Creative Commons license icon

Fur Affinity updates code of conduct to disallow hate groups

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (14 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 (10 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: 2.5 (13 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: 2.6 (14 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: 3.9 (8 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: 2.6 (14 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: 3.1 (9 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: 2.4 (13 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 (8 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: 4.6 (7 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: 3.2 (11 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: 3 (6 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: 2.9 (7 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: 2.7 (6 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 (6 votes)

You're taking this way too far, man.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (7 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 Average: 2 (1 vote)

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: 3 (6 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 (2 votes)

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: 2.6 (5 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: 4.5 (6 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 Average: 5 (1 vote)

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

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (6 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: 3.2 (5 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: 2.2 (10 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: 4.2 (5 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: 2.7 (7 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 (5 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: 4.3 (7 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 (4 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: 2.6 (11 votes)

"Have some god damn standards."

- Dragoneer, the laughing stock of the fandom

Your rating: None Average: 5 (10 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 (4 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 (2 votes)

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: 4.4 (5 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: 3.1 (9 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 (4 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: 3.5 (8 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 (2 votes)

"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: 4.5 (2 votes)

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: 3.8 (4 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: 4.2 (5 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: 3 (5 votes)

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

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

While I mostly agree with this update, I find it funny that people are being worried about terrorist groups trying to spread propaganda on furry art sites. Just imagine ISIS attempting to recruit someone from Furaffinity; Users be like "so um... is the brotherhood okay with the fact that I like giant bipedal foxes with oversized dicks" then the guy with a rag on his face and an AK47 in his hand's like "dude, we behead people for as little as smoking and not praying 7 times a day... what the fuck is wrong with you people" :D

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Hate on hate is hypocritical. This issue is about the flow of information and empathy. How is censoring supposed to help the flow of information? How is hating a hater empathic? The best way to lead is by example, not "fighting fire with fire."

We need to know who these people are. We need to make sure there's a path for them back toward empathy.

Isolation is easy. "Finding like minded isolated people" is easy. Those who hate lack knowledge. They don't know what it is they hate, not really. They don't know the effects hatred has on themselves and society. It's easy for them to ignore this and move on.

Censorship fosters that ignorance.

Leading a path toward empathy requires knowing what the haters hate and why they hate. Ask the haters their story. Repeat back to them what they said. THAT is a path toward the haters STOPPING BEING haters.

You can't do that with censorship.

That said, furaffinity is a for-profit business and needs to keep an eye on its bottom line. "Ugliness" needs to be weeded out to make a comfortable environment in which people spend money.

It's up to us now more than ever to seek out these alt-right conservatives and engage them in conversation.


Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Have you ever tried talking to them? All they do is hit on you or send you videos about how women are most fulfilled eschewing careers for the sake of childrearing. That's when they're feeling compassionate, at least. I lost my patience for it personally, best of luck

Your rating: None

Well, sometimes it's not about the person you're directly debating; others can read the argument. Of course, that works both ways.

Also, this subthread is about two weeks out of date.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Nobody's ever gonna get on a "path to STOP BEING a hater" in a public argument.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

But there's the problem, right there.

Picklejuice didn't say "argue" or even "debate"; he said "engage in conversation".

I mean, our two biggest Nazi sympathizing commenters, Perri and Ike, were very isolated individuals; they were representing a movement known for massive attacks on websites and individuals on websites they disagree with. And, yet, in both cases, they were the only commenters on their side.

Don't get me wrong, Perri's a piece of work and probably way to old and set in bad habits to really change, but Ike. Yeah, I've got enough ego to say that, maybe, with a bit more time, I could have saved him. I mean, by actually engaging him in conversation about movies, I headed him off from posting a nakedly racist screed, and the worst we got was a list of movies with problematic subthemes, plus Zootopia for some reason.

Of course, I mostly just shouted at him too, but that's also fun.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

That's assuming he was arguing in good faith, as opposed to stringing you along and trolling.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Dude, first of all you underestimate my ego.

But second of all you're turning back it back into an argument or debate, not a conversation. Also, I'm acting in good faith; that's the only "good faith" I have control over. I cannot control Ike or Perri or Rakuen or Sonious or Equivamp or Lamar or desiring_change or Green Reaper or you, but I can influence you all. What else is there to do?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

...Am I the only one who's still ROFLing over the fact that supposed "antifascists" who openly use fascist tactics are still being supported by ignorant, isolated hipsters even after they've lost both at Berkely and Charlottesville? Sure, they might not being dying off now, but 50 years from now the closest estimation I can make to where they'll be gathering is six feet under.

I mean seriously, there's nothing whiter than calling Milo Yiannopolous or Ben Shapiro "nazis". By doing so you're just showing the world how privileged you are. If it pains you for people to point out that lesbians fake more hate crimes, then I think that says more about you than the speaker.

It's like as Mr. Metokur said, antifa is the kid you never let into the clubhouse. You should feel sorry for him, but it's almost impossible to, and more likely that you'll just laugh at him and his big fat girlfriend.

"Because speaking is violence! And you have to answer speak violence with fist violence!"

P.S. Ike might be delusional about Zootopia, but I'm having a hard time remembering that scene where Judy says "fear always works". You might want to give it a rewatch yourself, Cross.

Your rating: None

Luckily, I am in a philosophical mood this morning!

But, see, like I was saying, you never know who might be listening! It's about influence.

Of course, to continue the lesson, like I have no control over Ike's "good faith" or lack thereof, I also have no control over how others react to my influence. In order to gain control, it helps to realize how little you have control of. In order to change the world, you must change yourself. You are an insignificant part of the world, but you are part of the world, and so the world changes because you change.

But, as the world changes, there are reactions to the changes, and you have no control over these consequences. You can try to predict the consequences, but never fully. These reactions are cyclical, of course; so hippy becomes punk becomes hippy again, cyclically.

However, as a wise man once said "Beware of those who speak of the spiral of history; they are preparing a boomerang. Keep a steel helmet handy." Because the cycle is not a steady spiral; there are too many people involved. So, one side goes to far, and, blammo! Boomerang.

You can't have one without the other. The question is not "is the glass half full or half empty". It is both. You cannot define fullness without emptiness.

Likewise, if you are afraid of antifa, perhaps it behooves you not to become a fucking fascist, dipshit.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Well, now that you're done jacking yourself off.

> Likewise, if you are afraid of antifa, perhaps it behooves you not to become a fucking fascist, dipshit.

KEK. So much for empathy. If we just make people afraid to think a certain way through usage of physical violence, they'll stop. It's not like you'll just make yourself look like an idiot. That never happens.

Oh, wait:

Your rating: None

You know I'm not antifa, right?

I mean, I just argued for centrism up there, and have openly described myself as such since the beginning, and that went right over your head.

You don't have to be part of an extremist fringe for the left to think the extremist fringe on the right is wrong. You don't even have to be on the left to think the extremist fringe on the right is wrong. It's an extremist fringe. Fucking everyone not a part of it is left of it.

Antifa is a direct reaction to, and therefore consequence of, fascism. Anti-fascism. Antifa. Get it? If fascism didn't exist, it wouldn't. It's fucking not important. It's a fucking boogeyman you use to scare yourself into thinking you're under threat, using the most fucking circular logic ever.

"I'm a fascist, which by definition, uses physical violence, or it's not fascism."

"Well, I'm an anti-fascist, and I violently oppose your violence."

"Oh, ho ho, but see, I am violent because I must protect my right to use violence from people who violently oppose said violence. So, that's, like justification for my violence, right?"

Now, if you're not going to be violent, super. Great. Good on you. We'd be on the same side. But the only people who are afraid of antifa are fucking fascists, i.e. a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. You can't fucking take the peaceful, non-violent high ground against fucking antifa if you're a fucking fascist.

Because if you're a fascist, you're violent. If you're not violent, you aren't a fascist.

Violent dictatorial nationalism is what fucking fascism is. Now, if you're a non-violent nationalist, well, you're still a dick, but you're not a fascist. If you're not a fascist, maybe you should stop worrying about fucking anti-fascism, because 1. they're not out to get you, and 2. it kind of makes you look like a fascist.

And even setting aside the fucking basic philosophy of fascism (which, to be clear, is fucking violent), the alt-right, whether they're quote/unquote "fascists" or not, have demonstrably been violent, right in front of God and everyone, and the philosophical debate is a bit fucking academic.

You still don't get the fucking high ground, dude.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

"Antifa can't be the bad guys cuz they have a nice name and their communists!Hence why the only people who are afraid of them are facists!"

Nice how the more you try and stand to speak like a grown up, the more you just sound like a petulant child.

For your logic to even apply someone would have to come out and explicitly say they're a Nazi/fascist. With two of them being Jews, I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopolous have yet to do such a thing.

Deportations and walls are not violence. But you know what is? Macing someone because they're wearing a bitcoin hat.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

You know what else is; running protesters over with cars.

But, oh, dear, you got mace in your eyes; you poor baby.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

What were they doing in the road to begin with?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Pedestrians have right of way... and there was a crowd in the street. 19 people were injured. It's not like they jumped out of nowhere.

God I hope you don't have a license.

I'm sure there were people there for the rally in the road during the rally as well. Would you have the same attitude if one of THEM were hit with a car, or are you pro-lady-getting-hit-by-car because she was protesting the rally?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Look if you're going to protest blocking traffic and intentionally getting in the way of random people, I have about as much sympathy for you in that context as I do the Neo Nazis. Just saying.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Dirty fucking jays.

But honestly, did you even watch the video where the assailant his the crowd? You're making is sound like he had no way out and the only way to get to his destination was through them. But here's the thing, going through them WAS his destination

He approached from 2 blocks away, from UP A HILL. He could see the crowd two blocks down. If he wanted to go around he could have turned left or right on the block prior.

Here is the angle in question that reveals this. Note the clear block turns when he backs up.

There is also literally a "Yield to Pedestrian" sign on the previous block's stop sign.

Installed after the incident you claim?

Go back tot he first video and pause at the 21 second mark and look at the upper right corner. It is the same sign as in the second video.

Don't quit your day job, a glue sniffer would be a better traffic cop.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Dude, if they were neo nazis/KKK jaywalking the media wouldn't be acting like they were the ones being attacked. The driver was a terrible person but that doesn't make the other side completely innocent.

And leave it to Adam to try connecting laws against belligerence with bigotry. Then again, this is the same Adam most known for saying that men who are more manly than he is don't exist.

Your rating: None

"Well IF the OTHER side did that—"

It means guess what they didn't do...

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You're missing the point. If the same driver had murdered people on his own side the principle would still be the same.

And antifa have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to kill whoever they deem as evil. Where does it end? After they're done with the alt right they'll just move back to assaulting even more vague categories of people. If anything, everyone should be afraid for their safety.

Your rating: None

Antifa versus fascists for number of people killed or even assaulted, that's not a comparison. Fascists have killed a lot more people. Killing people, let me point this out once again, is kind of their thing. It's what they do.

Saying "antifa is bad because they kill people" is, on one hand, absolutely right. Killing people is bad. It's also a laughably hypocritical thing for a group that also kills people for belonging to the wrong "vague category" to criticize.

If I want to criticize antifa for killing or hurting people, I have the moral authority to do so, because I historically haven't killed anyone. On the other hand, fascists, racists and other groups now under the banner of "alt-right" probably shouldn't criticize another group for killing or hurting people, because historically speaking, they've killed and hurt a shitload of people themselves.

What you're saying is basically "the alt-right is okay because they only kill people that aren't like me, but when antifa does it, hey, I'm like those people, they might kill me, now I have a problem!"

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Have you perhaps thought that the reason for the alt right being on the rise is that the politically correct narrative you see taking over academia might lead people to believe that white people are under universal attack and that the institutions which place you in jail for not believing the holocaust happened might have something to hide? I mean, this kind of traces back to the empathy argument.

It looks even worse when you add in antifa not only instigating conflicts with said people for simply congregating but the media defending them afterwards.

Some of these white nationalists just want less foreigners coming in. But that's way more dangerous than masked thugs walking down the street hitting random people with flag poles.

Again, you should probably do as Ike said. Watch Zootopia again. You could learn a thing or two tolerance.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Wait, who went to prison for being a holocaust denier? I have never heard of such a thing. Sure you don't get any friends that way, but friends are not a right.

And by the way, if white people feel under attack by being put in a jail cell, imagine if (let's just say) cops just randomly starting shooting and killing random unarmed white men and then some sections of the media started going "well he DID smoke weed in the past"

Would you then say their fervor would be justified?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Several countries have laws against Holocaust denial/minimization, though I'm not sure which of them punish it with a jail sentence. Many of these states also have similar laws against denialism of atrocities committed by socialist regimes, or general genocide denial laws.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

>Implying that would make people any less suspicious.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I was answering Sonious's question, permaNEET

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

That's a false equivalence. If you resist a police officer or rob a convenience store you deserve to go to jail.

I can't believe you would make an equivalence between an actual crime (even if it's being falsely accused of one) and thinking wrong.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Okay, so it's okay for the state kill a white guy with a choke hold if they sold a cigarette on a street corner?

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

If he resists arrest as Garner did and it wasn't intentional, then yes.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Of course you've never heard of such a thing; you choose to ignore things you don't want to hear. But an example was given in both the video and its transcript that was in my article.

"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 votes)

I did a ctrl-f of your article and did not find anything about holocaust written or quoted in your article?

Which is quite ironic for someone who's been going around saying other people are claiming you're saying things you're not saying. Now you're making claims that you said something you didn't.

Are you having memory issues?

Instead of being snarky about it, you could, you know, actually link to an article discussing such a matter.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Well you're doing it right now. I did not say that I wrote about it. I said an example is in the video and transcript which is in my article. The video is included as part of the article (It's Christopher Hitchens speech on free speech while in Canada), the transcript is here and I said the whole thing was worth your attention. That's why I bothered to include it.

"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: 2 (4 votes)

There is nothing in the Charles Hitchens about an example of a Holocaust denier being arrested. It brings up the possibility of such things and says it shouldn't happen (it came up twice in the transcript).

However his argument saying something that didn't happen shouldn't happen is no different then arguing about the existence of a God. Fearing the wrath to change our behavior based on an incident that has not occurred yet and has no existence of occurring.

Kind of ironic for an Atheist.

I asked for evidence that a person was prosecuted for their holocaust denying. While I missed the original statement of the transcript being linked in your article, sorry about that. You claimed Hitchen's work had the example I was looking for. It did not. It was a hypothetical.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

You're really making me doubt your reading comprehension skills. It's Christopher, not Charles. And if you clicked the link above you would've found.

"One of the proudest moments of my life, that’s to say, in the recent past, has been defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil."

"You know, the country that has Jorge Heider the leader of its own fascist party in the cabinet that sent David Irving to jail."

"Now to this proud record they can add they have the courage finally to face their past and lock up a British historian who has committed no crime except that of thought and writing."

So it comes up at least three times, not two. It is not brought up in the hypothetical, it is brought up as having happened. And the transcript itself has a link for David Irving's name which takes you a Guardian article from 2006 which begins with the sentence, "The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust"!

How much clearer an example of a Holocaust denier being arrested do you want?

"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 (4 votes)

you know, I'm starting to think you deserve some of the crap Patches gives you.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

Seems odd to say something like that on a post where I am demonstrably correct.

"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: 2.3 (3 votes)


Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

not at all.

you can be correct and still be a major douchebag.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Yeah, but you're both wrong and a douchebag. A heartless one at that.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

So when I asked for an example of a Holocaust denier going to jail you say: "David Irving"

You do not say: "Well if you read my article you'd know it"

Because it was not in your article, it was in a video or transcript in the video which I don't always fully consume every video or article linked in every article, I just make sure they work and such.

By answering the question with a direct answer you would have save all this nonsense. You're wasting both of our times over the way you chose to be "demonstrably correct".

The way you answered was for your own pride instead of the spreading of knowledge.

You know I'm pissed off at your article because you used it to troll the decision I made to publish that one article. So to me, your article is nothing but a troll post, and this comment thread has nothing but highlighted this behavior.

If you can't answer a simple question with a simple answer it means you're a windbag. An example for a Holocaust denier doesn't require a public shaming of me not fully reading the transcript that was linked on your article.

(I did a ctrl-F of Holocaust and all the words around Holocaust seemed hypothetical, because I was not aware of David Irving; so wasn't looking for his name)

But you're right, unless I read the entirety of what you write I shouldn't publish it, so from now on Green or Dronon can edit your articles.

But yes I was wrong, that's all you care about.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

I think part of the problem is that you are violating my assumptions. By commenting about my articles, I generally assume, unless otherwise stated, that the person has actually read it. If a person hasn't read the entirety of an article then they have no business commenting on it. And while I would not expect you to follow every link, the video was in line as an important piece of information pertaining to my essay. So again, if you start claiming that things weren't there, I am going to assume that you looked for them and that means actually engaged with the entire piece.

I wasn't trolling your decision. I just didn't agree with it and my essay would've told you that I would've disagreed with it except when that was brought up you chose to ignore those paragraphs. You can't blame me when you create a straw man.

You shouldn't just not publish my stuff without reading it, you shouldn't publish anything without reading it! If you're going to be the editor then act like it. As the editor it is your responsibility to read every piece that you publish. At a minimum you should be going through and checking to make sure everything displays and works correctly. Ideally you should be engaging with the author to clarify any areas that are confusing and make sure that their point comes across clearly. If you aren't reading the entirety of the articles that you are publishing then you just aren't doing your duties as an editor.

"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

I think part of the problem is that you are violating my assumptions. By commenting about my articles, I generally assume, unless otherwise stated, that the person has actually read it. If a person hasn't read the entirety of an article then they have no business commenting on it."

In this thread you brought up the article not me:

I would love NOT to talk about it, but you brought it up, so here we are again. You're like that evangelical on my doorstep telling me that I can't have an opinion on the Bible if I haven't read it. I think that's a metaphor as an atheist you'd get.

But since we did, thank you for forcing me to read the entire transcript (I'm not going to watch the video if there's a transcript, reading the transcript is faster). Because it showed me just how much Hitchens agrees that your "disappointment" that Flayrah didn't sensor the "obvious troll" is against the premise of his article. Read the opening again.

In other words, it has only made me more resolute in my statement that your response to was a back pedal on your argument.

Because what is a person who falsely yells fire in a crowded theater but a troll? And Hitchens in his article says that the fire in a crowded theater is an excuse people use to restrain free speech.


In fact that "you can't comment on something you haven't read" is also censorship isn't it? So I guess you get to decide who's shouting first in the crowded theater, huh? You're claiming I didn't read it, I read it. Did I retain it in the way you desired? No. But that happens with all written words. It's why religion divides into sects.

What is a common atheistic argument? Just because we haven't read the holy book doesn't mean we can't be moral? And just because someone reads a holy book doesn't make them moral?

If you aren't reading the entirety of the articles that you are publishing then you just aren't doing your duties as an editor.

I did not edit the Hitchens article. I also did not post the Hitchens Youtube video. My duty begins and ends (on an opinion article) to make the article presentable. If the article is of a factual event then it is to make sure references are trustworthy and other such items.

If the links work and the writer is trustworthy and isn't going to Rick Roll people (which I assume you wouldn't do), then all I have to do is make sure the link works. It is not my obligation to read every article linked to the original article as you believe it is.

An editor is not going to be as in love with or intimiate with the thoughts of the person writing the article at the time they wrote it. That's not how editing works.

Like the person who ghost-wrote the Art of the Deal didn't do it because he agreed with everything in it, the editor can have their own belief, but it's their job to just make sure the article written is in a presentable format. No more, no less.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Of course you can have an opinion on the Bible without having read it. You can also have an opinion on free speech without having read anything about it. It'll likely be an uninformed opinion but you can still have it. However, if you are talking about the contents of the Bible without having read it then that cannot be a productive discussion.

Saying one needs to read something to comment on its content is not censorship, just like having a person make an account to post a story on Flayrah is not censorship. Requiring someone to read what they are commenting on ensures that everyone is starting on the same page and improves discussion quality. That's why one Norwegian site started experimenting with requiring commenters to first pass a short test to show that they know what was in the article.

I also can't back pedal on my argument because of what someone else said because what they say is not my argument. I can cite someone without agreeing with every single thing that they say.

No, you did not edit the Hitchens article but you could've said that you did not engage with all the material. Knowing you didn't might suggest that if I say something was in there that you don't remember it might've been in the part you skipped. Furthermore when I mentioned it, you told me that you did go through. Then later you admitted you didn't actually read it but just searched keywords and didn't continue reading when you found them.

"It is not my obligation to read every article linked to the original article as you believe it is."

Just.. don't. -.-

"And while I would not expect you to follow every link, the video was in line as an important piece of information pertaining to my essay."

In any case, I am not continuing with this discussion any further as we do not appear to be getting any closer together.

"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)

Of course you can have an opinion on the Bible without having read it

Lots of christians do this, you don't complain about them.

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

So, now you're taking the Neo-Nazis' side again.

This may seem hypocritical coming from the quote/unquote "centrist", but would fucking pick a side already?

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (6 votes)

How do you see that comment as taking their side?

"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 (1 vote)

Some of these white nationalists just want less foreigners coming in.

And that's a really shitty thing to want. The kind of thing that makes people want to punch you in the face, because you're being a dick, and that tends to make people angry, and emotional people may sometimes lose their temper.

Nazis keep getting punched in the face and then whining about it. Jesus fuck, if you're going to be a terrible fucking person who says stupid shit, at least act like you have the intelligence to not be surprised when people don't like you.

You're so fucking shitty you live in a country where you're the super-majority of the population in a land where things are decided democratically and that your ancestors were foreigners in and you think you're fucking oppressed?

Well, the way I see it, it's 1. not true, and 2. deserved if it was.

If you don't like foreigners ... get to know them.

And then they won't be foreign.

Shit. It's not hard. That's called empathy. That's what empathy is. Trying to connect with people who are different.

Setting aside the alt-right's hypocrisy in calling out violence and death for a moment, I mean, fuck, let's talk about your hypocrisy involving empathy for your cause. You demand empathy from me and then admit that your entire worldview is based on not giving empathy to others.

And the fucking thing; I am empathizing with you, you dumb fuck.


You don't deserve it. At all. But, you know what, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

So, you're going to come back with some fucking bullshit YouTube video explaining how immigrants don't deserve your empathy, and you know what, you'd probably be right, because people are people and they are shitty and if we all got what we deserved, the fucking cars would run us down themselves.

All you have to do is live with them. After all, they have to live with you.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I think you're confusing empathy with compassion. I can empathize with these refugees. I can see where they're coming from and why they would want to come here be it out of self centered reasons or simply taking care of their families.

I can also, however, look at the consequences of unfiltered immigration in Europe and say that there should be more consideration as to where we place our priorities in regards to foreigners vs people who already live here. That's the difference.

Empathy and sympathy are two completely different entities. People on the Autistic Spectrum may have issues with empathy but can be very compassionate

So no, if someone's critical of the economic and societal consequences coming from immigration via free loaders or some other group, they have all the right in the world to speak out.

I mean, do you think the Original Americans should've been punched in their faces because they fought back against foreigners from Europe? Are they evil because they realized that this invading group who carried diseases and even raped a few of their own might not be good for them in the long run? I don't think so. But that's because I have empathy.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

Given that the press had a field day when they committed the acts they did in Berkeley not long after Charolettesville, which didn't involve any car v pedestrians fatalities, I'd say the allegation of media bias (that they won't call out leftie organizations for violent behavior) is unfounded, yeah?

Your rating: None

I mean, he's given us a YouTube link to the motherfucking Daily Show condemning antifa.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

MSN and CNN tried defending antifa as did quite a few websites after Charlottesville.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)


On MSN -

This was literally only a month ago, you should go to the doctor and have your memory checked out.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Sure did take long enough:

Your rating: None

yeah, golly gee, you're right. it's antifa that will die off.

that's what they said in the 30s too.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You sure got me. There's no way a bunch of Star Bucks hipsters who took their name from a group back in WW2 won't live on forever. Proof?

An outdated meme known as the alt right is going extinct. Hook line and sinker.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

anti-fascism has existed for FAR longer than WWII. being antifa is a very patriotic thing to be, unlike an altfurry or a nazifur.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Being anti fascist is but not being an antifa thug. Know the difference.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

you're silly if you think I'm gonna fall for your propagandist BS.

Sometimes violence and hate must be met with violence and hate. There are some corners of the universe which must bred the most terrible things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be fought.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

...In a domestic situation like Charlottesville where there was no violence to begin with.


Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The mere fact that the alt-right exists.

the mere fact that they were chanting "jews will not replace us" "blood and soil"

the mere fact that Donald John Trump is president, over literally anyone else

all of this is proof that what I say is true and honest

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The best thing about this comment is, for those unaware, acefeline is basically quoting the wet dream fantasy of fictional pacifists.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

not basically. I did.

remove the "Sometimes violence and hate must be met with violence and hate. " and i did quote. His second incarnation in fact.

I'm glad someone caught it ;)

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

If you guys want to be disturbed, watch this video. You don't even have to listen to the narrator, just listen to what antifa themselves have to say:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Random Flayrah commenter: I think we should talk to the alt-right.

Equivamp: No, I think we should ignore them.

Me: Eh, I'm in the talk camp.

Summercat: And I prefer the ignore.


Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

So on top of homicidal maniacs the alt left are also pretentious douchebags? That's nice.

Your rating: None

We're not the alt-left, dude. First of all, that's not a thing.

We're not antifa. This is like the only article on the site that even mentions the stupid thing, and it's in the context of reporting on a debate other people are having, elsewhere. In fact, I just checked, the only other article on the site that mentions antifa in the text is Rakuen's free speech ramble, and he criticizes the organization.

We're not FurAffinity, and people will probably actually get violent if you keep making that mistake. Mistaking this article's reporting on their decision as being an endorsement of said decision, tacitly or implied, is, well, a mistake.

What we are is Flayrah, which is non-political. It's a furry journalism site; furry has shit all to do with left or right, and journalistic ethics calls for non-partisanship. Yes, many of our contributors and major supporters are somewhere left of center on most political alignment charts, but not all, and while some of us may regret letting Ike run his article now (I don't), we still ran it. But as recent editors, you've had me (self-described centrist), Sonious (self-described centrist), Green Reaper (pretty laissez faire attitude on most things) and dronon (kind of a cipher, actually, but in a good way).

We are not big fans of the alt-right, in general, but that doesn't make us "alt-left". It makes us "not alt-right".

Speaking mainly for myself, we may be pretentious douchebags, however. That's a fair cop.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Two of the people who you referenced (not including yourself) are members/supporters of the alt left.

Your rating: None

2 out of 11 people I mentioned I'm trying to influence (one of whom blocked me on Twitter, unless I've missed my guess). So, same amount of people listed who are members/supporters of the alt-right.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Fair enough

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I'm curious as to who this idiot thinks is on the alt-left here.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

You and the gay zebra guy

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Amusing that you think so.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Darn, thought the other one was Lamar. Missed that bet.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

What's alt-left?

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

A neologism created by Donald Trump during a press conference following the Charolettesville attack.

My take on it was recorded here:

In short, the alt-right likes to parade around the term 'alt-left' in hopes of goading and labeling the "equal morally reprehensible element" on the left.

However, what they don't realize is that by taking the term 'alt-left' and trying to make it real, they are literally going to everyone that "Yes the 'alt' prefix stands for toxic individuals within the thing it is in front of." Opps...

This is why you need to be careful with trying to create new words. The consequences can be unforeseen by the weilder.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I want Mr. Blue Sky to tell me what it means and stop hiding behind euphemism.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Alt left accounts for groups like antifa and anarchist groups. Hence the term alt left, as in alternative left. Not necessarily violent but often associated with more radical viewpoints.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

And they're alternative to...what? The American Democrat party? Other center/center-left/center-right groups that came afterwards? You remember where the terms "alternative right"/"alt-right" came from, right?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

They're an alternative to the mainstream left, yes.

The most notable figure would have to be Big Bird. He joined after PBS lost it's funding:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Nothing. There's no such thing as the "Alt-Left". Nobody identifies as such, as opposed to the Alt-RIght, which was coined by the alt-right to describe themselves.

Anarchists are not part of the Left-Right paradigm. Neither are Antifa, as Antifa is not a political stance aside from "oppose fascism".

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Hence why the only people they show up and "protest" are right to them on the political spectrum.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

LOL at least I'm not alone anymore.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

We didn't 'show up here', we've been writers here for about a decade. If anyone "showed up" it's you two, right?

And if protesting politics is a bad thing, why would your first article basically revolve around trying to find right-wing politics in apolitical furry films?

I just think you're general obsession with politic is killing your enjoyment of furry. I would argue that there are those on the left, as a result of Trump doing the same. It's just they don't tend to post comments 24/7 if a belief is slightly left of them. (aka, doth protest too much)

Your rating: None

Consider that they think I'm part of this "Alt-Left".

Which I find hilarious, as I get self-identifying "Leftists" wanting to string me up for being a "Centrist".

Your rating: None

It's true; one time, he said that "neoliberal" was a smear word against Democrats dating back to Bill Clinton, and I laughed at him, and that's exactly the same as lynching.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I was referring to other interactions with non-Furs over both my support for the concept of free trade and my position that there should be compromise among those who agree in kind if not in scale or scope.


Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Haha, knew you'd be back.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

I love how antifa act like they're the last frontier of democracy when their entire worldview tries to stamp it out by any means possible.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Maybe you could go make comments like this on articles that are actually about antifa. That'd mean you'd have to go somewhere else, but most Internet browsers let you have more than one tab open :)

Your rating: None

Hey, I get to do the random link to a YouTube video thing.

It's Cracked!

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

That's a nice propaganda piece. Got some criticisms, though.

1.) If someone's baiting antifa into fighting them and only them through using their first amendment rights then I think that says more about the aggressor than it does the instigator. Antifa will choose fights willy nilly but at least the alt right have a consistent code of conduct.

2.) Cantwell's not even a Nazi. He was wrong right off the bat. And I'm pretty sure that if you can't even assemble in public and have everyone trying to get you banned from every website they can, that might be the point of tearing up for some people.

Sure he showed up prepared to defend himself, which isn't even a crime, but I don't even know if he actually harmed anyone.

If you actually listen to the videos from Charlottesville they weren't shouting "Jews will not replace us!" but "You will not replace us!". The media aren't even trying to hide that they're lying about this.

3.) I don't care what these neonazis/kkk want. We're talking about a domestic situation. This guy is really grasping at straws.

4.) Antifa are not a symptom of fascism. They're exactly that, a symptom, but the cause is not the alt right.

5.) "Pro Western Fraternal Organization AKA Diet Nazis."

"Punching Nazis is as American as eating apple pie!"

"America are literally Nazis!"

6.) Oh no, their friend got arrested, but poor protestors, I mean boo hoo, they got pepper sprayed!

But in all seriousness, but in all seriousness, when you have so much violence and chaos going on at once it's almost impossible to always arrest the right people.

7.) Comparing a civil rights campaign back in the fifties with a bunch of thugs showing up to prevent people protesting the removal of a statue that was probably going away regardless. Really shows his white privilege.

8.) I remember when Martin Luther King Jr. went around punching trash cans and breaking Starbucks windows. "I have a dream, where there are no trashcans left untarnished!"

9.) Uh, if someone destroyed my 100,000 dollar car I would be more than happy if they spent 10 years in the clinker. If they can't pay that back, then make them suffer. Yeah people are more valuable than property but anarcho-retarded societal parasites aren't people.

10.) Terrorism is using violence to insight fear so you can elicit a response and further your message. Back in the day, KKK members were terrorists because they were publicly hanging the bodies of their victims to send a message. A neo nazi running over people with his car in the middle of a riot is not quite the same as a Muslim running over people in a normal context because they're for fundamentally different reasons.

Think of it as:

"I'm going to make people afraid to go out in public!"


"I'm going to mow down these stupid protestors because they're being a nuisance!"

11.) Yeah man. I was really intimidated by seeing a bunch of college age skinny white guys holding Tiki torches and posting cartoon frogs. That is far more dangerous than armies of black and red clad brainwashed kids, some of whom are literally endorsed on an institutional level, running around destroying everything in sight.

I can see why you posted this guy's video. He's self righteous, has no empathy and constantly masturbates to his own image like you do. And the fact that he has to spend 70% of the video talking about Nazis as opposed to the actual subject matter really doesn't say much good about the group he's trying to defend.

You can't hate on Stalin. He was an enemy of the Nazis. Look at how many of them he killed. Surely Stalin must be one of the greatest world leaders who ever lived based solely on that. Because racism is worse than any other crime. Rape > racism. The pedophile anti-Semite genocidal sociopath known as THE Prophet Muhammad is A-OK because he's not a white nationalist.

Are you sure you've watched also watched MLP? I saw you talking about it with Ike, and it sure is easy to correct a clown. But have you actually thought about it? Because based off of the personality qualities you've shown me, I'm thinking you'd be one of the villains.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

"I'm going to make people afraid to go out in public!"


"I'm going to mow down these stupid protestors because they're being a nuisance!"

You are actually evil.

"I'm annoyed" is not a good justification for killing people, you amazingly stupid piece of shit.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Never said it was a justification, but it sure isn't terrorism. Savage, yes, but no evidence suggests he had a greater purpose.

Nice try, Dr. Evil.

Your rating: None

and now you see why I quote the nonpacifist pacifist ;)

Never give up, never give in.

Your rating: None

In speaking of Propaganada there is solid evidence that your point 2 was an intentional gas lighting method. There was a video that was done by a young lady for Vice that went deep in with the rally holders. Her piece showed something that mainstream coverage did not. That is the instances in which BOTH "Jews will not Replace us" and "You will not replace us" were shouted.

In fact it is the thing the starts the video, you only need to go to the 30 second mark:

To me there are two possible explanations for this:

1) I cover in my original video on the topic and that it was a mutation of a shout as it went down the line that was unintentional (or intentional). Someone in the crowd naturally mutated it from Jew to You or vise versa based on mishearing or wanting to take it in the direction they desired.

2) I'm starting to believe this one a little more as time goes on as I see more and more of the talking points of the alt-right.

The two different phrases were committed purposefully in different sections of the parade. They did this knowing that the media would cover the more outlandish "Jews will not replace us". Then they ensured that part of the crowd would shout "You will not Replace us" so they can go back and claim that EVERYONE was saying the latter and further implant doubts in the media, which alt-right people need in order to succeed. It's a purposeful gaslight in other words. And bless this Vice coverage for highlighting this out the get go.

I haven't heard any defense over the "Blood and Soil" statement, what you got for that one?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I don't got a defense for that one. Plus if I was wrong about "Jews will not replace us" then I will acknowledge that. My bad.

But until now I haven't seen any evidence of it so I will take your word over mine.

And no, I'm not gaslighting, you psychopath.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Didn't accuse you of it, but those that orchestrated the rally could have known that the 'Jews will not Replace us' thing would get attention, so they planned the 'You will not replace us' chant in order to fool people that the media was being dishonest if they reported on the more controversial one.

If the benign one was orchestrated for the purpose of throwing people off the scent of the more heinous statement, that's gas-lighting. It's to trick people who were not there into believing the messenger was being dishonest about the event when they were being truthful.

Social engineering tactics are things that those in computers are trained in, but politicians and interest groups use such tactics as well in order to trick the general populous into getting what they want or to recruit.

It's something most people should be studying, because it's the most prevalent weapon in the modern era, and the only way to defend ones self against it is to study it.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Also, one more thing buddy boy, I popped over to your twitter feed and saw this:

So not only are you self righteous, but you're also an fboy.

You're just jealous because Hugh Hefner got more bunnies than you did.

I mean, let's face it, Hefner had every STI under the sun. So many that every time you clapped once, he clapped twice. But I'm pretty sure that whatever itch he had it still didn't beat the itch of that libido, because Hefner was a real man.

You know who else was a real man? Richard Nixon. Nixon was a Shakespearean figure if there ever was one, to say the least.

Your rating: None

That's the Tweet on my feed you cherry-picked?

Your rating: None

But anyway, best response I've seen to Hugh Hefner's death:

Imagine a day when America was so whitebread, boring, and shitty that all you had to do was fuck all the time and take pictures of chicks' pussies and you could start a revolution

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

So you're saying the 70s and 80s are inferior to now? GFY

Your rating: None


Your rating: None

You have no soul.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

You know what, BORED NOW.

No, really, so far we've debated ethics and philosophy and politics, but let's talk about aesthetics for a moment.

Okay, so Playboy. You know the joke, "I read it for the articles," right? Except, I mean, come on, that's barely a joke anymore. Who actually jacks off to Playboy anymore? The "pornography" is just nudes. I can find raunchier stuff to jack off to in this comment thread. If you're over the age of, and let's be generous, 18 and you can still get any sort of reaction from a Playboy centerfold, Jesus, you've lived a sheltered life. Maybe a 10 year old who's never seen another human being naked before and also has the illicit thrill of knowing he'll get in trouble if caught can get it up to that lame ass shit, but I've got Internet access, asshole, and I've got pretty good evidence you do, too. Fuck, 5 year old kids have Internet access; even my 10 year old example is fucking dated and your average fourth grader would probably have trouble caring. Playboy nudity isn't pornography; it's quaint.

Oh, Hugh Hefner had sex with pretty women a lot. For like the last half century. That doesn't sound fun; that sounds like a chore. Setting aside the problematic ethics of the Playboy mansion, fuck, that sounds boring. If you think living in the Playboy mansion sounds fun, congratulations; you have the aesthetic sensibilities of a 90 year old white dude (a group known for how fun they are to hang around with).

And you've mentioned you don't like foreigners, because, once again, fuck are you boring. Heaven forbid there might be a little variety in your life. Meeting new people is fun. I'm a fucking grouchy curmudgeon who spends most of his weekend arguing with people online and I still like meeting new and interesting people once in a while.

Jesus fuck, you're defending and part of a group that uses Nazi symbolism from the fucking 30s, Confederate symbolism from the fucking 19th century and even your fucking Pepe the frog is an Internet meme from fucking 2005. Maybe get some new material, guys!

Finally, you know why I don't believe Trump hired Russian prostitutes to pee on bed for him? Because he's not fucking interesting enough to think of it himself. His idea of fine dining is a fucking overdone steak and fucking ketchup. He's married the exact same type of stereotypically pretty woman four fucking times in a row. Do think Melania and Donald actually fuck? He plays fucking golf, the sport so fucking lame Adam fucking Sandler was able to effectively make fun of it.

That's your entire worldview; nostalgia and nothing else.

If you weren't actively dangerous, no one would ever pay any attention to you because you are just. Fucking. Boring.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"Having sex with beautiful women all the time must be pretty boring. I'd rather live under Sharia law instead and be continually raped by Muslims!"

...And you think I'm the dangerous one?

How about the fact that the 70s was a golden age for music and movies? I thought you liked those.

The economy was also better back then. Sure, you didn't have the internet for porn, but if anything that actually made porn less boring because you had to hunt for it.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

The economy was NOT better during the 70s and 80s. there were gas shortages during the Carter Administration and 2 recessions during the Alzheimer's Error.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

That's quite a leap to get from what was basically "I have sexual fetishes beyond vanilla sex" to "obviously, Sharia law".

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

You consider that vanilla?

Alright then. Tell me what you consider to be the good life.

Your rating: None

I don't know, just not that. I'd say I'd tell you when I get there, but, actually, no, telling you would probably not be a big priority.

Maybe that's part of the problem, too. You're so concerned about your "good life" and that you so obviously don't have it that you miss the fact that Hefner's "good life", for example, hampered other people's ability to even live an "okay life".

Sleeping with barely legal co-eds may be the dream of many nonagenarians, but sleeping with nonagenarians is rarely the dream of barely legal co-eds.

However, you've already said "mild annoyance" is a perfectly justifiable reason for homicide, so I guess that doesn't bother you.

Also, so help me God, don't lie to us and say lots of women really want to sleep with you as their dream, because nobody believes you, I suspect least of all you.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Uh, those women made plenty of money sleeping with said nonagenarian so I'd assume that said relationship wasn't entirely to his own benefit.

"Oh no! I'm making money while having sex with an old person! I can't stop! This is slavery!"

You make me sick. At least Hefner had the resources to make it so women would sleep with him consensually and OUT OF THEIR OWN DESIRE.

Women don't like sex in the same way men do. They could honestly care less about his age because at the end of the day they don't place as much value in it as you or I. Women seek it out because they see pleasure in it; men seek it out because they see it as pleasure.

Get it? Women like intimate bonds with people. Women like protection. Women like safety. Hefner provided two out of three of those things with money.

Why do you think they like 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight so much? It's because they like bad boys.

Your rating: None

Dude, if they wanted to be there, they wouldn't have to get paid. They'd fucking pay him for the privilege. That's how money works in capitalistic society.

You don't even understand how much I, another man, value sex. I've literally just told you it bores me, and you still don't seem to get it. So I'm not holding my breath for insights into anyone's sexuality, male or female.

Fuck, you're on a goddamn furry site and still expecting everyone to be straight. I mean, really?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Except me. I'm gay because I'm alt-left remember

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You're gay because your icon very clearly expresses so.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

....Alright now you gotta elaborate lol

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

It's a zebra and he's in a blue sleeveless. That's as gay as you get.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

LOL I meant purple

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (6 votes)

Well if it bores you then I don't see why you would speak on behalf of another person who made their living off of it. It just seems like you're jealous of him at this point.

We're all guys here so I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong by giving my insights on the matter.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Okay, so let's put this all aside for a minute, because the real question is what happens if your side wins?

I'm dead, right? In that scenario. Equivamp, almost certainly. Sonic Fox, that guy who won the video game tournament, he's black, so probably dead. That nice pair of Muslim twins I interviewed for a college newspaper, that played tennis and were in my "Intro to the New Testament" class, dead. Half my home town, full of Mexican immigrants, also dead. Just a lot of people dead. You just kill everybody who "gets in the way", like that woman in Charlottesville, and it's our fault for getting in that way.

Now you're going to say antifa or ISIS or who the fuck knows who your next boogeyman is wants to kill everybody, too. Well, we're not talking about antifa or ISIS or whatever, we're talking about the alt-right. You keep asking "why can't we peacefully say we want to kill everybody else?"

Because, I don't know, maybe we believe you.

If you're only joking, well, maybe you should stop, because if you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. I mean, you use symbols that come from groups who tried pretty hard to exterminate entire groups of people. It was kind of like the entire point of their existence.

But anyway, you want to kill everyone, basically, who isn't exactly like you. And you've expanded the list pretty big; I mean, just in this comment thread, you've accused me of being a masked antifa vigilante, a Muslim fundamentalist, and goddamn Dr. fucking Evil. Okay, that last was probably more a jab meant to represent my ineffectiveness, but still. When in actual fact, what I am is ... a guy who reviews children's cartoons.

OooOOooOOooh, scary.

So, what if I win, then? Well, (and this one's for acefeline), everybody lives.

It's that simple. You can even keep hating foreigners, if you like. They probably hate you too. You're kind of a dick. But just live and let live. Actively avoid them if you have to, but, good God, quit blaming them for everything that goes wrong in your life, because it's probably not actually their fault.

You know, it might actually be your own.

And even if something provably is one of your "enemies" fault, who cares. To err is human. Forgiveness is divine.

Anyway, sorry for the cliche there at the end, but this article is at the bottom of the screen, one more article will knock it to the next page. That's usually the best time to just let it go. Well, I don't know if it's the "best" time, but it's usually when I shut myself down. I'm sure you want to have the last comment (it's the fucking Internet, everyone wants the last comment), so you just got to last a little longer and you'll get it. At least on me. Can't talk for anyone else, of course.

But making kind of an announcement, because why the hell not, but I'm going to do a series of retrospective reviews about werewolf movies for October (you know, Halloween and all), hopefully the first one posted Tuesday. Why Tuesday? Cause Halloween falls on Tuesday, so the last one will come out on Halloween. And I actually just realized October has five, not four Tuesdays, so, uh ... gonna have to find one more movie right quick, but we'll be alright. Probably.

Anyway, The Wolf Man first!

Edit: Somehow got this article mixed up with Lamar's harassment policy article, so actually about four articles, so maybe this'll last a little bit longer or maybe one or both or all of us will finally get bored (haha, fat chance), but anyway.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

I've already explained to you that I am not alt right myself, but seeing as you brought up my being a "dick", you tickled my lighter side and reminded me of something absurd.

I took that test that everyone else has taken, the MBTI Myers Briggs test, just to see what I got. Apparently I'm an "ENTJ".

Not that you'd care, but here's a list of characters who apparently share some of my attributes:

Let's just say I don't find it flattering.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

That list is kind of all over the place and hilarious, and I like how you objected to a label, not the accusation that you want to kill everyone.

But, back to off-topic werewolf movies, I think maybe next week I'll take a break because ponies.

That'll work.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (4 votes)

They desired the money. That's enough for me to say that they weren't being treated unfairly.

Your rating: None

then you truly, honestly are an idiot.

Workers get treated unfairly all the time.

"but they desire money!"

yes, because ignorant capitalistic society (populated by utter morons like you) says money = god; greed = good. so we NEED money to do ANYTHING.

and then people like you "See? they wanted money! they deserve the treatment."

f*** you.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Dude, they were getting paid TONS of money and they were all models. There's no evidence of him abusing them nor is there any proof of him telling said women he'd fire them if they didn't.

They just seemed to be doing it because...they saw an extra incentive for money in it.

That's far from being used. If anything that's most likely them just taking the easy route to obtaining money.

Your rating: None

There's no evidence of him abusing them? Have you ever, like, looked for it? Because it exists in spades lmao

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

I haven't been able to find any.

Your rating: None

Holly Madison wrote a bestselling book about it.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Did it say that the three girls didn't get paid and then say they got 25,000 immediately after?

Not only that but this also lists mansplaing movies and commenting on a woman gaining weight as being some of the worst things he did. That's pretty minuscule.

Your rating: None

It involved preventing the women from going home for the holidays, preventing them from being friends with the other women they lived with, the dog-urine soaked, hoarder-like conditions of the mansion, being chased into closets and screamed at, other emotional abuse, and oh yeah, being drugged with "thigh openers" (quaaludes) to initiate group sex.

The Bunnies were servers and hostesses, you know, they were being paid to serve drinks and host parties.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

1.) I'm having a hard time finding what you're talking about so I'm just going to assume you're getting it straight from the book. And until more women come out and say Hefner did those things, I'm going to assume it's ambiguous.

As for them being hostesses and servers, you have to admit, he made good pretty good work of them ;).

Then again, seeing as you're gay, I don't expect you to be able to understand ;.(

Your rating: None

Are you saying that Hefner's treatment of women is the quintessence of male heterosexuality? Sounds fucking evil if you ask me.

(And nobody tell him)

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Well considering you're alt left you probably think Captain America and Judy Hopps are evil too so suck on that.

Your rating: None

Then again, seeing as you're gay, I don't expect you to be able to understand ;.(

you know hat? I'm going to come out and say what others are thinking, at this point the consequences be damned.

You, sir, are a retard. You are so goddamn retarded you make Trig Palin look like a normal child.

When you look up retard in the dictionary it has your name, address and photo so people can come to you directly to see the definition.

The treatment of, the treatment of human beings regardless gender or sexuality is an important thing to all people.

you're the one brushing it off and acting like it's a whole lot of nothing because they're getting paid.

Then again, seeing as you're straight, and a capitalist, I don't expect you to be able to understand ;.( (and for the uninitiated this is sarcasm)

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Trig Palin? You're taking a jab at a down syndrome kid now? How low can you go man? All because I said that being paid for sex by a billionaire is not necessarily abuse?

Actually, you know who you should be angry at? Leftists who endorse prostitution in the US. Now that could actually hurt a lot more human beings in the long run.

Your rating: None

yeah, no. try again.

prostitution hurts no one but the woman and the john if either has an STD.

Otherwise, how does it harm you?

and yeah, I told you, I don't care anymore. i'm sick of you and your kind. today, i say no more.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Have a good one then .

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I'm adding this comment the "evidence bBlue Sky is an Ike sockpuppet" pile.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I actually don't think they are, given the writing styles of both individuals. If Ike was Sky, the article about conservative furry flicks would have been better formatted.

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