Talk:Furry fandom/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 February 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Hehe

Hehe, glad to see you back on track & gittin' 'er done. human^{be in} 23:34, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

RWification

I looked at the Project Whitewash page, and I still have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Guess I'd better leave it to better minds than mine. --Kels 12:13, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

I think it means that it isn't written in a "refute the idiots" way, or something like that. T's been marking a lot of articles. At least he only marks some of them with the "RWify" cat; many are getting moved to ACD. Strangely, Boston Marriage got moved, I would have thought a "sexuality themed" article would stay in main. Anyway, maybe he'll chime in somewhere to make it clearer what a given article "needs". human^{be in} 13:03, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

I think Boston Marriage just needs some cleaning up...it prob needs to stay in mainspace. We've been sweeping up so much that some have gotten lost. I accidentally labelled the actually pretty good Homosexuality article for improvement, etc, the moved in back when someone said WTF.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 13:42, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I created the article because it was requested, not because there was something to refute. I know some of my other stuff, like tripe and so forth probably would be better off under ACD. Haven't done much refutation stuff, to be honest, I generally leave that to the more intelligent members. --Kels 14:29, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Woah!

This page has gotten over 5000 page veiws since november first at which time it had less then 400. 216.115.125.169 12:36, 7 December 2007 (EST)

That was me, I had to reload each character several times to read it properly. Just a bit OCD, is all, nothing to see here... human 15:40, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Wiki article

In case anyone is interested in maintaining an article about this here, Wiki article was updated recently with actual survey data (numbers!), though large part of it is still in References and on Talk pages.

Survey about what, exactly? --Kels 13:13, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You might want to mention therians. Though they are a seperate class unto themselves. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 16:11, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Anybody there? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 16:29, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Not all furries are homosexual. It's pretty much evenly spread. Most orientations are representated in equal numbers. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 16:30, 4 January 2009 (EST)

WAKE UP! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 17:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Mmm? Wha? Five more minutes... --Kels 17:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You know, some of this is offensive (and untrue (I wouldn't mind it being offensive as much if it was true)) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 17:41, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Then we must be doing something right... what is untrue? "Some of this" is hard to discuss, you know? ħuman 17:50, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe not as much untrue as not telling the whole story (or more like stories). This article scratches (no pun intended) the surface of something that is much more complex than this article makes it look like. And not all furries (the ones that I'm describing are called therians) are just having fun. Some genuinely feel unusually connected to a particular animal. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 18:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Well? Is anyone going to say anything? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 17:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, would you please fix your ridiculous sig? It's taking up half this section with giant blue text. Makes it hard to read the content... ħuman 17:49, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If it is normal size, it is unreadable to the rest of us. Sorry. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 17:53, 4 January 2009 (EST)

"The rest of us?" How about anyone who doesn't happen to have "bradley hand itc" loaded? And why would we? To read your sig? Chump. Loser. ħuman 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Anybody home? i.e. Wake up, i.e. somebody argue with me over this. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 19:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Why did Conservapedia delete their article? Did they really hate furries/therians/anyone who exhibits animal-like tendencies? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 19:52, 4 January 2009 (EST) Someone please answer this. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You seem very needy. JazzMan 20:03, 4 January 2009 (EST)

And by that you mean what? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

The four times on this page that you were so in need of attention that you actually asked people if they were "there". JazzMan 01:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

See this. Also, God hates furries -- Nx ^talk 20:49, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Try telling that to all the Christian therians out there. I know several online --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)

JK. Although Teh Assfly probably thinks that way... -- Nx ^talk 20:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

JK? And I'm not suprised that teh fly hates therians. Probably degrade humanity, at least in his eyes. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:59, 4 January 2009 (EST)

JK = Just Kidding -- Nx ^talk 21:03, 4 January 2009 (EST)

As if teh fly didn't have enough already to hate me for. . . --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I shouldn't think he's even aware of your existence. Me 20:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

He blocked me. Obviously I'm an important target, to be eliminated by the great Andy himself! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Alleged offensive content

Certain parts of this article have been accused of being offensive. Specifically, this line:

"By and large, most furries are bi and large." —[1]

This line has alternately been removed, re-added, then removed again. I tried to compromise, but it still wasn't accepted. Would anyone be willing to discuss this, as well as any other purportedly offensive content? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:52, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This is normal RW snark. It's obviously a joke, & not to be taken seriously. It's pushing a stereotype, but then a huge amount of humour relates to stereotypes. I think humour only croses the line into being genuinely offensive if it is actually hateful about a particular set of people (this isn't) or trivialises of something shocking. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

It's a funny pune or play on words and is quite good. I like it. Toast 21:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Bit sensitive. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Oversensitive? (as a dyke [not as in Offa's dyke)] I don't think it's offensive & I've had some in my time) Toast 21:08, 4 January 2009 (EST)

(ECx2 Garrr!) Well I can see it's obviously a joke, but on the other hand I can also see how it could be taken offensively. It's not in the same league as this garbage, but if someone feels strongly enough that they're willing to edit war over it, perhaps it's best to just let it die? It doesn't really contribute to the article at all (that is to say, there's no real relevance) so why keep putting it back? -Redback^{demands obedience} 21:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with Redback. If CUR is going to edit war over it, and it's just a throw-away line anyways, then I don't see why we should keep it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)

@Weaseloid: the idea was that it would be better to discuss things with CUR, and help him come to some sort of understanding, instead of letting him edit war over the article. I believe it's more constructive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Why @me? I only reverted CUR once when she took the joke out, & gave my reasons in the edit comment. I saw she'd taken it back out again, & I just left it without any further changes. I don't care enough about this issue or this article to edit war over it. But since you opened this discussion, I've come back to add my opinions here. I'm not sure why you're implying that I'd rather edit war than discuss. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:19, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I wasn't clear with that. I was responding specifically to your comment above (the one that starts "This is normal RW snark..."). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I know; I still don't understand the thrust of your comment. But never mind. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You never know who you might be offending. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Right, I think I'll go and edit war on the Lesbian page. Toast 21:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)

(Gaaah! 2nd edit conflict!) If you did, then you wouldn't be the Toast I know, you'd be a twit who did something destructive just to make a point. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:21, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If something there's offending a vulnerable (as in often negetively pictured and stereotyped) group, feel free to take it out. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:16, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I find things on RW that offend me - but I see how they fit into our "voice", and mostly ignore them. If RW doesn't offend someone somewhere, we failed. CUR, if you want this article to get rewritten to remove what offends you, please FIRST quote what offends you. The only thing I see is RA quoting a part (that you are fat and ugly) that you haven't mentioned yet. It's not hard to make these things better, but you have to quote what bothers you before we can discuss it. ħuman 21:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I am offended by the bi and large joke. I am also offended by the sex cat template there. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 10:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

As a furry myself, I officially find it funny. --Kels 21:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

As a therian, I don't. If it matters. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:39, 5 January 2009 (EST)

It doesn't. Me 20:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Than why are we having this discussion? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:20, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I know that there are always gonna be parts of RW that will offend others (ffs, we have an article called Assfly), but is it really worth it in this case? The part of the article in question has no purpose and it doesn't contribute anything to the article except a quick lol, is it worth offending someone for no reason whatsoever? -Redback^{demands obedience} 21:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)

But on the other hand, is it worth taking out a fairly good pun, which quite a few editors like, simply because one person objects to it? I prefer RA's idea of a footnote affirming that this is just a joke & no offence is intended. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Sounds like a good idea. ħuman 21:45, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Well, let's see. One resident furry thinks it's funny. One other editor, CUR, can't even take the trouble to quote what bugs him/her in order for us to discuss it. I say let's have a conversation before some poor offended soul whitewashes what is a fairly decent article to match their anguished perspective. Look, we don't expect to let YECs edit our article on YEC to fit their sensibility - but we do invite them to discuss it with us on the talk page. Same here. ħuman 21:35, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Given I wrote a substantial portion of this (although the by/bi joke wasn't mine), I think it's awesome! --Kels 21:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the idea Human, I think I'll hop over there and delete anything that might be "offensive" next. Toast 21:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If you think this is offensive, you should see what Uncyclopedia says about furries. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Let's try some perspective here. I find Goatse and farts funny (I even find Fred Phelps' site funny, in an oh my gawd, have a gawk at this tard way). But does that mean we should allow these things to be posted on RW? I understand we're not here to worry about everyone else's feelings, but is it worth all - this, just for a pun? -Redback^{demands obedience} 21:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

It's worth it to discuss what the site consensus is on situations like this, where something (usually a joke) is found objectionable by a single editor. This isn't an isolated case, & I'm sure it won't be te last. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:49, 4 January 2009 (EST)

The policy on consensus is there for a reason, I get that, I just don't see why we need to make a case out of something so small. Still, I've made my opinion known, so I'll stand aside now. -Redback^{demands obedience} 21:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) There is a huge difference between Phelps and this though -- Nx ^talk 21:50, 4 January 2009 (EST)

The CUR (can't be bothered) has been at odds with the site from his first edit (rusty spotted cat, anyone?) Me 21:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for pointing that out... ħuman 22:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Sarcasm Mr. Human? Me 22:50, 4 January 2009 (EST)

No, not at all!! Sorry if it came across that way. ħuman 22:52, 4 January 2009 (EST)

OK. I assumed that everyone had made the same judgement and was ignoring it for some reason. Was it you who amende his sig? It was second only to Pi's in awfulness. Me 22:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

ez edit button

Just popping in a button. Kthnx. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate!

Reply to Redback, re "why we need to make a case out of something so small". It's not just this one case. CUR has already made a big deal about objecting to sexual humour on several other pages, & will no doubt do so again. That's why it's important to address the issue. Certainly we should discuss what is & isn't offensive, as we're doing here, but compromising towards a majority consensus is the way to go, rather than bowing to the wishes of one user. Just as we mustn't let editors completely rewrite articles to their own unique agenda (e.g. Radical feminist), so we shouldn't let a single editor bowdlerise all our articles according to their own standards if those are at odds with what most of us find acceptable. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Well, as I say, I can understand the need for consensus. I was unaware that CUR had made similar complaints, I was mistaken when I assumed earlier comments about this not being an isolated case were referring to complaints from various sources, not just one editor. Given that I've been enlightened, I've shifted my position about "making a case out of something so small", but my other opinions remain intact. Please don't think I'm getting pissy over this, I was merely uninformed. I pulled a Conservapedia by not researching prior to my ranting, shame on me! -Redback^{demands obedience} 22:21, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Considering that the majority of voices here seem to agree that the joke in question should stay, and that Weaseloid and Human also approved of my compromise in comments above, I will implement the compromise (which isn't so much a compromise as a disclaimer). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Works for me. I hope CUR can appreciate it. Thanks. ħuman 23:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Tangential note in passing: There's no such thing as a "majority consensus". Either/or. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 04:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Fine. Restore it. But it still isn't funny. And never will me. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 09:21, 5 January 2009 (EST)

SEX and CUR

Hey CUR--you got a problem with sex? TheoryOfPractice 09:32, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I'm giving up on the joke, but the fandom has nothing to do with that, and I really think that the template doesn't belong there. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 10:39, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Reading the article, it seems to me that the fetish angle is a pretty key part of FF and the way that FF is understood by many people...10:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Fetish is not a key part. And I'm pretty sure that we try to dispel stereotypes, not enforce them. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 10:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)

And the article DOES that, in many places. But ignoring the sexual angle of FF--which a quick internet search shows to be of some importance--would be just as bad. TheoryOfPractice 10:48, 5 January 2009 (EST) _{Now excuse me while I clear my cache....}

I don't think that this article is relevant enough to human sexuality to be included in a series on it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 15:11, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Why not? TheoryOfPractice 15:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Why? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 14:07, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Well, you made the claim that it wasn't and are apparently unable to back up that claim. As I pointed out above, even a cursory Google search shows that quite a few people associate FF with sexuality. I'm sure if I gave a shit I could find more. You seem to really care about this and can't/won't provide any evidence.... TheoryOfPractice 14:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I believe that the burden of proof lies on the one making the accusations. And some people think that Jews are the devil. Doesn't matter. If 'people think so' was an excuse to say things on this wiki, then this wiki would be trash. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 14:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

(UNDENT) I believe that the burden of proof lies on the one making the accusations: Alright then--you're accusing this article of placing an undue emphasis on the sexual nature of a really silly set of practices. You give NOTHING in terms of evidence to back up that accusation. I counter that a quick look on the internet shows that many people in fact do sexualise the silly practice in question. I'd link, but I think you know how to do a google search--moreover, I think that you know I am right and you are wrong. Unless you can explain away the dozens/hundreds of sexually suggestive FF images/sites that you know are out there,give up. TheoryOfPractice 14:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

WTF? Sex has nothing to do with FF? Are you on crack? --Kels 14:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Since part of the article content relates to sexuality, it undoubtedly belongs in the Sexuality category. But since it isn't entirely about sexuality, maybe a compromise would be to remove the Sex template. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Why compromise when one side doesn't bother to back up their complaints? Particularly someone who's been known to run around poking things just because they're looking for a "debate". --Kels 14:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)

At the risk of getting "megaturbobannhammerredzoid" or whatever the fuck he's always on about, I agree with Kels--always the voice of reason. TheoryOfPractice 14:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Believe me, you are at no risk at being turbobanned for disagreeing with me. And I didn't say sex had nothing to do with FF, I said that it wasn't the focus of FF, and therefore should not be the focus of this article. And Kels, does it matter if I like debating people? Is it any of your <bleep> buiseness? And I only poke things I geniunely disagree with. For example, I wouldn't advocate creationism to get a debate started. I follow my views, but they are often contreversial. When they are, I enjoy discussing it rather than let it sit and cause tension to build up. Goatspeed. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 15:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Since you asked, it is indeed my <bleep> (is that a euphamism for "fucking"?) business, especially since you've repeatedly described yourself as therian and separate from furry, and I've identified myself as furry. But dial that back a bit, what happens on the wiki is the business of EVERYONE ON THE WIKI, so quit it with the trash, k? The article doesn't say it's the primary focus of FF either, but there are a lot of furries who see furry as a fetish in and of itself and, like it or not, that's how it's seen by quite a large part of the population outside the community (note, for instance, the widespread use of "furfag"). Almost every furry gathering, online and off, has some sexual aspect, if you don't believe that then go wander around popular online furry hangouts like Furcadia, Fur Affinity, and Second Life, particularly without filters on. So yes, it is appropriate under those circumstances to include the sexuality template and to make a few bisexual jokes. So now I've backed up my view, it's your turn. If this is an actual debate, it's time to put up. --Kels 15:36, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I surrender. Would you like a picture of a white flag? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 15:39, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, plz. --Kels 15:41, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I don't have one. By the way, you are the second person who I have ever conceded defeat to. The other one was another therian online who managed to beat me in a debate. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 15:43, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Go, me! --Kels 15:45, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Therians

When do us therians get our own article? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:21, 5 January 2009 (EST)

On 19th April, 2015, at 7:42pm. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Why then? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:24, 5 January 2009 (EST)

At 7:42pm then. And 14 seconds, if you want to be precise, but that's as accurately as I can predict it this far ahead. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:27, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Does teh weasel have physic powers? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 16:52, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Physic & mentle powers. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe therians should be a seperate section of the fandom article. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 21:30, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe they could be! You've surely noticed by now that the article has an "edit" button at the top... ħuman 22:11, 5 January 2009 (EST)

What the hell is a therian?DSFARGEG 16:19, 3 February 2009 (EST)

SHHHHH! Nicht das Scheisse gestören machen. Therian  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 16:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Just looked it up here. Crom, I can't believe people. This reminds me of the screencap that get's posted on the /boards/ of a furry defending "yiffing" an animal. Although, now that you mention it, I always felt that spiritually, I am Michelangelo. Not the artist, the turtle (and also spiritually I am an amoeba). I frequently feel deep animal-like instincts to howl "calubunga" and extend pseudopods to feed on pizza.DSFARGEG 17:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Genesis

What's the deal with that section? It's not especially funny, and only barely has anything to do with the topic. If it was more of a joke about furry, I wouldn't care so much. Hell, I can even accept the Michael Moore gag, at least it tries to be a fur joke. --Kels 15:48, 22 January 2009 (EST)

The Genesis section is junk. The Michael Moore & CSI stuff is OK, but not really deserving of being separate sections on their own. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:52, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Whoa!

Hey guys,

I was in the midst of organizing (and adding to) the article, when I got massive reverts.

Did I step on some paws?

Clue me in?

Thanks, --UnicornTapestry 16:10, 22 January 2009 (EST)

The Genesis thing was a humour fail, and the rest was badly formatted. Phantom Hoover 16:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Sorry about that; see above. I think the Genesis stuff was a bit of a waste of space. The rest of what you added is still in there; just in different places, not in stubby subsections. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:14, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Okay. Thanks for the feedback. --UnicornTapestry 16:16, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Furry

This article makes no mention of the Adaptus Astartes, the Space Marines, The Emperors' Children whom are charged with purifying the heretics and xenos. What's with that? DSFARGEG 17:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Keep

This is decidedly above average standard for a RationalWiki article and was awarded bronze. It's well reasoned and I can't see a problem with it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There's just enough mission to keep, "unfunny" as a reason to delete mainspace stuff is bicycle frog, and it doesn't read like the attack on CUR that the nominator thinks it is. It could do with a bit of work but so could a ton of other stuff here. So uh, keep. Sophie^Wilder 18:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I just found this through a link on the Jack Chick page. I was unaware the furry community was a den of woo warranting a RationalWiki page.Drakvl (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not that narrowly-purposed. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why does this page read like ED instead of an encylopedia?

Pretty much what the subject says. Crash (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Because RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The page doesn't read like an encyclopedia because RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia (as Weasel pointed out), but the page also does not read even remotely close to ED. Give it a rest. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Methinks someone pranked us...

Firstly, the opening paragraph has the passage "Don't try to insult a furry by calling them a jackass or a son of a bitch: they will thank you, and likely return the compliment." changed to " Don't try to insult a furry by calling them a cunt or a fag: they will thank you, and likely return the compliment.", which totally kills the pun and makes no sense at any rate.

That, and the addition of the "Furries: Everyone's Problem" gif, makes me think that someone is joshing us. Ru1138 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely vandalism. Please feel free to revert. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Ru1138 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In-depth journalistic investigation of the "furry" phenomenon

For your info. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you are being too defensive on behalf of furries.

I go through the article, and while I do see a semi accurate description and synopsis of the furry fandom, I notice a little passage like this:

"Kill it with fire! If you want to appear incredibly intelligent and well-adjusted, chant "Kill it with Fire!" at a furry or group of furries. This is a well-known chant that strikes fear into the hearts of many furries, as it signals the presence of one of their many enemies, be they Goons, Anons, EDiots, or one of many "upstanding citizens," and is often accompanied with similar chants of "Yiff in Hell!"[9] The vast majority of furries have totally not heard this chant hundreds of times before, so you will appear to be highly original and insightful. And, of course, irrational hatred of outgroups shows you are a hip and worldly person of distinction."

I notice that the words in "hip and worldly person of distinction" pipes to links that lead to "bigot" and "asshole," as I am a person from an EDiot, Something Awful, Channer background, I can attest to people from my side of the fence being a little too, let's say, aggressive with their knee jerk vitriol, but I can also say some that vitriol was well earned by certain members of the Furry Community. First off, I would say that it is ludicrous to seriously compare "fursecution" as it's been ironically dubbed, to actual persecution that's felt by actual minorities. It would be like saying that despising Star Trek fans is like despising people of a race or creed. Or, like saying that somebody with an abnormal fetish is on the same level Jews living in Nazi Germany.

Second, this article doesn't mention the kind of people whom fur bashing G00ns, /b/-tards, and EDiots think of when they think of furry.

The disaster that was the Rainfurrest Con:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmULc5VANsw&t=2s

And let's see if you can sit through this Furry Comedian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_W_4QlBhDY

RakortheTerrible1 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this article was a bit tongue in cheek on the bigot part (I myself find the "fursecution" thing cringey and just plain silly). As you pointed out though, those are certain members, not indicative of end-all be-all of the fandom. If this article is bothering you though, maybe you should talk to an admin or mod of this site? Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)