Feed aggregator

In this article I will give an analysis of what I believe to be sound principles in the advocacy of content warnings. I will be focusing on the core ideas and rationale behind content warnings, as well as the benefits that they may have to creators, by placing responsibility on consumers for the media that they consume.

[Ed.: this article is a companion piece to our recent point/counterpoint articles looking at trigger warnings and safe spaces within furry, Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and Fandom and Of course trigger warnings and safe spaces are a good thing….]

Content warnings and appropriate behaviour

Imagine that I jumped out in front of you shouting “AH!” in order to surprise you. If we were friends, and I knew you were disposed towards laughing-off jokes such as this, then such an act would likely be deemed as acceptable.

Now, imagine that I am a complete stranger, and you are walking down the street, minding your own business. If I were to jump out and scare you, your reaction would most likely be less than positive. You may feel angry, annoyed, or genuinely frightened. If you were very elderly or feeble, you may even have a heart attack. Hence, this sort of behaviour is not acceptable towards people we do not know, people who have not expressed a willingness, or people who’s likely reactions we do not have knowledge of.

Thus, in the first example, if you know somebody very well, and you can reasonably assume that they will be alright with the joke, there is nothing wrong with it. In the second example, this sort of behaviour is wrong, due the consequences being unknown, and potentially very negative.

To take this further, imagine you are reading something I have written, and, without warning, a graphic scene of something hideous is presented; rape, for example. I do not know you, nor do I know your disposition towards such a thing. It is, in my mind, akin to jumping out and scaring a stranger, in that it is an unexpected event that may lead to negative consequences for them. If somebody has had an experience with rape, from which they are recovering, this unexpected scare could lead to a lot of trauma. For this reason, it is usually important to give people some idea of what they are going to experience, if they read/watch/play a piece of media.

Responsibility

Assuming you have given an adequate picture of what the work will involve, there is no longer any responsibility on the part of the creator for the potentially traumatic or dangerous content. The responsibility is passed to the consumer; if rape is involved in a work, and this has been adequately indicated, then it becomes the responsibility of the audience to know whether they are able to consume it. Think of it like an allergy warning: If, on food packaging, an allergy warning is displayed, then anybody with that allergy can be considered at fault if they eat it (assuming the warning is adequate).

In my mind, a content warning is not a shifting of a discussion, but a way of putting responsibility on the audience. To take an example that I am very passionate about; when thinking philosophically, ideas and opinions are sometimes passed around that are going to make some people uncomfortable. A content warning is, in effect, saying, “If you cannot handle this material, you have no place here”. For example, if somebody is easily offended by topics of religion, then they really have no place participating in any serious discussion on the philosophy of religion. This is, in my view, the best use for content warnings; but also as an indication of where they ought to be, and where they ought not to be.

To go back to my allergy example: If you are allergic to peanuts, you have no right to complain if you eat a clearly labelled bag of peanuts and end up in the hospital.

Why on earth would you want somebody in a discussion who is unable to properly handle that discussion? In this way, a content creator ought not to be held accountable for somebody being offended. If an appropriate warning is provided, the creator allows for more open discussion within the agreed upon space.

The under-appreciated value of common-sense

When it comes to content warnings, there’s a simple principle that I feel is severely lacking: Common sense.

It’s reasonable to expect people to know what may or may not be considered offensive. If it is entirely within the realm of common sense that something might be traumatic, then not much effort is required to put a brief, clear, warning onto it.

Similarly, on the other side of the debate, it should also be a matter of common sense as to what it is reasonable to expect people to put content warnings on. If somebody was terrified of bananas, for example, whilst this may be traumatic, it is such an uncommon and irregular fear that it would be unreasonable to expect people to cater to it, not least of all since, logically, if we warned people of bananas just because somebody might be afraid of them, would we then not need to list every fruit that shows up in a work?

There therefore ought to be a general principle of common sense as to what ought to and ought not to have a content warning.

The limits of freedom, and why censorship is not just acceptable, but occasionally morally required

My final point will immediately smack people the wrong way. The word “freedom,” is tossed around so liberally these days, and people are so willing to fight for this vague concept, that few will recognise its limits.

You do not have complete freedom of speech and you are not free to spread any information you wish. This is a fact. It is illegal and wrong to give out the names of a suspected criminal in a certain case, due to the fact that, if it later turns out that they are innocent, their life will still be negatively effected.

A second example of this is that you cannot openly give people instructions of how to make certain explosive devices. Even if you know such a thing, you are not at liberty to share that information. Most people will agree that this is a sensible limit to freedom.

However, this can be taken further, in my mind. Some pieces of media exist purely to spread hate, or to disrupt society. I will give two examples of pieces of media which I feel ought to be censored, followed by reasons as to why:

“Kill the Faggot,” was a game put up on Steam, which was nothing more than a homophobic murder simulator. Eventually, due to its nature, the game was removed from the service. This game’s entire purpose was to be hateful and offensive.

More recently, a photo of a man holding an iPad was edited to make it appear as if he were holding a Quran, with bombs strapped to him. This imagine is, obviously, Islamophobic, and its intent is to generate hate.

To formulate this in a more philosophical way: The question is whether the benefits of free-speech to a society are enough to justify the existence of extreme forms of hate-speech. Famously, Mill’s advocacy of free-speech has been challenged as being contradictory to his “Harm Principle.”

Put simply, the Harm Principle allows government authority to intervene in the freedom of citizens when they are likely to cause harm to one another. It is unclear what exactly Mill meant by “harm”, but, if somebody was exercising their free-speech to persuade others to commit violent crimes against another group of people within society, then it would seem that there is a contradiction between allowing for complete freedom of speech, and censoring certain opinions in order to prevent harm being done to others within society.

Thus, we must all ask the question of whether we want completely free speech, even if it allows for extreme hate speech, and for media which may cause a great deal of harm to others.

In my mind, the ethics of belief play an important role in answering this question.
When we believe something, we take it to be true. Philosophically, it is stated that “belief aims at truth,” vis. Believing P means that P is taken to be true. You cannot simultaneously believe something, yet also think it to be untrue.

If we take something to be true, it is likely that we will act in an appropriate manner. For example, if I believe that it is raining, I am more likely to wear a coat. In the case of these two pieces of media, if people believe that Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terrorism, they are more likely to act in discriminatory ways.

Media alters beliefs. Beliefs inform behaviour. Behaviour effects everybody. The media that others consume, and the beliefs that others hold, are therefore in the interest of everybody. If a piece of media is likely to form untrue beliefs that will lead to severely negative consequences then it ought to be censored. For example, a piece of media that is designed to recruit young people into terrorist organisations by making them believe it is the right thing to do may have severely negative effects for others, and should therefore, be censored.

Ergo, in certain cases, when the effects will be severely negative, it is in the best interest of everyone that certain things be censored. To argue against this is a very difficult challenge, as either one of the two things would need to be show: Either, there is no scenario under which it is more desirable for everyone that somebody be allowed to say something, and that banning that something would cause society more severe harm than the suspension of free-speech. Or, it would have to be shown that a) Free speech has intrinsic worth, and b) that intrinsic worth is always worth more than any consequences it could bring. There is no deontological maxim for free-speech, nor is there a maxim that says content warnings are always bad. Sometimes certain things need to be censored, and, at other times, certain things within various pieces of media require content warnings.

In closing

I’ll close by clarifying where I stand: Content warnings are in the interest of everybody, though they ought not to be treated unreasonably by those who are for or against them. Certain media has no “right” to exist, and other media ought to be properly labelled. Responsibility ought to lay with the consumer where appropriate warnings are provided.

submitted by changemylife99
[link] [8 comments]

submitted by silverflameshibe
[link] [20 comments]

submitted by hellowombat
[link] [4 comments]

submitted by Ultramayne
[link] [5 comments]

Every once in a while I see a fursuit for sale and think "gosh I'd look good in that" and then I read the auction--max height 5'3"

I'm somewhere between 5'11" and 6 foot. Am I actually freakishly tall or is there some reason why fursuits tend to be made for shorter people?

submitted by grievre
[link] [36 comments]

I currently use Linux on my laptop exclusively (currently Linux Mint, but I'm doing an experiment with Ubuntu MATE and the Gala window manager that might make it more appealing to me).

Anyone else here a user or fan of Linux?

submitted by Saamstraat
[link] [38 comments]

Headlines, links and little stories to make your tail wag.  Guest posts welcome. Tips: patch.ofurr@gmail.com. 

Fred Patten’s birthday was December 11 – Happy 75th, Fred!

Read an interview with Fred about the founding of Furry fandom, by esteemed novelist Phil Geusz.  Thanks Fred for bringing so much content that helps Dogpatch Press to put out Furry News every week day.  Sorry that this went out too late to share Furplanet’s weekend birthday discount sale for Fred’s titles.  But check them out:

• The Ursa Major Awards Anthology
• What Happens Next (anthology)
• Five Fortunes (anthology)
• Anthropomorphic Aliens (anthology)
• The Furry Future (anthology)
• An Anthropomorphic Century (anthology)

“Accidental Guests of the Midwest Fur Fest” – outsider appreciation gets viral views.

This personal blog post got lots of love.  The Healthy Not Nuts blog covers a husband and wife’s thoughts on recipes, diet, health and photography.  It’s lovely when Furries add spice to the mundane!  “…how can you not love these creatures that look so cute, cuddly and happy all of the time?”  The post earned 267 comments.  The writer shared an appreciation letter for the post, where he mentioned getting over 20,000 views.

Furries in Buzzfeed’s “The 50 Worst Things On The Internet In 2015.” (NSFW)

Use this archive link (so they get no incentive to publish unforgivable crap).  Furries are in items 14, 20, 31, and 46.  There’s also bonus bronies, puppy and pony players. Whether it’s love or hate, at least things are never boring…

Goodbye to Furnation.

Furnation was one of the first visible Web presences for Furry fandom. It helped many to discover their fursonas in the 1990’s. Reddit calls it “the end of an era.” Flayrah gave it a feature under it’s tag for collected coverage. Social network Furrtrax made a generous offer of free hosting to keep it online.  I tried helping, but got the feeling that Furnation’s admin was too burnt out with health problems to devote an ounce of effort for community moderation. I also assume the build of the site might be antiquated and burdensome (perhaps technical, or with copyright for content built by individuals.) It’s influence lives on in places like FurPlanet (formed from Furnation Magazine), one of the 3 main Furry publishers.

Literary Agent has a message for her followers.  They must be sending mountains of this…

Here are some other things I can't sell right now: Vikings. Anthropomorphic animals. SF with cute humanoid aliens. Vampires.

— Hannah Bowman (@hannahnpbowman) December 14, 2015

Zootopia news – the heat is rising for the 2016 Fursplosion.  Will it open a new era of “Furry Chic?”

For promotion straight from Disney, here’s new anthro parody movie posters, and a delightfully busy Zootopia poster.  And this is very interesting…

Disney Prepares to Cash In on the Furry Demographic with “Zootopia”.  Inverse.com notices what a lot of us have been speculating about.  Few outsiders have commented until now (although there was this minor piece last year: “Marvel Looking To Capture The Furry Market?“)  Keep in mind, market size doesn’t necessarily matter, if buzz spreads from niche to niche with outsized influence. Like bunnies don’t have to be big to be… productive.

The author felt like my reddit comment was worth quoting. “patch_ofurr writes “don’t ever think a giant corporation doesn’t know EXACTLY what they’re doing…”  But after the article came out, furry Redditors were underwhelmed.  They complained about the article’s lack of talking to an actual furry, and linking Vanity Fair’s outdated, always-shitty 2001 hit piece against furries. That’s #1 on the Journalist No-No List.

“Furry Chic” is my way of harkening back (tastefully or not) to 1970’s “Porno Chic”.  Movies like Deep Throat earned unprecedented mainstream notice and box office success. Film critics and academics love that topic.  It came with the sexual revolution and the phenomenon of exploitation movies tackling topics that Hollywood wouldn’t touch. (Like lurid, but socially pointed funky Blaxploitation).  It’s possible to find roots of Furry fandom in that milieu… with the first X-rated animated movie, Fritz The Cat.

Funny how a Zootopia director was quoted as saying this movie will have Disney’s first ‘nude scene.’

Clunk Mag: an interview with a furry.

A conversation with Lilka.  “Of all the subcultures that the internet exposed in the new millennium, from all the hundreds of varieties that all rampantly fractured into thousands of niches, there is one that still has the ability to shock: The Furries.”  The writer goes out of his way to highlight sexual comments that are not-so-shocking. (And why is he so interested?)

______________

AMAZING FURRY NEWS COMING SOON – You Won’t Believe How The Con Got Embarrassed In #7!

______________

Fursuit 'Doggy Bathtime' Voted Hottest Fantasy That Adult Movies Are Afraid To Do

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 21, 2015

Pittsburgh Says Fuck It And Changes Name To Anthroburgh

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 22, 2015

Huge Drop In Suicides When Police Bring Fursuiters To Hug People On The Edge

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 22, 2015

Fur Con Reminds Guests That Febreze Is Not As Good As A Shower

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 22, 2015

Hotel Guest Trapped In Elevator With Furries Comes Out With Huge Grin, New Fursona

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 22, 2015

Study Reveals Furry Yiffing Can Generate Enough Static Electricity To Solve World Energy Crisis

— Dogpatch Press (@DogpatchPress) September 23, 2015

So, did my title grab your attention?

Hey there! My actual name is [redacted] but you can call me Switch. I've been in the fandom since 2012(ish) which is almost 1/5 of my life (If you do the math right you can get my age!). Also, sorry for any formatting issues. I'm on my phone, in bed, being a lazy shit.

So, there's this guy named Kevin. I met him when we were both being some 1337 MLG PRÖS in a Comp match on CS:GO. I saw his furry profile pic and added him because of it. We chatted and surfed a little bit and we voice chatted over Steam. We have each others Kiks and we've been talking for a while. My reason for posting here is I really like him but I don't know what to do. So maybe you fellow furry fiends can help out? Social down below.

SHAMELESS SOCIAL PLUGS:

TWITTER: @SwitchFusky STEAM: wolfterritory07 or The Merriest Jingle Ball SKYPE: You naughty noo noo. No IP for you.

submitted by MemeMC
[link] [6 comments]

submitted by ColdHooves
[link] [22 comments]

submitted by ColdHooves
[link] [43 comments]

My first proper commission! It's of my OC which has taken a lot of inspiration from a few of intrufox's characters which I love so much! (I also do a lot of skeet shooting hence the firearm) ~^

Edit: just realised this had already been posted by dreamingwanderer herself sorry for the double post, merry Christmas to all!

submitted by Pebble_da_fox
[link] [comment]

submitted by TheSocialLycanthrope
[link] [6 comments]

submitted by CityFursuits
[link] [4 comments]

I have some comics I don't need anymore. Is there anywhere other than furbuy to sell them?

submitted by ngqp
[link] [1 comment]

So, I haven't been on Reddit for all that long, but I have noticed that sometimes (Or a lot of times, especially on subjects such as fetishism) people post information that simply cant be true. Ex: only 1% of furries are sexual towards other furries(I've heard this from many furs as well)... Well, there are 21,787 furries in this subreddit (as of this post) and 1% of that is 217.87, there are 28,224 furries on r/yiff , so.. yea. But I didn't come to start a flame war, I came to give you this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhDHx6Cisdg Its by a man named Gnoggin, he is a fairly popular youtuber, trustworthy as well, so if you get the chance, it's a pretty good video. :3

submitted by ShiningLanturn
[link] [1 comment]

Hey everyone :) I had a question. I mean no offense or anything by this just kind of trying to understand this a little more. So the reason I said "gay furs" is because I have a question more about being gay. So I work at this place and I am not judging more rather wondering. There were two gentlemen shopping in my department, and I helped them out. I'm not positive but I've heard of gays saying they have a wife (in this case) for a partner, but what the case was, they were saying they were straight to protect themselves. So anyways back to the thing, two guys 99% was saying they were together, sort of seemed it too (I could be completely wrong). When talking with them it seemed that they were lying saying they were straight, So really I am just kind of trying to understand if you are gay why lie about who you are with? I understand it in some situations, but in Seattle of all places? Just trying to make sense of it and if I did anything wrong?

submitted by Yukinoinu
[link] [6 comments]

One of comic book great Jack Kirby’s more obscure creations was the Devil Dinosaur and Moon Boy series — obscure, but still popular among comic book collectors. It featured the adventures (on a parallel, savage world) of an ape-like proto-human named “Moon Boy” and his companion, a firey-red tyrannosaurus rex with human-level intelligence.  And now Marvel comics have brought Devil Dinosaur into modern times, literally, with their new series Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur — written by Brandon Montclare and Amy Reeder, with art by Natacha Bustos. This time around “Moon Girl” is a young human (with some “Inhuman” secrets) who just may be a genius inventor in the making. In the midst of one of her experiments though, she accidentally drags Devil Dinosaur into our world and our time. Talk about a pair who just don’t fit in! The first issue is on the shelves now, and i09 has an interview with the creators as well.

image c. 2015 Marvel Comics

Here's my attempt at introducing myself. So I've been lurking for longer than I'd care to admit. I've always been interested in character creation and drawing animals and stuff, so that lead me to this community that I have really come to appreciate. I'd love to join the fun so... here I am! As I said, drawing is kind of my thing so here's a ref sheet for my work-in-progress fursona. Also this winged-horned-bear thing I did a while back. Probably my favorite. And this is a friend's dog I did, like, an hour ago or so. So... yup. That's that. I'd really appreciate any constructive criticism and, please ask me any questions you might have. I'll do my best.

:3

submitted by J-Ollie
[link] [28 comments]

submitted by Lizardonfire
[link] [1 comment]