Topic: Why I really hate SomethingAwful (Read 17024 times)

They have as much passion as we do, We go through the waves of Bullshit to defend the look of the 'furry name'
Y'know, we dont HAVE to goto SA and make a defensive statement, But we do because we believe that what we are doing is Right.
They make aggressive statements because they feel that we (as furries) are Wrong for exsisting.

Such a shame about the stupidly simple fact that this argument is So smilliar to the "gay is bad" argument.
They dont like us for exsisting, We dont like them for disliking our exsistance.

Now really, Who wins this fight? Who started it?
IMO, Anti-furs started the flamewar, We didnt push anything onto anyone, We just stand around and defend against your inaccurate, horrific comments that get vollied at us every morning.

What do we do? Resist being stepped on.
What do they do? Verbally assault us.

"pumped" heh.

I just think it's funny that they went through the trouble of finding something they find uncomfortable, when it's totally unrelated and they really didn't need to put themselves through that.  I wonder if they all look at goatsee pictures every morning just to get themselves pumped up for a day of trolling?

I guess they just like horse pictures?

Not surprised really. People tend to ridicule what they fear to discover (or allow to be discovered) in themselves.

BTW, a message to SA. All those horse pics and framed images you found? Congrats. They're not mine. The famous table is. All that other stuff isn't. None of my art is framed or on any walls. And I don't even like horses. They're nasty dirty things. So, yay for looking for crap, finding stuff not associated with me, and attempting to use it to discredit me. Not that I care much, but just wanted to let you know you were wrong, and, pitifully, were forced to look at stuff you find repulsive for no reason.
Cary on.

The last few comments made me realize something...

Fox News has it all wrong. Black Panthers with a billy club aren't intimidating. If you want elderly white Christians to stay away from voting booths, have men dress up as gay octopuses with dick in hand. Instead of Democrats being "the Black party," now they're the "gay octopus party." I seriously doubt Democrats will see higher voter turnout when members must defend gay octopus voter intimidation. The perfect false flag... - what were we talking about?

I put ? marks after millenia and more for that reason.  I'm fine accepting centuries here if you think that fits best. 

The best I can tell from an objective standpoint there is no difference between sexual arousal towards opposite sex, same sex or dead bodies other than how commonly they occur (would be interested to hear about scientific awareness that refutes this, labeling something different because it occurs more rarely doesn't count).

Orientation, paraphilia, use whatever terms you want but it doesn't have much bearing on the argument.  Just because DSM-X invents a new word for something doesn't make it something separate in the context of our discussion.


Interesting comment.  From my perspective sex with men, drinking piss, eating shit are all part of the same "nasty" category.  I'm personally repulsed by the thought of any one of those sufficiently that I couldn't tell you which one I think would be more unpleasant than an another.

My options are:
-Tolerance for people that are drawn to do things I personally and subjectively find nasty, in which case I accept people with the desire for any of the above mentioned behavior.
-Psuedo-tolerance based on a sliding scale of public opinion and commonality.  A stance not ground in objective rational logic but rather some measure of hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance.
-Bigotry where I only accept behavior I personally understand and feel comfortable with.

If some homophobe or bigot or whatever wanted to hate gays because he thought they were nasty why would he have to fantasize about other nasty behavior?  Doesn't really make much sense to me.  If he was so extremely homophobic wouldn't the act of sex with another man be nasty enough to fuel his ignorant hate?

If someone wants to eat shit, hump dudes, or have sparing missionary with the opposite sex in their own home that is their business and not the whole measure of the person.  I'd being willing to bet I am friends with at least one person that does something behind closed doors that I would find absolutely disgusting.  As long what they do doesn't negatively affect me I shouldn't really care.

Well, that's kind of the problem. Furry fandom isn't a fetish, just an interest in a certain art style, which also includes a sexual subset (just as there is a sexual subset in anime fandom, and even star trek fandom, from what I've heard), and furry fans tend to stick to their close-knit groups, having their own conventions and meeting, and welcoming anyone else who wishes to join, but otherwise never proselytizing and sticking to their group. Yet some other people really go out of their way to look for "advertisements" and imagine what kind of horrible fetishes someone may be into whenever they see a furry avatar or icon. You know, kinda like some people imagine nasty sex acts whenever they see two guys holding hands.

I actually get a fair amount of traffic from SA. I get the feeling they're the reason I had to replace my comment system with something that can better handle floods of bullshit.

Yes, there's a word for those people who are not: "asshole."

well that's how people should be, but not everyone is going to be accepting of stuff

Well, yeah, but if you're a gay furry hentacle freak, how else are you going to find another dude to dress up as an octopus and fuck?

Live and let live, man. As long as both (all? ) parties are willing, IDGAF what you're putting where, or how you're dressed.

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

I Furone, Understand. Everybody instatly goes "BEASTIALITY LOVING ANIMAL FUCKING PEDOFILES!!" When they see a Furry, Thus, I have a Pony icon.

Love and tolerate, They will hate and dissasociate.
It's simple really, Any True Brony is just not going to give up an "argument" Because for them its a debate, Were not angry, Or annoyed that you hate us for liking things like MLP, Or anthro animals.
Were just simply going to debate why we like it, and why you dont.
We'll be happy, Changing your mind, While you toil in your own soil, Trying to say Anything to make us angry.

Why? Are you jealous?
Do you not want to "hop on the boat" or "join the herd" Simply because others got there first? Others that you may or maynot dislike?
Really people, Spouting anger at about pretty much anything that wont impact your life, is just plain Stupid.

Heckle a Furry? Get a hug. Hit the furry? He shakes it off, Do it again and they will dogpile you to the ground and have you arrested for assualt.
Heckle a Brony? Get a rebuttle, Hit the brony? he's going to leave and never see you again. Police call in ten seconds flat.
Cant hit them because they are across the internet? Block them you idiot. "Theres too many" Then ignore them! "Dude i told you theres too many"

Well shucks buddy, Your SOL and your just going to have to chalk it up that theres another thing on the planet that you dont like.
Like eating babies Or harvesting organs. Im sorry was that a Horrible comparison? How about this one.

Like seeing two dogs fucking in the park, Or like seeing a horse give birth.
Its a freaking part of life.

You people are weird  

Also, extreme homophobes often explain why gays are disgusting by describing the sexual acts they believe gays are into; things like drinking piss, smearing and eating shit, and other EXTREMELY nasty crap that normal gays can't even come up with, let alone find appealing. They find all those sex acts just as nasty. SA's reaction to furry fandom really reminds me of that: no, vast majority of furries do NOT want to have sex with animals (they are dirty and disgusting), and don't masturbate to Disney characters or coffee tables. It's really no different at all from anime fans liking pictures of cute, sexy anime girls/boys. Except it's cute, sexy anthropomorphic girls/boys. There's really nothing more to it, just as there's nothing more to being gay than just liking a certain sex, or to being human than just liking a certain body type (skinny/ full/ blonde/ redhead, etc.)
But some people really need to give themselves reasons for feeling justified about why they find something weird or wish to hate something/someone, so they come up with all these nasty fantasies to make themselves feel better. They're still assholes for doing it, though. And the SA bunch seems especially justified at coming up with these fantasies, and being assholes about them. No, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of bitcoiners didn't get involved with any scams. No, they are not computer illiterate idiots who don't understand hardware and could burn their house down from mining. No, they are not financially illiterate to the point where they don't understand that mining loses them money (my rig makes $90/month, and costs $45/month in electricity). And a lot us here also have degrees and MBAs in finance, economics, and whatever. Just because SA people's Keynesian ideals don't agree with the Austrian ideals of this group doesn't mean that one group is haha-wrong. Both are *methods* which work based on historically proven rules. The argument is mostly on what the outcome will be. SA isn't any more correct than Bitcoiners in their guesses about the outcome, but at least bitcoiners are willing to debate, discuss, and learn, while SA is too much of a circle-jerk.

Not to mention that a sexual orientation and a paraphilia are not the same thing.  Perhaps you believe that because gay people were otherised in recent times that they were always persecuted throughout the whole of recorded history.  Historically, such persecution has been episodic and often correlated with times of religious power and oppression of sexuality in general.  The emergence of psychology as a field also created oppressive attitudes towards human sexuality for a very long time, with an increasing focus on "curing" what were regarded as sexual aberrations.  The "diseasing" of homosexuality (a term which was only coined in the late 19th century) helped entrench negative attitudes towards same-sex attraction.  It was no longer regarded as a chosen path but as an illness to be prevented if at all possible (and a lot of negative attitudes towards masturbation stem from the time when psychology believed that "excessive" masturbation would bring out "latent" homosexual tendencies) and to be "cured" if it couldn't be prevented.

We cannot now imagine a return to times when sexuality is oppressed - and yet throughout history that has happened time and time again.

Nope. Lots of cultures have previously accepted gays. (You could even stretch things and call the Egyptians furries.) None have ever been OK with desecrating the dead.

I don't disagree.  This doesn't refute the point I was making at all though.

It took drastic change for the acceptance of gays, before the change was made it would be inaccurate for someone to claim tolerance and hate gays, regardless of how much change was needed for the general populace to become accepting.  People that owned slaves probably didn't think they were prejudiced, this had no bearing on what the truth was though.

The type of thinking that led to arguments made by you and repentance is exactly why it took centuries (Millennia? more?) for acceptance of gays.  If we don't give a shit about truly being tolerant then that's fine (I happen to have a sexual preference that is very common and therefore don't personally benefit from tolerance of more exotic sexual orientations, if anything it hurts me in the sense that Will & Grace aired on TV at one point and I inadvertently watched occasional commercials of it etc.), let's just not pretend that people who accept gays are so much more enlightened since they are really just a different shade of gray from the ignorant bigots of say the KKK.

To be fair though from a practical standpoint you can say they (those accepting of gays) are tolerant of the vast majority by percent of total population if not a by a majority of sexual orientations.  Although that is basically saying it's OK to be intolerant of a people as long as the population of those people is small.

If you want to be selectively tolerant don't worry you are part of the majority.  Just be honest with yourself about your beliefs and realize you don't have a reasonable logical standing to support them.

It's actually not my intention to be offensive and I don't really hate people that are selectively tolerant since that is vast majority of the people in the world we live in.  Mostly I find this argument intellectually interesting, I've had it many times with friends.

Changing the public perception of necrophilia will require more drastic change than the acceptance of gays, or even furries. You'd need to get everyone to see a corpse as an object rather than their dear Aunt Sally. You'd be going against not just centuries, but all of human history. We've been burying the dead to keep just this sort of thing from happening - desecration of the corpse - since we've been "us."

Yes my whole point was that this is irrational and illogical thinking, and that by being tolerant of gays but not other sexual orientations you are merely conforming to what society accepts rather than being a logical and critical thinker or a truly tolerant person.  I find it ridiculous that so many "accept" gays and pat themselves on the back for how tolerant and progressive they are when really they are just conforming their opinions based on whats currently accepted regardless of how hypocritical or illogical the line of thinking is.

People now think about people that have sex with dead bodies similarly to the way people used to feel about gays.  We haven't become a nation of tolerance, we've just moved the goal posts and declared victory.