Troj

Members.
  • Content count

    765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

908 Excellent

6 Followers

About Troj

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday November 8
  1. Well, and what's interesting is that I know people who are lifestyle kinksters (including a small handful of furries), and they're totally cool people. I think the difference is that they radiate easygoing confidence and self-acceptance, and aren't pushy, cloying, or aggressive. The annoying kinksters, in contrast, usually have terrible boundaries and no understanding of "time and place," and tend to radiate desperation, cluelessness, and neediness--or at least, that's been my read of them. Oh, and sitting your family down like you're about to share your cancer diagnosis is an awful, idiotic way to "come out" to your parents (or anyone) about being furry. It immediately sends a non-verbal message that Something is Very Wrong.
  2. Well, compares them how? That's the point. Someone who says that furries are an oppressed class who deserve legal protection because they are just like gay people or blacks needs to smacked upside the head. Someone who says that furries are technically minority group because they're a small, fringe group of people; or who says that furry behaviors, problems, or in-group norms are similar to those seen in the LGBT community; or who notes that furry-hating appears to overlap with homophobia in various aspects is just stating an observation without necessarily being dramatic or cloying about it. I get the impression that some young furs heard that comparing furries to other groups is absolutely forbidden, and nobody explained why certain types of comparisons or statements are obnoxious or problematic. The reason comparisons are "forbidden" is because furries have used false and insulting comparisons to play Oppression Olympics, and that's obnoxious. Yeah, no, that's irrelevant. Even if you think you're a wolf or a kumquat, if you're interpreting the behavior of other people in any way, or if you're proposing grand theories about how society or people are or should be, you should ideally have some insight into how humans think and operate. If you know or suspect that you're actually sub-par at understanding people or society, or realize you may have some "blindspots" when it comes to types of people or kinds of experiences, you should be prudent and modest in that regard, and you should at least avoid getting into intense battles with people over these topics. It's like how I don't try to check Stephen Hawking's math, because I know I'm bad at math.
  3. In an arguably similar vein, I'm extremely frustrated with furries who frankly lack serious insight into human nature, but don't have the sense or the humility to refrain from boldly jumping to conclusions about other people's behavior, proposing grand theories of human motivation, and/or creating over-arching societal models. They lack insight into their lack of insight, and their hubris is just embarrassing. Things really get cringey when they get defensive.
  4. ^^^Furries have a cringey tendency to latch onto a general rule of thumb as if it's an immutable truth and then endlessly pester people over it. On one of the other furry groups, there's a furry who has become obsessed with policing "negativity," and who will now argue with people who are supposedly being "too negative," even if they've offered a constructive criticism, a legitimate concern, or a non-disruptive, low-key beef. Then, we have sperglords who flip out whenever anyone, say, compares furries to LGBT people or dares to suggest furries are technically a minority because OH NOES SJWS DO THAT AND WE HAVE TO STOP DOING THAT OR ELSE PEOPLE WILL THINK WE ARE SJWS.Hakuna your tatas, furries.
  5. Though, I've seen some pretty terrible educational children's programming, too, to be fair.
  6. Also, "professionals" are typically trained and paid for their work. If someone who hasn't been trained and isn't being paid demonstrates professionalism in their area, they are actually *exceeding* the expectations that have typically been set for them.
  7. To be fair, "too many 20-year-olds who think they know it all" is a problem common to many communities and many Internet forums, including this one. I actually think the community around this forum has noticeably improved as some of the more tiresome people left, and as people have forged meaningful bonds with one another and have learned what to expect from each other. I've also noticed that a few folks who used to regularly shitpost or troll did obviously took a look at themselves and did "the work" in their own lives--kudos for that, folks--and seemingly stopped feeling a need to take their shit out on the Internet. The forum sometimes leans too far in the direction of self-congratulatory detachment and cynicism, but I suppose that's at least that's an antidote to the murry-purriness you see elsewhere.
  8. ^^^Don't despair, most people don't get the species right! I've had people think Stitch was an elephant, and a dog friend of mine has been mistaken for a skunk because he's white with black markings.
  9. ^^Well, or he's a Nazi sympathizer in the same sense that a 12-year-old boy thinks that he's be a SUPER BOSS SPACE MARINE and that HE COULD'VE TAKEN THOSE TERRORISTS NO PROBLEM. Anywho, that's been done to death as it is, and Ashley's right that it isn't really important. It SHOULD, but history's shown that, unfortunately.... Oh, and at the risk of conjuring up unfortunate mental images, rabbit hole goes deeper, it would appear.
  10. Well, and in California, PAWcon was created by people who had issues with the con chair of FC--and then,people dug up dirt on the con chair of PAWcon, so there was a period where the Northern California con you attended was taken as proof that you were either a domestic abuse apologist or whatever was wrong with PAWcon's chair. That appears to have largely blown over, with nothing achieved.
  11. Maybe we're less likely to notice their red-flag rapey behaviors? Thoughts on what people should do if a con has unsavory people on the board? That's a controversial one.
  12. Well said. Those sound reasonable.
  13. Yep--there's been a lot of "awareness-spreading," and not a lot of action. Lots of people don't know how to act, or are afraid to act, or aren't in a position to act, after all. I hope Ashley is right that they've bitten off more than they can chew where cultivating their "badboy rap" is concerned. Realistically, they are radioactive--and that's a good word, actually---because bottom line, wherever they go, chaos and drama inevitably follow. It'd be great if peripheral or casual members increasingly decided that belonging to the group wasn't worth the drama and quit, until only the few diehards remained. (I really doubt that any of the basically-non-toxic people would have the chutzpah to take charge and kick the troublemakers out, so there's no point in imagining that scenario.) I worry about people being so mean to casual members that the opposite will happen, though.
  14. Yep, that sounds about right. Also, "good old days" can refer to "the good old days when the standards for behavior were lower/in flux/not enforced." And now we've come back to how "SJW" is now popular code for "meanies who call me out for gross behavior."
  15. God, I love this guy! That final letter is absolutely heartbreaking. Poor kid. I hope he's getting the help and support he needs now. I am furious that only one person at that party showed any kind of awareness or concern. (Welp, and there's a reason why part of me is always leery of housemeets...)