Talk:Furry fandom

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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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? --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 19:52, 4 January 2009 (EST) Someone please answer this. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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? --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:05, 4 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 --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is GilliamM (no, I'm not!)} 20:59, 4 January 2009 (EST)

JK = Just Kidding -- Nx ^talk 21:03, 4 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. Wèàšèìòìď^{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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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^G'day 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. Wèàšèìòìď^{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. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You never know who you might be offending. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{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)

As a furry myself, I officially find it funny. --Kels 21:20, 4 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^G'day 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. Wèàšèìòìď^{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)

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. Wèàšèìòìď^{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^G'day 21:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)