right.  Sheesh!  What a killjoy.

Comments

Re: A little info that isn't trolling, why we don't take kindly to furs.

[pyesetz]

A smarter man would have known not to get involved in even the smallest way with the thousands of members SA's forums have, Pyesetz.
What bad outcome do you predict for someone who stupidly opposes the goon hordes?

$10 is more than worth access to it in my opinion.
Indeed it might be, if I ever planned to make more than one post. I much prefer websites that offer limited posting rights for free and then charge for expanded rights, so I can "try before I buy".

In truth, one of SA's main goals is just to get people mad.
That's not a truth they try to hide. Does this journal entry make anyone mad? If so, does that make me a goon-like creature?

The Furries are a good target for this because: (1) They take their lifestyle seriously.
Why is it common among goons to use "The Furries" as if there were some statement that applies to all of them? That's right-wing simplistic thinking. Does your statement apply to claviarm?

2) Their lifestyle is somewhat imaginary
No, the lifestyle is real, but the "Animal Within" is somewhat imaginary. Why does this make Furries a better target for trolling than other roleplayers?

(3) People will always focus on the outlandish members of any group.
Yes, but there seem to be too many SA'ers who like to use the Fascist approach of treating all members of a group as equivalent to the most reprehensible member. It is a fact that some Furries have sex while wearing fursuits, but that fact does not justify the assumption that any fur who says he doesn't is a liar.

Should they be allowed to go about their harmless way? Yes. Are others as accepting as I? No...not by any means...)
Some people who hate their own lives delight in trying to make others more miserable than they are. Such behavior is fundamentally criminal.

4) ...many have lost sight of the fact that their lifestyle is, in fact, on the fringe.
Furs are a shy lot. Most of them spent their childhood thinking there was nobody else in the world who was anything like them. It is only since the rise of the Internet that many of them have discovered that there's a million others who are remarkably similar. They don't want to hide in the closet anymore, and they shouldn't have to in a free society. But yes, many of them are constitutionally hypersensitive to criticism, which is why they were hiding to begin with.

In the end, what I am trying to say is that you should only respond to someone who wants you to respond
Try posting this idea on SA and see how far you get.

If you don't like it, ignoring will work far better than anything else.
Actually, this journal entry was supposed to be a "honey pot", attracting stupid goons and enticing them to say stupid things so I could get them banned. But they were too smart for me!

The anonymous poster is right about children being involved (though I doubt many Furs both have childen and involve them). The Fur community, in general, is far too sexually based for them.
As a childless person, you have no right to tell me what is and is not too "sexually based" for my children. Any child raised in the US today has been exposed to far more sexuality through television than even the most depraved individual of the 19th century could ever get.

It is and all of you know it is so don't pretend that it isn't.
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Read hakeber's comment again.

if I go into google and type "Furry" I'll get more erotica than not.
And what does that prove? Try searching for "jew" and you get a bunch of hate sites, along with an "Offensive search results" comment from Google. That doesn't prove that Jews are a hate-filled people, only that haters are more like to say "jew" while Jews are more likely to say "Judaism" or "Jewishness". If I want to search for Furry stuff, I generally include the search-term "furries" since the plural is rarely used for anything else.

Re: A little info that isn't trolling, why we don't take kindly to furs.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

Does your statement apply to claviarm?
Given that Claviarm freely refers to himself as a Furry, I would say that I would call him one.

What bad outcome do you predict for someone who stupidly opposes the goon hordes?
I do believe Livejournals have a bandwidth limit. I have seen livejournals knocked offline simply because someone linked to them. That's all I was thinking of when I made that statement.

Yes, but there seem to be too many SA'ers who like to use the Fascist approach of treating all members of a group as equivalent to the most reprehensible member.
That's most people in general. It's easier on the common man. He doesn't have to understand another group if all of them are "bad".

many of them are constitutionally hypersensitive to criticism
Yes. I have seen more than a small number of Furs berate trolls for not living the Fur lifestyle. While I understand that this is done out of a combination of counter trolling and a desire to feel pride in one's lifestyle, using the same discriminatory tactics against anti-furs is neither healthy nor morally correct.

Try posting this idea on SA and see how far you get.
I do not see what my statement had to do with SA. They are content to mock from afar. If they get a rise out of their target, they think it all the better. I was simply saying that it does them no harm to respond. It makes it all the more amusing for them.

so I could get them banned
Banned from where? Livejournal?

As a childless person, you have no right to tell me what is and is not too "sexually based" for my children.
Actually, if we are going the experience route I am uniquely qualified to talk to you about children. The reason I have no right to tell you what is and is not sexually based for your children is because the are your children. But I never said "Pyesetz, here's how to raise your kids..." I stated my opinion.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Read hakeber's comment again.
Hakeber's comment has no bearing. He stated that the Anonymous poster assumed it had to do with sex and that he himself did not fur suit. I stated that the Fur community was very sexualized. It does have a strong undercurrent of sexuality. There is nothing wrong with that. Many furs defend the fact that the fur community has a strong sexual segment so powerfully that I often wonder if they are ashamed of it. It is what it is and likely always will be. Swingers would like the sexual connotation associated with their lifestyle removed as well...(an extreme example I know, but it is still valid enough to be made)

And what does that prove?
It proves that the internet is way too sexualized. The Fur community relies on the internet quite a bit (you more or less said it yourself). While bringing children into a small group of people you know would not be terrible, bringing them into a convention environment or an open party (All furs in the *insert area* come meet at *insert place*) is far from a good idea. (I would advocate the same position for anything else that involves a great deal of anonymity)

As a final note, a google search for "furries" still brings up a great deal of erotica or sexually suggestive hits...even with "safe search" on.

Re: A little info that isn't trolling, why we don't take kindly to furs.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

I forgot to respond to:
Why does this make Furries a better target for trolling than other roleplayers?
And it's important so I will add this post.

Remember when I said Since the Furs are so active in their networking, many have lost sight of the fact that their lifestyle is, in fact, on the fringe?

Your statement is a classic example. Furs are not at all as mainstream as role players.

But there is hope! When table top RPGs first came out RPers were mocked a lot. They are still mocked today, though not as much. Why? Because it's old hat. RPers were never mocked as much because there was no internet when they first came out. But they were associated with Satan and police in small towns arrested role playing groups just for gathering. Sounds like they were treated pretty harsh to me...
As Furs gain in the public eye they will become more accepted and less terrorized. But...

There is is a slight problem. RPers may have been associated with Satan, but Furries are considered a sexual deviance. To the average non-Fur (the few but growing number who know of the Furs) being a Fur is along the same lines as being into BDSM or some other fetish. Is that true? No more so than RPers being followers of Satan. But all that matter is what the public thinks and all they see is Fur suits and a close tie to beastialists.
Sex is the new Satan in American society and unless there is a stron effort to change that then it will be quite some time before being a Fur is anything different than being a pervert. (Many out there still believe Dungeons and Dragons is a manual on how to worship Satan...)

[pyesetz]

hakeber is a she.

The Furry community is indeed very sexualized, as is human life in general.  Eat, sleep, copulate, strive for social status--it is only in the US with its Puritan origins that the 'copulate' part is considered disgusting.  Furries strive to let their Inner Animal out.  The human Inner Animal is very protective of the offspring of other members of its village.  If you think putting a child in a room full of anonymous Furries is dangerous, you've been watching too much TV.  Remember, even if only one in a million Americans is a pedophile, that's still 300 of them, enough to mention one on TV almost every day.  But a convention containing 2500 furs would probably have exactly zero pedophiles.  A public high school is a far more dangerous place.

I am not aware of an LJ bandwidth limit.  If there is one, I'm sure that exceeding it would have led to a temporary off-lining that I could then brag about ("For a brief moment I was so popular, LJ couldn't afford to serve my page to everyone who wanted it.")

Why do you say "I hate to double-post" when you do it almost every time you visit my journal?  The Furry approach would be to accept that "double-poster" is who you are, and while negative things can be said about that practice, there is nothing to be gained by trying to pretend that you're not abnormal in this minor way.

My understanding is that claviarm is a Furry whom you know quite well, so you can pre-check any statement you might make about "the Furries" by ensuring that at least it describes him.  I don't think Shaun takes his furriness very seriously (e.g., he says the Rat Within is not really a rat at all, but just a metaphor for an objectionable aspect of his personality).  So why do you make a statement about "all Furries" that doesn't even apply to the one you know?

using the same discriminatory tactics against anti-furs is neither healthy nor morally correct.
Many anti-furs have the same personality types as Furries, but they hate their Animal Within instead of accepting it.  Thus many of the same argumentative tactics that get furs all steamed up work just as well against their tormentors.  Besides, as warrenwolfy says, it's all in fun.

Banned from where? Livejournal?
Yeah.  FEEL THE POWER!  But I only banned one guy from my journal and nobody actually said anything that was worth mentioning to LJ Abuse.  Oh, well.  I'll try again some other day.

I am uniquely qualified to talk to you about children.
Why?  Because you've been one?  Do you feel your parents didn't try hard enough to keep you away from temptation?

I stated my opinion.
You are entitled to have a stupid opinion in your head.  You are entitled to express an educated opinion.  You have no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express an opinion based on hearsay in the journal of someone who actually knows about the subject.  But you mean well, so I won't delete your comment.  Would you like a panel of deaf people to be setting the legal limits on permissible sound-volume levels at rock concerts?

furs are considered a sexual deviance
There are many subgroups in Furry.  One group, the fur-fetishists, is indeed a sexual deviance.  I have no idea if claviarm enjoys that fetish.  If not, should he still be considered a sexual deviant because he associates with Furries?  Another group of Furries (almost entirely gay) treats conventions as hunting grounds for debauched orgies.  Some of these people are also swingers.  I think the ones who get most offended by SA'ers are the ones (such as Hakeber) who aren't in either of these groups and don't feel they deserve to be tarred with the same brush.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

hakeber is a she.
I shall attempt to remember that. I use he only because it is the gender neutral pronoun in our society(we really should have a true gender neutral pronoun) and because I refuse to use he/she (I'm lazy).

Furries strive to let their Inner Animal out. The human Inner Animal is very protective of the offspring of other members of its village.
Be careful where you go with this. While it's a beautiful ideal, it's also a dangerous one. Someone could just decide to start showing up. When I say to be careful of anonymous gathering I am not basing that on Furs. I am basing it on the fact that it is an anonymous gathering of adults whom could be from anywhere and of any belief. I would say the same to a gathering of any other group. Some groups attract these more than others. Since Furries have a reputation in the public eye as being sexual deviants, as they grow more mainstream if they keep this connotation they could easily become one of these groups.

if only one in a million Americans is a pedophile
There are more. A great deal more. And certain things are more likely to bring them out than others. Like anonymous internet gatherings where there will be children.

I am not aware of an LJ bandwidth limit
I do believe that it required the owner of the journal to contact LJ. I say this because when you visited the journal it asked the owner of it to do so. (Since there was nothing offensive on the board, I assume it was a bandwidth issue)

Why do you say "I hate to double-post"
That was just a polite thing to say.

My understanding is that claviarm is a Furry whom you know quite well, so you can pre-check any statement you might make about "the Furries"
My statements were about furries in general. No one is exactly alike. Claviarm will be the first to tell you that Furs often take themselves too seriously.

same argumentative tactics that get furs all steamed up work just as well against their tormentors.
It's still neither healthy nor morally correct.

Why?
No, because of a unique situation I would prefer not to go into. But experience is a poor judgment of who is qualified to give advice. Every child is different because they are people not generic objects. (far too much of American society considers them to be objects)

You have no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express an opinion based on hearsay in the journal of someone who actually knows about the subject.
I never said I was entitled to express anything. I did express an opinion and then explained to you that I was stating my opinion rather than offering advice when asked. It is an opinion based on facts which are then interpreted by me. An "educated" opinion, if you will. I place a lot of emphasis on the societal perception of the lifestyle and the way it will affect any child who lives such a way. You place more emphasis on the lifestyle as you have experienced it. In the end it doesn't matter because neither of us are children being exposed to the furry lifestyle and it is their opinion that matters most.
In the end, I just feel that children should not be exposed to any lifestyle at all. I think if they come to an adult with questions, those questions should be answered as honestly as possible. (Unlike most people, I also consider heterosexuality a lifestyle)

But you mean well
I do. :)

There are many subgroups in Furry. One group, the fur-fetishists, is indeed a sexual deviance.
In truth, most people have a sexual "deviance." It is a natural extension of our individuality.

who aren't in either of these groups and don't feel they deserve to be tarred with the same brush.
But they are. It isn't right, but it is how it is. I am fully aware there are different groups, a good look at ALF will tell you that. But as far as most are concerned you are all fur-suiting freaks who should have their children taken away. (Just as all nudists are sexual deviants who should have their children taken away because they must be pedophiles...even though if a nudist were a pedophile it would be even more obvious than a non-nudist pedophile. And in fact they have more to fear from outsiders than each other.)

[pyesetz]

[if only one in a million Americans is a pedophile]  There are more. A great deal more.
The proponents of the police-state have been saying for years (centuries even) that there's a pedophile under every rock, but very few have ever been found.  Most pedophilia news stories are either entrapment cases or parents who took non-sexual naked photos of their own children.

a unique situation I would prefer not to go into
As you wish, although you are posting here under an assumed name and can discuss things that IRL would be too hard to say.  I originally created this "Pyesetz" moniker so I could talk about my Canadian-immigration difficulties; IRL it seemed too dangerous to admit that I wanted to leave, considering Bush's "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" comments.

a good look at ALF
So you've looked at ALF?  What do you think of Dan Skunk's article on the Feral convention?  Of the various things he did there, the only one that really interests me is the "predator-prey" game.  I'm not sure why it seems to be an ironclad requirement that all Furry con-trip reports must mention taking a shower, but I did it too in my report.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on how you define pedophile. Given that a significant number of our nation's and the world's prostitutes are underage and that more than a few are 12 or under I would say there are plenty of adults willing to prey on children. There are also quite a few people in jail for sexually abusing their children and that's with most cases going unreported. Granted though, a person is more likely to assault children close to them than they are a strangers child.

I skip over most things written about con experiences no matter what the con. They usually involve what the person saw or did and at least some of the obligatory statements about what a hassle getting to the con was, how hard it was to find people, how much was going on and how overwhelming it was, and how tired they were afterward. While all of these are generally true, it just gets old reading them after a while.

And since I shan't become a friend of FurryParents, I shall post here that I think it was inappropriate for Sozont to ask about STDs only after the lame sex scene. By Western standards you should have either had him ask responsibly before hand or, better yet, ignored the subject entirely. Also, I fail to see why you would have expected the simple and rather natural act of one animal eating another to take flames...then again many of those "nice" furring communities think it trolling when someone presents a different opinion than themselves. I did enjoy the bit about "Furry Fairytale Land."

[pyesetz]

Yes, "pedophile" is hard to define.  There are lots of men willing to have sex with a 12-yo girl who presents herself as an experienced whore.  There actually *are* a vanishingly small number of men willing to rape an unrelated 12-yo girl who presents herself as an innocent schoolgirl--these guys are about as rare as serial murderers.

Of course it was inappropriate for Sozont to mention AIDS after having sex!  It's supposed to be a J-O-K-E!  The chapter is entitled "A Furry Parody".  Sozont *always* does the wrong thing!  Besides, it adds a note of realism, since IRL these things are often not discussed until too late, to avoid finding out something that might cause having sex to seem like not a good idea (you can't expect rational behavior from someone who decides to go to bed with an echidna within minutes of first meeting).

I'm glad to hear you liked "Furry Fairytale Land".  It was introduced as a silly name for where Sozont and Spike are located in episode #4, but it acquires a completely different meaning in #7 and following episodes.  Storyline consistency?  Who needs that?

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

But a convention containing 2500 furs would probably have exactly zero pedophiles.

Doesn't hold true for the ones I've been to. Not remotely. Many of the other statements you made are also either attempts at "spin" or simply based in ignorance.

I don't think Shaun takes his furriness very seriously (e.g., he says the Rat Within is not really a rat at all, but just a metaphor for an objectionable aspect of his personality).

Objectionable? You're making things up again. I'd rather you not make things up, at least about me, and I'd rather you not use my real name.

[pyesetz]

Thank you for visiting my journal!  Please feel free to post useless comments--I'll just delete the ones I don't like.

[convention... 2500 furs... zero pedophiles] Doesn't hold true for the ones I've been to.
What is your estimate?  In this context, the appropriate definition for "pedophile" is "someone who would rape a child found wandering alone at a Furry convention".  Children do wander alone at AnthroCon; have any been molested?

attempts at "spin"
All con-trip reports are politicized--the requirement that such reports must promote hygienic showering is merely the most obvious indicator of this.

Objectionable? You're making things up again.
My adjective stands.  In the current context of "What Goons think of Furries", your rat is the personalification of disgustingness--just look at that icon!  I also think many Christians would object to your rat's attitude towards religion.

I'd rather you not make things up, at least about me
Yes, I'm getting bored with using you as an example of how Zi's generalizations about Furries fail to match one specific Furry whom he knows, but I'm not aware that he knows any others.

I'd rather you not use my real name.
Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant if you wish to not be my friend.  As I understand the current "personal trademark" law, you do not have the right to insist that people not talk about you, and only limited rights to insist that the word "Claviarm" not be used except when talking about you.  This journal is not a broadcast medium (under the law, anyway) and so you have no right to insist on retractions for inaccurate statements made about you, although I'll consider such requests if presented in proper form with citations.  The Claviarm=Shaun equation is public knowledge since you posted it to ALF.

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

Seems when I said "I'd rather you not" you heard "You don't have the legal right to." Seems you're yet again making things up.

I was making known my preference. Your insistance that anything you have the legal right to do is just fine, regardless of the desires of those involved, suggests that you have no morals or common social decency. In standard terms, it means you're a jerk--even moreso since you seem so self-righteous about it. Why you'd want to be that, I don't know.

[pyesetz]

Seems you're yet again making things up.
This seems to be your preferred explanation for why our viewpoints clash.

I was making known my preference.
Yes, after previously describing me using words like "spin", "ignorance" and "making things up" that are more properly applied to the Fascist Republican party. Surely you were not expecting a positive response to your polite request after such negative preparatory remarks?

you're a jerk
You're projecting.

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, because certainly nothing I've said had a basis. All my statements weren't based on actions of your own, usually that I explained while commenting. Or did you not read those parts of the comments?

You make false statements. Based on what you've said on this page, you seem to think that's perfectly alright, even when it's intentional. The phrase "making things up" fully and properly applies. If you don't like it, perhaps you should stop doing it.

"Spin" and "ignorance" are better than "out-and-out lying," which is the only other possibility when you make a false statement. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

As for the last part, my previous explanation hasn't been met with anything but a grade-school response of "No, /you're/ a jerk," so I don't think I need to make a further argument there.

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

Also I'll add that if you really do have some sort of concern regarding friendship between us then the best route to take would be /not/ to blatantly contradict requests and (apparently, based on your second-to-last paragraph) intentionally lie about me.

I was content before to think of you just as a very strange person who I was mostly indifferent towards. But acting like this makes me feel quite negatively towards you.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

DRAMA!