Now, I don't normally have any interest in Live Journal, however, I followed a reference in my referrer log to This Thread. Needless to say, I did not like what I saw.
It has come to my attention that a member (or members) of the RCFM constaff will not allow a babyfur panel to be sponsored by the convention. In light of this, I am going to be hosting my own babyfur panel in my room at 1:00 P.M. on Saturday. Anyone interested is gratefully invited; don't think this is only for babyfurs. The purpose of the panel is to shed some light on who we are and why we do the things we do. The panel should not last any more than a half hour, but I wouldn't set my watch to that. Additionally, I will again be hosting the Babyfur inContinental Breakfast Sunday morning at 10:00 A.M. My room number is TBA at this time, but I will be posting flyers up at the con for both the panel and the breakfast with that information.
Another poster by the handle "banalheart" elaborates:
as I have been told a "key staff member" threatened to quit if they allowed a babyfur panel. Screw it, I say. Four more babyfurs would stand up to take this "key" person's place and do a better job to boot.
I've colunteered every year since it's inception. I will not volunteer this year. If it gets worse, I will stop supporting a convintion I was there to see started like many others have.
a shame. I met my mate of 2 years there so it's a pretty important con for us, but the furtardedness is getting a bit deep.
I am not one to take everything I see on the 'Net, let alone Live Journal, as gospel. Now, if the organizers of a con decide that all this fetishistic sex stuff has no place at their con, that's one thing. No sponsored panels about plush-o-philia, fursuit sex, Babyfur, B 'n' D. Tell the zoo-furs to leave their zeta pins home. No one would have any legitimate complaint about that. However, to single out one faction while turning a blind eye to every other faction is not a smart move; it does not help the fandom to stigmatize one freaky fetish while ignoring -- or even tolerating those deemed less "icky" -- and it is just plain wrong. This is a lesson that we Furries should have learned eight years ago.
I hope to hell that this is not true, and I haven't been able to verify this with the RCFM web site. If it is, then these folks running the RCFM had better rethink this, and do it damn quick.
Found this on another web site.
I still mean what I said in my postings on the issue. I feel it's wrong to tell a subset of the furry fandom that they aren't welcome or that they are in any way lesser than us because of their interests. They are still welcome at RCFM, and in fact they have been here with us for the last two years.
They [Babyfurs] are quite welcome to have a room party or discussion group within one of their private rooms, and they are welcome to post flyers pointing to these events at the hotel. In fact, I encourage them to do so. But at this point in time, RCFM is not prepared to put something directly on the schedule that may harm us in the long run.
So there seems to be some sort of insider politics involved. Whatever it is, this needs to stop.
Form This Thread at the Comic Genesis forums:
It might help also to keep this in mind: a specific linguistic divide has finally surfaced.
An ANTHROPOMORPHIC FAN is someone who is an aficionado of books, movies, comics, and other entertainment featuring humanoid or "funny animal" characters.
A FURRY is someone who dresses up as an animal and goes on MTV to talk about their sex life with their plush toy collection.
Been there; done that.
THE ANTHRO/MORPHIC PROPOSAL/DEFINITION (FURRY Fandom II) (FEB 2001. Martin Skunk, Author.)
Given that the term "furry" is so widely used, and embarks so many different things, and considering that some furries see on Furrydom either a creed or an alternative to the "Mundane" world, I would like to suggest to furry "fans" (and artists) in general the idea of leaving these people with both the term and the meaning of the word "Furrydom", and redefine themselves under another name that fits their condition of fans and Fandom of anthropomorphic art and histories as a genre. My suggestion to get this name and do a redefinition from it could be a contraction of the name "anthropomorphics", either "Anthros" or "Morphics".
That way, those who feel attracted to anthropomorphic art and literatire wouldn't have to deal with people who do not feel as attracted by the genre.
In my opinion, this is the best (or the less bad) of the solutions for one of the biggest problems Furrydom has had to deal with. I invite you to express your opinions and to contribute to create a discussion to see the avaliability of such a project.
Give me a moment to consider the alternatives.
1) Leaving everything as it is right now. In other words, abandoning Furrydom to its own inertia. The polarization of the Furrydom will probably continue; this will create more problems between "fans" and "lifestylers", and more talented people will slowly leave Furrydom, tired of this situation, thus devaluating anthropomorphic art as a genre as the connection between this genre and the fetishist groups will turn stronger at the eyes of people from outside Furrydom.
2) Creating new, more extreme collectives at the extremes of Furrydom, to supress the opposed wing. This is a real threat to Furrydom. A careful and serious investigation of the things happened the last months (Late 2000-Early 2001) can prove that there are both individuals and groupuscles in both extremes wiling to go further than the actual radical wings of each side (Yes, lifestylers does have a hardcore group, too) with the sole purpose of destroying the other side. The actual situation on Furrydom is ideal for the creation of such groupuscles, and while we have been lucky so far and they didn't germined, the possibility of more extreme and even physically violent groups is there.This could generate a war within Furrydom that would harm all people and whose consequences can be inimaginable, if someone from any extreme decides to "take an action against these who want to destroy what they consider dear").
3 - Expecting that the "fetishists" go and leave Furrydom, or forcing them to do it. In my opinion it's highly improbable that such a thing happens. They consider themselves "furries" and have a document to prove it: A.L.F's FAQ gives a clear redefinition about what is furry; this document is as valuable as A.F.F's FAQ, that doesn't include the point stating that "a person with an important emotional/spiritual connection with an animal or animals, real, fictional or symbolic" is a "furry" too. This was probably one of the biggest failures of the Burned Furs: they refused to accept that one document was as valid as the other, and when they tried to turn back, they realized it was too late and nothing could be made to solve it.
Of course, the construction of a brand new Fandom will require a lot of support and a lot of effort from a lot of people to make it possible, as "Furrydom" needed, once. There are many things to be discussed before doing such a thing, and I prefer to reserve myself to see the reactions at this message before doing my own suggestions.
You may consider this message as flamebait, especially if you are closer to any of the extremes in Furrydom. Should that be the case, I would appreciate it if you don't reply back to this message. Besides, that is the way to combat flamewars, not replying to them.
Notice the date of this proposal: 2001, over five years ago. Nothing came of this then (Mr. Skunk's new group, alt.arts.anthro, has long been abandoned and is mainly filled with spam posts) and nothing will come of it now. If anything, the whole idea has become even more untenable since Furrydom is that much bigger, and that much more well known. What Martin Skunk proposed is also fatally flawed: Furries will always be fascinated by these "anthro" characters. There is no possibility of separating the two. Before Martin Skunk and his "new" fandom, the idea was tried in 1996. This led to a large flame war on Usenet, which resulted in the establishment of ALF. After ALF came on-line, the subscription to ALF did not mean a corresponding reduction in the subscription to AFF. Both groups had a considerable overlap in subscribers. The division between "Lifestylers" and "Fans" was never as great as Richard Chandler and his TBOFs would have liked to believe. What was true then is still true today, only more so.
1996, 2001, 2006: it would seem that there is a five year stupidity cycle in effect here.
BTW, thank you for the distinction. I have changed the word "furry" in my website to "anthropomorphic" in describing the stories I like.
This solves nothing and creates another problem: a lack of precision. What does that mean: "Anthropomorphic Fan"? "Thomas the Tank Engine" is anthropomorphic. "The Brave Little Toaster" is anthropomorphic. So, too, are all the talking plates, silverware, and candlesticks of Beauty and the Beast, however the beast himself is Furry.You cause much confusion as to what, exactly, you are a fan of, which requires subsidiary explanation. Nor will you be able to run away from the Furry label. Once you explain about these talking animal people, the response will be: "Oh, you mean Furry stories". And if they don't know what you're talking about, then it won't make the slightest difference whether you call them Furry stories or call them something else. Wussing out like that does almost as much damage as that done by the detractors since it gives the impression that they are right, and that Furry is something one needs to be ashamed of being.
Yet another Burned Fur wannabe has cropped up on Live Journal: Akhetnu's Book of Bullshit (or something like that). Here, in a thread entitled Rights and Responsibility we read in the third paragraph:
An example is consumption. You have the right to buy whatever you want that is legally for sale. But does this mean a single person should buy and live in a huge McMansion with rooms they will never use? Yes, they have the RIGHT to do so, but it probably is not the best use of their money. You have the right to eat as many cheeseburgers as you can afford...but again, its probably not a good idea.
Already we can see we're in for some grade-A bullshit here since this dumbass certainly doesn't have the vaguest notion as to what a "right" is. Of course, he's by no means alone in this regard, for that word is one of the most abused. "God-given rights", "Civil rights", "Gay rights", "I noes mah rats": what, exactly does any of this mean?
A "right" arises out of a social contract between a government and the governed within its jurisdiction to place certain restrictions on that government. It places no restriction upon the governed. Therefore, when we read in the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What we see is a list of restrictions on the government. Congress can not legally pass any legislation that would seek to sanction you for expressing ideas. This does not apply to other, non-governmental entities. In that sense, you most certainly do not have any right to come onto this website to say whatever you like. I pay for web site hosting; I'm the webmaster here, and I get the final say as to the appropriateness of its content.
This brings us to the other feature of a "right": a right neither expresses nor implies any obligation on any one's part. You are entitled to a right of free speech, but you are not entitled to get me to pay for your soapbox and bullhorn, website hosting, a printing press, or air time at your local radio station. Furthermore, I am not obligated to listen to your bullshit.
"You have the right to buy whatever you want that is legally for sale." Sorry, but you most certainly do not. If you can not afford a "huge McMansion", then no one is obligated to buy one for you. If you can not secure the appropriate mortgage, no one is obligated to sell you one. The notion is absurd, and the one who proposed it hasn't a clue as to what "rights" are. So we're off and running on a great start here.
My main issue with vampires, otherkin, etc, is that in my conversations with them, I have yet to elicit any reasonable argument why I should agree with them. I don't take isssue with what they believe so much as I take issue with HOW and WHY they believe it. Their areasons given as to why they are otherkin or vampires, and even the very mechanics of their otherkinness/vampness given, are usually very poor and even contradictory. After I chase them around in circles trying to make sense of their beliefs with them, they usually just act like fundamentalist christians and revert to some form of faith.
Just who is this "Akhetnu" anyway? Here is his LJ profile:
I am the marginally great Akhetnu, Eagle Scout, soon to be priest of the god Anubis, black belt in tae kwon do. However, disguised as a random teenage kid, I lurk amongst all of you, waiting to be offered figs.
The Church of Eternal Source, who has been ordaining priests of the ancient Egyptian religion LEGALLY and OFFICIALLY since the 1970s, has recently ordained me. I am now legally a Reverend. This was not some fly-by-night ULC type thing either...it required study and much effort. And yes, I can perform marriage ceremonies now :P
And he's a "reverend" now too! A high priest of Anubis, no less! I wonder how much one has to pay for that? Now, I certainly don't pretend to be any sort of expert on ancient Egyptian religions, however, I highly doubt that there were any teen-aged kids in the New Kingdom who were high priests. These mystery schools and ancient religions took their business quite seriously. Earning a priesthood took many years of study and apprenticeship. This "Church of the Eternal Source" is yet another of these bullshit New Age cults that the whacky west coast of California has been inflicting on the rest of the world ever since the 1960s.
Mr. (excuse me, Reverend) Akhetnu attacks the very same groups which Squee Rat attacked when this snot-nosed high schooler was still learning his sums and ABCs. Isn't this special? As a self-professed believer in a kooky, out-of-the-mainstream, idiosyncratic spirituality, he is attacking other, out-of-the-mainstream spiritualists. Of course, do you suppose we'll find any reasonable arguments as to why we should believe that his religion isn't one big, steaming, stinking pile of bullshit? Need you even ask? The good reverend is a hypocrite who demands that the Otherkin/Therians/Weres/Furry Spiritualists meet a standard of proof which he can not meet himself.
Otherkin, vampires and such are not amongst the harmful groups per se, although I simply point them out as those who use their right to believe anything they want as an excuse to justify it in suspect ways. The only 'harm' they do is epistemological: they encourage 'truthiness' through their arguments based on relativism, mere feeling and emotions, and dreams which are subject to wide interpretation and not to be taken literally.
Nice backpedal there Hangdog... err... Reverend Akhetnu. So, if the only "harm" they do is "epistemological", then why is it so critical for you to drive them from Furry-dom, or at least force them to the fringes of the fandom? The idiosyncratic spiritualities of some Furries has never figured in giving this fandom a bad name. This has always been a non-issue.
The issue is its material nature: I have no problem with dfferentiating between the spirit and biological life, which while sacred, is still mortal. The Egyptians called the corpse the 'khat' and the spiritual essence the 'akhu'. Thus I can both accept a non-local spiritual essence, and the biological and chemical basis of living bodies. Christianity, however, believes in the 'resurrection of the body' wherein at judgement day their own present physical bodies will be restored, perfected, and sent to heaven in one package. In fact, the word for spirit in Paul's epistles ('pneumatikos') and the hebrew word for soul ('ruach') both mean 'breath' or 'air'. This implies that spirit and biological life are inseparably linked, as opposed to spirit simply having to incarnate within the confines of biological life. I think this flies in the face of our recent discoveries, and does both spirit and body a disservice.
Isn't that, in fact, the very thing that Therians say: the spirit is separate from the body? If that's the case, then what is there to prevent a human body from harbouring a wolf spirit? A strange consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds.
The burned furs were trying to make fandom less flamboyantly sexual and return it to its roots as a cartoon animal fandom (not like sex is itelf bad, but many felt it was turning into a fetish party). It degenerated into the usual drama and lulz, unfortuneately, but there is a new burned fur movement up, which I have joined. Hopefully it will work out this time.
How about learning the history of your own goddam fandom before doing stupid shit like this? No, Reverend, it will not turn out better this time. Hopefully, this outpouring of utter stupidity and foolishness will go no farther than Live Journal. Of course, big things always start out as little things. However, it is, once again, indicative of the seduction of the idea that public (nonfan) acceptance of Furry can be won, if only it wasn't for those "freaks". That Akhetnu is a fandom newbie who was a mere child when the Great Internet Furry Flame War was fought on Usenet comes as no great surprise. That he is repeating the same old mistakes also is not surprising. It is up to us "old timers" to watch out for these well intentioned, but naive, n00bs to contain the unwitting damage that their youthful enthusiasm is likely to cause.
This is where we came in back in September of 1998. Let's not go there again.