Creative Commons license icon

Fur Affinity updates code of conduct to disallow hate groups

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (13 votes)

On September 4, Fur Affinity released an update to their code of conduct indicating that works or items that promote hate groups will no longer be tolerated on furry's most popular art site. The new rule in the code of conduct (2.7) states:

Do not identify with or promote hate groups and their ideologies
A hate group is one that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a designated sector of society (e.g. Nazism, KKK, ISIS). Symbols specifically associated with these groups will not be permitted in user avatars, non-fictional content, or content intended solely to disrupt the community.

Users who identify with or promote hate groups and their ideologies may be permanently banned from Fur Affinity without warning.

The update has already created a stir in furry fandom. Many were pleased with the decision and felt it was a step in the right direction. However individuals within alt-furry used it to launch a particularly harsh attack on Dragoneer with a sock-puppet account named after his recently-deceased cat.

A clear direction, but questions linger on enforcement

Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan, and ISIS have been exclusively named on the site as being hate groups, to which most people can agree qualify. However, there has been criticism on whether the organization known as Antifa should be included in the list. Many in the fandom who identify with Antifa dismiss that as a faux complaint generated as propaganda by white supremacists in order to try and suppress decent to fascism. Others note that political ideology is currently not considered a protected class, and is an act more than a circumstance of birth.

But even setting aside the current debate over the fledgling group of Antifa, of which still most Americans are unsure of (53% as of August 16), there is an important highlight of responsibility that comes with the implementation of this policy. With the possibility of permanent banning based on this new rule it is important that people know when they are promoting a group that is considered a hate group by Fur Affinity, or which groups those are. Using the term "e.g." may not be in the best interest of users, because then it may be possible for certain moderators to make bans based on personal definitions, rather than an outside and objective source on what groups are recognized as hate groups.

Regardless, most agree on the three listed groups, and it's considered a step in the right direction by most users. Furry sites shouldn't be expected to be used to promote materials which inspire others to take action against other based on color, race, creed, gender identity, sexuality, or religion. Time will tell as to how it will be enforced and the details of when things are dealt with or not.

Another important detail to note is that fictional works containing hate groups an element of that work is not targeted by this rule. This caveat will not doubt create a particular grey areas that could lead to confusion on works that qualify as protected fictional work versus what is real promotion of such ideologies. Fursonas, for instance, kind of live in that fluffy middle ground of fantasy and reality. Regardless, users also have until September 18 to remove any items that violate the hate-group rule before it adversely affects their account.

Dragoneer harassed over new rules

Site community manager Dragoneer was met with a particularly unpleasant response from a furry fan with empathy to the alt-right, who created a Twitter account named after his recently deceased pet cat, Buffy. As of the posting of this article, the account attacked himself and Deo, a favored target of alt-furs; it has since been removed.


Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (9 votes)

Nice. The bottom section shows what bad faith is behind the "free speech" games. Of course FA and it's managers have their own freedom to refuse service, especially when it's not paid for, even if some loser with a pokemon avatar thinks they should be forced to build a platform for that.

Minor nitpick, Antifa is neither fledgling or a group, perhaps position is a good word? It's closer to the White Rose than other comparisons, including masks and everything.

There's a sub-issue which may still get an in depth article sitting in my drafts.

Excellent reading here for anyone looking at FA's policy and going "but what about the poor nazis"

If you haven't been forced to be around these people in a real world environment, it's probably hard to wrap your head around just how fucking odious these pricks are in person, but it's not a fucking joke. It's not a game. And it's NOT FUCKING POLITICS. They are, wherever they appear openly, a clear, present threat to anyone in their vicinity, anyone they can get in a vulnerable position. Anyone they can get their hands on. Hurting people, killing people, isn't just their political program – it is their visceral, emotional desire. It is their motive force. It is their animating drive. It's simply what they want to do, and this is borne out by their actions, every time they get a chance. Just look at the list of people they've killed.

Now compare that to the list of people killed by antifa. (Pro-tip; don't hold your breath looking for that list.)

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (10 votes)

More insults? That certainly seems like bad faith on your part. Also a bit weird to judge one ideology by the actions of people that you say don't support it in the first place!

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

Just a question. Do you inquire altright furries whenever they insult or use violent threats as directly as you do with Patch?
Aybe you do, but I haven't seen you lecture them as directly. Do you believe this because they won't listen or is it because you feel them as more justified when they protrey themselves enacting violence to enforce their view point?
Personally I don't poopoo people for being crass with their points. Some people are just crass.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (12 votes)

I have very little contact with alt-right furs and I can't recall any insulting me recently. Patch has on several occasions recently and at least two different sites. Also, a couple of days back Patch scolded someone on Twitter for insulting people and is no doing the same thing. Actually most of those insulting me lately have been on the left side of the political spectrum...

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (6 votes)

So you are saying you have a bias toward those who don't insult you? Then of course the Alt-right is going to suck up to you. They know if they do you'll pull for them.

They are just using you. Once they have power they will put you in the gullogs using your arguments on cp as the reason the planet would be better off without you. At least with Patch it's words

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (13 votes)

I can't call people out for insulting me if they don't. I'm also definitely not pulling for them; I probably oppose every one of the alt-rights positions on sexuality, race, gender etc.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (8 votes)

No, Rakuen, I didn't "scold someone" for doing the same. Don't put words in my mouth. It's yet another time when you failed to get what words mean and are mischaracterizing. I described someone else's BS about "let's hear out the nazis" as "an insult to intelligence". I wasn't telling them not to do that; I was calling nazis toxic and their enablers dumb.

Like I'm calling you dumb. You stand for nothing, your freeze peaching is the ultimate intellectual laziness behind superficial cliches about absolute freedom. You equivocate about untenable positions (like let's hear out the nazis! And trying to dismiss it as one-dimensional "ideology", which is completely beside the point. Yes everything is "ideology", except the kind we're talking about includes a promise of action. Being a neo-nazi and believing in bigotry is a promise of harm to others.) Weaseling and rhetorical hot air and "whataboutism" deserves no respect. There's no debate worth having here; it can be written off as pointless, and you as a spineless moron. "Wahhh I'm being insulted" yes, you are. The more you type the more insufferable it is. Pipe down, son.

I would like to add that this isn't my original opinion. You accumulated an insufferable reputation for a long time (hello SA furs) and I even held off from judging for years and gave you benefit of the doubt before (and I don't even judge people for simply being conservative, either). Let me just add to the consensus now. Constructive criticism: figure out what "ideology" implies and make a little progress with that half-baked misunderstanding. I admire idealism, this isn't it - more like dim, naive dogmatism. Come to the real world, Rakuen.

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (11 votes)

Excusing anything done by those you agree with and condemning anything done by those you disagree with is not a respectable position. What you're doing is like what happened on that one American college where some students tried to have all the white people leave and one professor refused. Then he was harassed, threatened and called racist despite having a whole history of opposing racism just because he disagreed with them on something.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (7 votes)

I'm not giving a "position", rakuen, and this isn't a debate. It's an observation. You're a moron and I don't debate morons. A debate implies an informed peer, not a simpering chucklefuck full of hot air and half-baked cliches. Your respect is worthless and I don't care what you have to say, it's like a mosquito whining in my ear. This isn't a disagreement, this is a "position" of fuck you. Please stop talking to me if you don't want to hear it, you utter wanker, it's the same thing I said to you a few days ago. Having to repeat it is a pretty good justification for saying it again now. This isn't a fucking college and there's zero reason anyone has to suffer the insufferable from you. There is an ignore feature, go use it. However I'll continue repeating this if you prefer to continue, just so it stays clear.

Everyone else has decent contributions thus far, it's a you problem. The root of the problem is that you act like just because your lips are moving, something important must be happening; nope, and there's all kinds of positions you can flat out dismiss, like talking about the earth being flat, or furry-nazism. Someone else might have the time to suffer a fool, but not me.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (6 votes)

Patch, it'd be easier to agree with some of your arguments if it didn't also mean condoning your insults, and the pugnacious attitude you have when interacting with people you disagree with.

Perhaps you're used to calling people "losers", "morons" and "dumb" in your neck of the woods, but it's not appreciated here, at least on my part. You have good points; let them do the talking. The personal attacks show a really ugly side of you, and I think you can be better than that.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (8 votes)

I may not be trained in formal logical fallacies, but this sounds a lot like

"Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself."

It also sounds a lot like the "He who gets mad first loses the argument" meme that has spread too damn far and deep.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the effectiveness of 'insults and pugnacious attitudes' in terms of swaying those you are arguing with or are observing the argument, fine - but your post here is not discussing the effectiveness of the communication of Patch's ideas, but rather that you feel Patch's points are being undermined or invalidated.

You also appear to be taking this in isolation, rather than as the end result of a long series of events. Patch's words are a result of the frustration of dealing with Rakuen's repeated offering of a poorly constructed and ill-thought-out position on "Free Speech", and Patch is not the only person who thinks that way of Rakuen's arguments or his defense of them.

Someone else said it, and I agree: Rakuen is arguing for Freedom from Consequence, not Freedom of Speech. I would go further: He is, by intent or by ignorance (willful, at this point), ignoring context and content of speech in order to make his point seem valid.

One should be cautious of reading too much hidden meaning into other people's language, but in the specific incidents being discussed lately we are talking about well-documented "coded" and "crpyto" speech. An argument against "Globalism" can sound passable until you discover that "Globalism" is a codeword for Jewish people, or "Urban" refers to "Black people". Rakuen's argument depends upon this subtext not being there.

Similarly, chanting "Blood and Soil" and "Jews Will Not Replace Us" can only be defended if you ignore the intent of the speech is as much a unifying slogan of White Supremacy as it is an attempt to intimidate and frighten a group of people. If I observed a march of people angrily chanting that, I would be scared for my life - and if I didn't see more people stepping up to counterprotest and confront these Nazi White Supremacists, I would be quite intimidated.

This attempt to spread fear and intimidate is the Free Speech that Rakuen is defending, and the counter-protest and confrontation is what he is attacking.

Meanwhile, the other side of the coin of Rakuen's philosophy of what Freedom of Speech means takes away people's Negative Freedom of Association - that is to say, the Freedom of Disassociation. This would ban such things as boycotts, and disallow people to shun those with harmful viewpoints. Without an exception, you cannot even remove a customer talking about how "the gays should all be killed".

Rakuen's response to that being pointed out was to say "Well, disruptive behavior can be removed", which immediately invalidates his entire point of the purity of Free Speech.

Rakuen's argument as a whole does not stand honest scrutiny. It is a blanket philosophy that allows for no nuance or context, and dishonestly contradicts itself. In his rush to defend his concept of Free Speech, he tramples over other rights and ignores the hundreds of years of experience we have with how Freedom of Speech is best implemented and regulated in society.

Rakuen's best defense is a slippery-slope fallacy predicated upon a mischaracterization of what people want done. "This specific ideology and these specific words are not could and should not be encouraged or legitimized for good reasons" is restated by him to be "ideas that you don't like".

In fact, this mis-characterization of whomever is arguing against him is a common theme by Rakuen. Wanting to shut down a group who is literally calling for my death is rephrased as "a difference of opinion" or "people you don't like". Two opposing groups, one who wishes to "exclude, chase out, or remove people based upon race and religion", and one who wishes to "exclude, chase out, or remove people based upon their desire to remove people based upon race and religion", are being falsely equivocated as "both groups want to exclude people".

Rakuen ignores subtext, context, practical implications, and historical record in order to try and make his argument stand, and repeatedly mischaracterizes opposing arguments in the self-assured tone that makes it clear he feels he is on the path of righteousness and everyone else are fools.

Rakuen may argue for Freedom from Consequence, but he has earned the attitudes and invective he receives.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)


the frustration of dealing with Rakuen's repeated offering of a poorly constructed and ill-thought-out position on "Free Speech", and Patch is not the only person who thinks that way of Rakuen's arguments or his defense of them.

Someone else said it, and I agree: Rakuen is arguing for Freedom from Consequence, not Freedom of Speech. I would go further: He is, by intent or by ignorance (willful, at this point), ignoring context and content of speech in order to make his point seem valid.

A naive absolutist counts every opinion as equal. Every tone is freedom of speech. He can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Actually now it's his turn to defend me. Or maybe what he says doesn't apply now :) See how that works? Maybe performing his positions will bring a little light to the murky swamp of his mental process. I doubt it though.

PS pugnacious is a good word, reminds me of little dogs barking at your ankle. Let me throw an image back: an ostrich burying it's head in the sand.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Don't confuse your disagreement with my position on it being poorly thought out or ignoring hundreds of years of years of experience. My position here is pretty much a reflection of that in On Liberty, published in 1859 and which is highly influential, well-respected and considered to provide the fundamental arguments for free speech. In terms of experience, the US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of free speech for Nazis on at least two occassions, saying that they have the right to march for their beliefs and that you can restrict that speech unless there are calls for imminent violence.
So your argument that this is somehow not thought out and goes against history just doesn't hold up.

Secondly this is not about tone, insults and ad hominems are something completely different. I never went into it (there are a lot of points I decided I just didn't have space to cover) but if you again look at the Free Speech Debate Project points, one of them is "We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief." That I interpret as you should be engaging with the arguments, not with calling the other person names. Assuming that that has any relevance to what is being discussed is a logical fallacy. And it does reflect badly on you as well.

Some of what you say here just doesn't reflect what I have said at all. For example, you talk about how if no one stands up you would feel intimidated. I said on numerous occasions that people should stand up just that that should not be done with violence. And if you think the other group is likely to engage in violence, don't provoke a reaction and then act innocent. Having a counter protest doesn't mean it needs to be at the same time and it certainly doesn't have to be at the same place. Going to a Nazi rally to protest it is unnecessarily creating a bad situation.

Lastly, Patch's points are not valid because he hasn't really presented a framework to discuss. All he has said is that he doesn't like Nazi speech and wants it suppressed. As I have already pointed out, that is a subjective decision. It makes the assumption that the law should follow his conception of what is right and wrong and that is just unrealistic. Not only that, there is a consistent and apparently wilful disregard of the bad precedent such interference would set because we see that even the positions he probably supports would be suppressed if we start allowing people to block free speech. This is not a slippery slope this is what actually happens in the real world.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (6 votes)

You've said nothing new here, and nothing that actually refutes what I said. You once again demonstrate my point.


Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Fun Fact: The Nazis v Skokki Case was what inspired the Nazis showing up in the comedy movie Blue's Brothers

I hate Illinois Nazis

Was said by one of the brothers before they attempted to run over their march with a car.

So the controversies surrounding the group and people's fantasies of doing violence to them are nothing new.

But unlike actual Nazis, who have shown they do run over people's marches with real life cars, I think common folks keep it to fantasy and let the cops handle it when they can.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

By "hundreds of years of experience" you mean freshman level pseudo philosophy and selectively quoting things you found on wikipedia that announce "I have google, let me show how smart I think I am." But you obviously don't read the sources you use for cliches and don't understand how the law works for speech.

It has to do with whether you can get arrested. Appeal to law is the last resort for addressing consequences in a community. "It's legal" is the last and least meaningful way to qualify if something is acceptable.

That's why it's important to label that you're not a lawyer, and the one who saw your article told me it's crap. (Boozy, a free speech advocate who knows this stuff). Also that you're not American and don't even live there, while you mansplain about American laws to people who deal directly in their communities with the insufferable stuff you're promoting.

Speaking of other countries, it's neat how you selectively pick American sources (which you haven't read) while Germany invalidates you by penalizing nazi speech. There's nothing subjective about that and no "slippery slope" so you just keep circling around and dodging some really basic stuff:

Nazis are bad and welcoming them in a community is bad and a community has a right to defend itself. There was a world war fought to settle that and there's nothing subjective about that either. Nazis have nothing to say that hasn't already gone in history's trash can. A community defending itself looks like them losing jobs, being refused service and told to go elsewhere. That isn't even relevant to court rulings (of countries you don't live in) which have to do with being arrested.

The ACLU (or the EFF, I talk to them in person, I live in their neighborhood) is only narrowly concerned with legal standards, meanwhile what you're promoting is little more than annoyance to people handling wider problems in a community. FA kicks you off for posting swastikas, what are you going to do, call the cops? It's funny to watch a few SovCit types imagining they can start something, Boozy was laughing about it.

Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" points out that nonviolent civil rights movements have been promoted for things that didn't actually make them succeed. The overwhelming response of Jews to the rise of Nazi power was nonviolent. When they did use violence, that was what saved lives and did significant damage to their war machine. What the world learned is that the time to act isn't after they take power, but whenever you can make sure they never will. Consequences like losing jobs or being denied service is the first thing to do.

Again, don't try to mansplain to Americans about what is or isn't happening here right now. I'm adding that you're an insufferable wanker with the IQ of a dog biscuit because it's funny to see pathetic comebacks and censoring me will prove my point. Accept the practice of what you preach, or make it stop.

Oh yeah, that happens everywhere, it's called basic standards. "No nazis" is a non-overbearing standard, it's not hard to refrain from putting out pseudo-info about races being subhuman. Standards are why communities have mods and filters or rules about being nice, or about content with kids in mind.

Of course if you had your preferences there would be kiddie porn available anywhere. Be honest, don't pretend this is about other things, you only care about the thing that got you in trouble.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

You're taking this way too far, man.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (6 votes)

Eh, I agree and empathize with Patches even as I'd suggest to moderate the tone. But that's a critique of communication.

Patch's arguments are accurate, and the frustration of arguing with the equivalent of the pigeon on the chessboard got to the boiling point. And under Rakuen's argument, Patch is perfectly allowed to say it. Absolute free speech, yes?

Possibly another good example where idealism crumples under practice.

Your rating: None

Wow, I've never seen you like this. I feel like giving you a warm hug as you sit down on the sofa.

Personally I consider FurAffinity's administration moronic, as demonstrated time and time and time and time again, so whatever they decide to do with their rules or site is of no interest to me as a subject of debate. I use FA for what it's worth. In 2017 and forward, there's only one action I would roaringly applaud: the migration of their databases & media to a different similar site, with a different board of administators. So I guess we agree we don't debate that which we consider moronic.

I don't have any particular dislike for Rakuen. He just happens to be wrong in the subject of freedom of speech. Censorship sometimes is adequate.

I say this as a utilitarian, so there's no fixed view on censorship in this ethical theory; Rakuen doesn't hold exclusivity on Stuart Mill's perspectives.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I'd say I'm more of a deontologist than a utilitarian. It has some nice ideas but it's better suited for determining the outcome when ethical rules conflict than for actually decided how one should live.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

IMO using utilitarianism partially when you think it suits, defeats the purpose of having it. In a world where there is no objective metaethical reason to assert one ethical theory is more 'true' than the other (given that there are several which are logically self-consistent), a filter that's proven to be successful in other fields of knowledge is Occam's Razor. Translated to formal reasoning: the theory that makes the least number of assumptions, or axioms (starting postulates), is the one to be chosen. Utilitarianism has one, 1, axiom. Deontology has several axioms, sometimes a ridiculous amount of them. You might as well recognize you're choosing ethical stances arbitrarily.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I think Occam's razor was meant for understanding the world, not trying to form ethical frameworks. And the axiom in utilitarianism is not a very good. There are certainly worse systems and I do see the appeal but it's overly simplistic and heavily weighted to the majority. It's not even clear what the majority is, are we talking globally or locally. Generally minorities are the ones that need protection. There are also many different ways to maximise happiness which do not lead to the same results. Is a situation where a portion of the population is absolutely content while the remaining portion live in misery to serve them better, worse or equal to a world where everyone is neither miserable nor ecstatic. The average happiness can be the same for both situations but they are very different worlds.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (5 votes)

This will be good for the community in the long run. Not surprised at all that the alt-furs went on a vile harassment campaign against Dragoneer. As is stated in Patch's quote, this is what they live for. It is what they do. Kind of reminds me of the story of the scorpion and the frog. For those who don't know, the scorpion asks the frog for a ride over the river to get to the other side. The frog says "no, you'll sting me if I let you on my back." Scorpion says "why would I do that? If I sting you when we are in the middle of the river we will both die." Frog then agrees with this sound logic and takes scorpion onto his back and starts into the river. Halfway into the river scorpion stings frog in the back. As they are both about to drown, Frog says "Why did you do that? We are both going to die now." Scorpion replies "It's in my nature."

It's a simple fable but has many real world parallels.

Your rating: None

Voyager kinda sucks but I remember that being one of the better episodes.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

If only I could believe there was even the faintest hint of sincerity to the decision.
If only literally years of direct experience with being shat on for trying to fight racism within their ranks hadn't taught me different.
If only it weren't so convenient.
If only they didn't feel their hands were forced by the current cultural climate.
If only this really made a difference.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

Is there a difference if it's convenient or not, if it's the same decision? It seems like things are different now than in the beginning of the year before RMFC was dragged down by the furry raiders. There were always toxic people around, I just don't think they went on recruiting sprees with armbands and hashtags and infiltrating staff before. Hate groups can be less and less acceptable again while they crawl back to the corners.

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (9 votes)

Because brushing it under the carpet is going to help so much.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (4 votes)

And cleaning up the rug of your sloppy roommate isn't going to teach them how to clean up their own mess.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

Putting it in their room (or in the trash can) is a needed message sometimes.

Or we can have Rakuen welcome it. Carpet's dirty? Poop on it to make it get cleaned faster, right? "Let's hear out the nazis, more hate speech stops hate" - fuck you

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

It's just that, from my experience, historically the admins don't even know pretty obvious racism when they see it. Unless it's "reverse" racism which they were always incredibly zealous about. And just recently I encountered Dragoneer telling a black furry who felt somewhat out of place in the fandom, because of his own experiences, basically that those experiences are irrelevant because furries care more about fictional species than race. Which was probably the most jaw-droppingly ignorant thing I've ever heard him say yet when I think about it now, it shouldn't have been because this is pretty typical of privileged whites. Of course, I'm "racist" just for ever criticizing white people, even though they're somehow "my own kind".

If it's not obvious, I don't trust these people, and think having about 12 years of almost entirely bad experiences with the site and hearing countless other horror stories just about these kinds of issues alone more than justifies that. I think this is nothing more than virtue signalling on their part. Well, that and wanting to avoid being spied on by law enforcement.

I think it's probably too late for that last bit. I would be more surprised if they weren't infiltrated years ago.

Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (5 votes)

My hope is that this will lead to more conventions taking a stand. Sometimes these things can snowball once someone prominent takes a stand.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

fledgling group of Antifa


Anyway, I'm really curious now if Fur Affinity has some like secret Daesh sect

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I was happy to learn that there's a muslim furries group, and even some Iranian furs. There was secular, liberal society there in the 70's. That country got fucked for oil, elected leaders deposed, religious radicals armed with US guns and CIA help, that's why their government is such an enemy - but there is still an entire culture of regular people who aren't with the leadership. I love having a creativity-based international conspiracy that makes common ground with anyone. One day this social group stuff might even be one of the doors for change, but for now I would just love to know more about people there.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (10 votes)

"Have some god damn standards."

- Dragoneer, the laughing stock of the fandom

Your rating: None Average: 5 (9 votes)

Regardless of your opinion of the man, mocking a person over their dead pet is definitely in poor taste.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Anything that pisses off Crusader Cat can only be a good thing.

Hopefully any Nazis banned by Dragoneer won't eventually be allowed to slink back onto the site, as CC was.

Crusader Cat even now is going on about how he's never said anything bad about Jews or gays in his life. It's a good thing some of us kept screencaps of his old LiveJournal, eh?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

You might want to check his actual FA account. I can't seem to find him denying anything. He's actually changed his avatar to a design based entirely on swastikas.

It really infuriates me when people like him get permabanned and probably deserved it, then get an exception made, which is a pretty big slap in the face to other people who got permabanned and aren't given a second chance even when they sincerely want to turn over a new leaf, and this is what they do with their second chance most others wouldn't get.

I don't think he should be banned for things he said years ago on a completely different site, but the way he's flipping the bird to a site that banned him for his bullshit and gave him a reprieve, probably against their better judgment makes me a hell of a lot less sympathetic to anything that comes his way in the near future from FA staff.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (4 votes)

So on another twist, if an individual is found to say "punching [X]" apparently it has successfully been thrown in as a violation of rule 1.1 in not encouraging illegal activity.

I think someone ought to copy the ToS and CoC to another site and then update it with the actual enforcement rules.


Do not encourage or engage in illegal activity.
This includes, but is not limited to, drug use (excluding marijuana use), piracy, and copyright infringement. While you may openly debate the validity of current laws, you may not promote, encourage, engage in, plan, post or link to content or activities that violate federal US law, or anything that could be used as directions for committing a crime.
In other words...
Do not discuss, promote, or engage in illegal activity.
Past enforcement using this rule:
-Encouraging the physical assault of a group of individuals, including fascists. (link to tweet)

FA has a tendency to interpret certain rules in ways that seem not intuitive to the spirit of the rule. Yes, physical assault is a crime, but the examples given are drugs and federal crimes.

If you punch someone I don't think the FBI is going to give a hoot, that's more a local law enforcement thing. Unless your name is like, Doomfist or something. So yeah, not an obvious interpretation of the kind of crimes that would fall under the stipulation. I mean the "spirit" of the rule to me is it's supposed to be indicating that organized crime such as piracy, drug trafficking, and such would be allowed on the site. Clearly that is not the case so it should be updated to indicate that the interpretation is not in the organized crime sense, but even just individuals just expressing a desire to punch someone.

Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (8 votes)

If someone is encouraging assault, I don't see how they can expect that not to fall afoul of a rule against encouraging or engaging in illegal activity. It is also incitement to violence. There's nothing that shows organised crime. Piracy and drug use are not organised crime. Drug production and distribution would be but that's not given as an example.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

Drugs are the very foundation of organized crime... ever hear of Capone?

Piracy, on the internet, is also considered an organized crime type... ever hear of DotCom?

Basically the spirit of the rule 1.1 when it was implemented was, "We're not Silk Road so don't use our site to sell your drugs/webpages/bootleg of Zootopia". It is now being used to broadly talk about individual feelings around misdemeanors.

All I'm saying is, they're about to get really busy if that's the way it's going to get enforced.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (7 votes)

Except they say drug use, which reads as more directed towards people saying that they use illegal drugs. Same with the piracy thing, that would be more towards people telling others where to get illegally cracked software or that they do that. That has been my experience in enforcing such rules that the main issue is people self-incriminating rather than people running some organised racket.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

"rule 1.1 when it was implemented was, "We're not Silk Road so don't use our site to sell your drugs/webpages/bootleg of Zootopia""

Can and will confirm, during my time the "No Illegal Activity" rule was for serious discussion or advocacy of criminal activity that would get FURAFFINITY in trouble, or talking/showing about crimes you are planning or have committed.

This literal interpretation of people's is troublesome; would I be in violation if I uttered the phrase "I'm going to rob Peter to pay Paul"? What if I referred to my visit to a store as "A smash and grab"?

At the same time, euphemisms and coded language meant to hide meaning are given a pass. I'm also concerned about the extent to which "Encouragement" and "Advocacy" are being interpreted, especially in a lopsided manner.

Edit: Your bit about putting in a "How this has been interpreted" version of the ToS/CoC? I argued for for that very thing back when I was an admin. Just something that would say "What does this mean in practice, well," and have examples (names removed to protect privacy) of how admins have enforced the rule.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

Right, you can use a website for drug trafficking and piracy, but you can't use a website to punch someone. You can use it to target someone, but that largely isn't happening. Generally the discussion isn't naming any person or implying it (fascist is a belief, not an identity). Nobody has been punched or even close to it.

To be fair to the people discussing it, they ARE debating validity of law. The debate isn't incitement to get around it, but a specific problem with it - how the law doesn't address the civil problem (where fascism exists to penetrate and destroy using legal process against itself). Civil disobedience plays a role in curbing that, and they're discussing what types are effective when others aren't.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's an art site, not a debate platform, and it's theirs. If they want to do zealous interpretation or even hold special standards about specific issues, they sure can. And it would be arguing technicality to say that "federal" crime is distinct from crime-crime when they are only citing drugs or whatever.

It's great that there's thriving discussion in many places, so if people are getting dinged for posting cartoon art no more offensive than WWII uncle sam vs. hitler posters, they can move it elsewhere. Plus, if FA's management at some point makes it worthwhile to make a statement, there's always the option of a disobedience campaign where everyone posts punch-nazis art, until they either concede a point or consequences do it for them. That's kind of what already happened with this policy change, and good for them for making it.

Edit: Dragoneer confirms that punching-nazi art is OK if it isn't against a certain person.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

I don't have a huge problem with this as it could be used as justification to enforce against other similar comments made by the nazi sympathizers. Granted, I do think the logic is a little shaky - first of all punching someone is not illegal in the abstract. It is only illegal if (1) not consented, or (2) it is not in self defense. So saying punching someone "is dope" is not encouraging illegal activity even if you assume that saying it is dope counts as encouraging it. You could say it is dope in the context of self defense, and there would be no illegality. Also, there are other particularities of the law that would make it not illegal - in some instances, self defense concepts can extend to defense of others, defense of property, and defense of one's home. In any of those circumstances, punching a fascist would not be illegal. There are also some more obscure ways in which it wouldn't be illegal (such as involuntary acts) but I won't go into all of those.

So I do think this enforcement action is very much a reach based upon how the rule is written (also I checked the image linked in there and it doesn't show anything illegal either If the rule is based on illegality, it doesn't technically ban this type of talk.

However, like I said if this is a precurser to enforcing against slippery conduct by nazi and white supremacist sympathizers, then I won't be too upset about people not being able to say punching fascists is dope on FA. It seems like more of a Twitter thing anyway ;0

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

FA made a professional move I feel. Hopefully they will carry out that policy well. We all should feel respected for our beliefs and backgrounds. Though I understand people associated with those groups want validation, they need to realize that what they're doing is not ok. Hatred is never the answer.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

The statement and new policy is, on paper, exactly what I wanted from Furaffinity after recent events. Yet for some reason I remain unconvinced, especially with what seems to be the overreaching usage of "No Criminal Activity" being used against speech that, well, isn't.

There's also my personal hangups on the issue that are, well... personal hangups. I'll freely admit that my judgement has not exactly been unbiased these last few weeks.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

It seems no flayrah article's comment section can go without argument and insult. Oh well.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Sonious (Tantroo McNally)read storiescontact (login required)

a Kangaroo from Syracroose, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, philosophy and writing