Thoughts on the Meaning of Furry: An Essay

[Rabbit Head]

Get new Editors.

[evan]

In that case, I'll read it again tomorrow and tell you what I think then. I've gotta get to work with some music tonight or else I'll be behind for the semester.

[Summercat]

Just now, evan said:

In that case, I'll read it again tomorrow and tell you what I think then. I've gotta get to work with some music tonight or else I'll be behind for the semester.

No problemo! School > Someone else's non-scholastic essayon Furries.

1 minute ago, Rabbit Head said:

Get new Editors.

Come back when you've read the essay and have points that already haven't been addressed.

[Wrecker]

27 minutes ago, Rabbit Head said:

Get new Editors.

Like, Furry Editors?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Wrecker
cuz

[Rabbit Head]

28 minutes ago, Summercat said:

No problemo! School > Someone else's non-scholastic essayon Furries.

Come back when you've read the essay and have points that already haven't been addressed.

I did read it. Which was hard thanks to aaaaalllll those syntax errors.

 

30 minutes ago, Summercat said:

The other thing is, I wasn't really posting this here for grammatical checking and proofreading. I was posting this here to discuss the concepts and ideas. I am willing to consider some changes, but I'm also going to explain why I did things the way I did, as some of it seemed to be a misunderstanding or misreading. 

The other thing is, I wasn't really posting this here for grammatical checking and proofreading. I was posting this here to discuss the concepts and ideas.

Maybe that wouldn't be so hard if you actually fixed those grammar mistakes.

I mean, don't you know?  Words have meaning and that's the point of language. 

I was posting this here to discuss the concepts and ideas.

If it's the concepts and ideas you want, I'll be fair and tell you that they're derivative as HELL. This essay was a boring read not only because I had to FIGHT the grammar the whole way through, but also because you never said anything that hasn't been said or explored before. There's no original insight, mixed in with the syntax errors, makes a very amateurish read. 

21 minutes ago, Wrecker said:

Like, Furry Editors?

Editors who know what they're doing.

[Summercat]

12 minutes ago, Rabbit Head said:

*snip*

Nothing new? Yes, that's a valid thing to say about a good portion of the work.

If only I said something like "Certainly, attempts to define what is 'Furry' have been floating around since the mid-1980s, and I do not tread new or unique ground here.", followed by something like I dunno... "Where I do think I tread new ground is that these definitions; that of Genre, that of Culture, and that of Sexuality, are separate concepts that have an overlapping population, and people may end up enjoying any mix of them."

If only I had something like that in my essay, that would have been quite clear where I was talking about. *cough*

Now if you have something of actual substance to say, rather than claimed and unspecified "grammar errors", "you said car but its really a Ford F150 Truck", a strawman version of something in my work? Please go ahead and speak up.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Summercat

[Rabbit Head]

3 minutes ago, Summercat said:

"Where I do think I tread new ground is that these definitions; that of Genre, that of Culture, and that of Sexuality, are separate concepts that have an overlapping population, and people may end up enjoying any mix of them."

 

You didn't. That idea is nothing new.
 

Try Again.

[Summercat]

Just now, Rabbit Head said:

You didn't. That idea is nothing new.
 

Try Again.

if the idea that the Fetish, the Genre, and the Culture are separate items is nothing new, please show me where that's been discussed or mentioned, because I've never encountered it, and thus far everyone else I've shown it to has seen it as novel. I certainly would be interested in conversing with those authors!

[Saxon]

21 hours ago, Summercat said:

if the idea that the Fetish, the Genre, and the Culture are separate items is nothing new, please show me where that's been discussed or mentioned, because I've never encountered it, and thus far everyone else I've shown it to has seen it as novel. I certainly would be interested in conversing with those authors!

Most threads about furry identity include arguments trying to distinguish fetishism from hobby and lifestyle. Most also view the fandom as decentralised. So I think the essence of these ideas is common place. 

I don't  think these items are just as distinct as a lot of furries claim they are. I think lots of furries try to establish a distinction between the fetishistic and hobby reams of the fandom simply because they want to convince outsiders that they aren't involved in the sexual side.

I liked your take because you seemed to represent the elements as a venn diagram, which I felt was more truthful. That's not a new perspective, because I have heard it before, but it's one I think is more accurate. 

There are just a lot of odd things included in the essay, which your editors should have flagged, which act as a distraction from this core argument. 

[MuttButt]

I hope you guys know that being condescending and rude to OP is just going to make them defensive and unwilling to take your criticism to heart whether it's valid or not.

[Onnes]

52 minutes ago, MuttButt said:

I hope you guys know that being condescending and rude to OP is just going to make them defensive and unwilling to take your criticism to heart whether it's valid or not.

My suspicion would be that they know this fully, their intent being to provoke the OP into a dramatic argument.

[Summercat]

7 hours ago, Onnes said:

My suspicion would be that they know this fully, their intent being to provoke the OP into a dramatic argument.

It would ALMOST work, except for the fact that I'm willing to consider and judge critique just fine. The problem is "This sucks" isn't critique. Nor am I obligated to agree with the critique. 

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, Summercat said:

It would ALMOST work, except for the fact that I'm willing to consider and judge critique just fine. The problem is "This sucks" isn't critique. Nor am I obligated to agree with the critique. 

 

RabbitHead, StrongBob, Evan, Willow, all of those people pointed out that it was difficult to understand the intent of the essay due to vague sentence structure. Are they all trying to provoke you?

...and somehow, in spite of containing structural sentence convolutions (which you have still not corrected), your essay receives more favourites and attention on fur affinity than writers and even some artists, who produce well finished content written in impeccable English. :\ 

You should actually correct the errors, instead of denying they exist or claiming that people only point them out because they have personal problems with you. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Saxon

[Summercat]

11 hours ago, Saxon said:

 

RabbitHead, StrongBob, Evan, Willow, all of those people pointed out that it was difficult to understand the intent of the essay due to vague sentence structure. Are they all trying to provoke you?

...and somehow, in spite of containing structural sentence convolutions (which you have still not corrected), your essay receives more favourites and attention on fur affinity than writers and even some artists, who produce well finished content written in impeccable English. :\ 

You should actually correct the errors, instead of denying they exist or claiming that people only point them out because they have personal problems with you. 

Perhaps if you were more polite, people would feel more likely to listen to you. Sorry, but critique doesn't have to be automatically agreed with in order to considered, and much of what was presented in this thread was in no way shape or form constructive criticism.  Most of it were opinions, arguing over style and formatting, quibbling over definitions of terms, and constructing strawmen of what points you did decide to address.

Perhaps you should address the claims of MuttButt and Onnes? 

And, once again - Criticism may have multiple responses beyond blind agreement. 

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, Summercat said:

Perhaps if you were more polite, people would feel more likely to listen to you. Sorry, but critique doesn't have to be automatically agreed with in order to considered, and much of what was presented in this thread was in no way shape or form constructive criticism.  Most of it were opinions, arguing over style and formatting, quibbling over definitions of terms, and constructing strawmen of what points you did decide to address.

Perhaps you should address the claims of MuttButt and Onnes? 

And, once again - Criticism may have multiple responses beyond blind agreement. 

You ignored rabbithead, strongbob, willow and evan's comments too. Even the errors which you admitted were produced as a result of 'embarrassing editing artifacts' (but only after they were repeatedly pointed out) are yet to be corrected. 

A wide cross section of the audience you sought finds the syntax difficult to follow, whether or not they liked the essay, so maybe you should acknowledge that instead of dismissing everybody's legitimate confusion as attempts to irritate you and claiming that acknowledging any flaws with your essay amounts to 'blindness'. 

[Summercat]

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

You ignored rabbithead, strongbob, willow and evan's comments too. Even the errors which you admitted were produced as a result of 'embarrassing editing artifacts' (but only after they were repeatedly pointed out) are yet to be corrected. 

A wide cross section of the audience you sought finds the syntax difficult to follow, whether or not they liked the essay, so maybe you should acknowledge that instead of dismissing everybody's legitimate confusion as attempts to irritate you and claiming that acknowledging any flaws with your essay amounts to 'blindness'. 

 

Strongbob said: " I need to agree with Saxon a bit because you didn't go very deep into any of these, but it is a fair introduction to the different meanings of the word.". He then suggested I missed Furry as an Individual. I told him the fact they are different meanings was the point of the essay, and that I had omitted the Individual aspect out of brevity. I also mentioned 

Willow said: "it kinda seems like the developments of a much longer essay. or just the main points and I think it would be interesting to go into more finer details" I did not address this directly because it would be a repeat of what I told Strongbob, and later did say that I intended, in the near future, to expand upon the different meanings as I defined them in further essays.

Feelwell: "Finally, the species chosen need not be because they share physical traits or hold traits in high regard." I meant that as part of the claim for a Furry Spirituality, and explained it. I also said that I could have worded it better and will make a note of it later.

ArielMT: "More generally, I think your essay feels both too large and incomplete" I responded with "The more I get this response, the more I have to think how to address it in another version."

Evan did say that he felt my syntax is a bit hard to follow, and then provided examples of what he meant. He then also said "I also think, in context, some of the "sins" mentioned are less damning and play into pacing in some ways." I responded that the wording can be awkward taken out of context but works better on the whole, and is reflective of how I both write and talk. I also thanked him for his response and pointing out examples of what he meant.

As soon as you said "Your conclusion has a really weird syntax error 'there is it is a'; this would be clearer if you had just written 'it is a'. ", I responded with That would be what's known as an "editing artifact", and I am slightly embarrassed it is there, and surprised that nobody has caught it until now. Thus far that's the only 'syntax error' that I've seen you mention, and I copped to it as soon as you said it.

Sorry, none of this isn't ignoring criticism. 

I have yet to go back to edit my posted essay and don't plan to do so any time soon. I've got a lot of other projects ongoing. Nor would I do so immediately because someone said "You have things wrong" without specifying what they found wrong, and thus far your specific complains were  what's effectively a typo, and the non-precise but commonly-used definition of a word in a single line to describe something else.

If you have any other specific suggestions that do not change the meaning, I would be willing to consider them.

Not agreeing 100% with your criticisms is not dodging, failing to address, or ignoring them.

[Saxon]

Why do you randomly capitalise some nouns and make so many syntax errors? 

I think this essay generally picks low-hanging fruit and makes some bizarre comments, such as 'a common thread of furry culture is their dislike of animal abuse'...one may as well say that English people's culture is defined by their strong dislike of ritual human sacrifice and confused sentences like 'What is a fetish, after all, but enjoyment of an object or aspect to such a degree one would enjoy things more with it present? 'A sexual fetish is an erotic fixation on a subject that is not inherently sexual; we don't need to muse on 'what a fetish is' because it is already well defined. 

There are also technical errors, such as the confusion of the concept of the Id, which is the primal and instinctual element of the psyche, with the concept of the inner child. 

The Id is not an immature true self that retains childlike innocence; we might describe murderers and rapists as 'being controlled by the Id'. 

I can only struggle to stifle laughter when your conclusion reads 'I could be wrong about all of this...I feel that I am right...'

You don't reach any observation or conclusion which isn't immediately evident from a cursory knowledge of the furry fandom; that it generates a lot of artistic and literary content and that at least some of this content is sexual. 

I'm going to end my criticism by quoting one of your final comments. 'In the future, Furry may one day develop to the point where I will say there is it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion...'

No. Furry is not going to become a religion. 

 

I brought up the editing error in the first reply in the thread. It's in bold. 

You didn't admit it was an error until after I accused you of ignoring criticism. Go look back at the post history. 

[Summercat]

16 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

I brought up the editing error in the first reply in the thread. It's in bold. 

You didn't admit it was an error until after I accused you of ignoring criticism. Go look back at the post history. 

Let's see what you said.

Quote

 

I'm going to end my criticism by quoting one of your final comments. 'In the future, Furry may one day develop to the point where I will say there is it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion...'

 

You say you are quoting one of my final comments, and then respond to it with:

Quote

No. Furry is not going to become a religion. 

There was no mention of errors or typos in that line. You quoted a segment about how I said that one day there may be a Furry Religion, and responded to that quote by saying Furry is not going to become a religion. Gee, I wonder why I might think you're talking about the point being raised and not any errors? Adding to the confusion, from your 4th reply: 

Quote

I still think that musing that the furry fandom might become a religion in the future (emphasis on the word might, which does not mean 'it will') is silly.

This only reinforces that you were responding to the concept, not to a typo or grammatical error. My first reply to your response was solely addressing your line as discussing the topic, which probably should have been a clue that your point hadn't gone through.

When you posted this in your third reply:

Quote

Your conclusion has a really weird syntax error 'there is it is a'; this would be clearer if you had just written 'it is a'. 

You explicitly pointed out the error as a typo. As soon as I saw the specific claim, I did a control+f in my file, found it was present without looking at the surrounding lines, and said "oops", and responded to you saying "You have a typo" with "Yeah, I do, oops."

Perhaps if you had made more of an effort to be clear, and less condescending, you would have prevented this entire mess.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Summercat

[Saxon]

I literally bolded the error, to bring your attention to it. Look at the post history. ._. 

Can you see why I think you're being denialist? 

 

[Summercat]

Just now, Saxon said:

I literally bolded the error, to bring your attention to it. Look at the post history. ._. 

Can you see why I think you're being denialist? 

 

You did not mention the grammar or typo. You only brought up "Here's a quote", then responded to the idea within the quote. I've been quoting post history. That's literally the timeline of events, and if missing your very unclear point is the sole basis of you claiming I am ignoring criticism, while dismissing the fact when you clearly pointed it out I agreed to it with no quibble?

THIS is the basis of your claim and idea, your own lack of clarity?

[Saxon]

16 minutes ago, Summercat said:

You did not mention the grammar or typo. You only brought up "Here's a quote", then responded to the idea within the quote. I've been quoting post history. That's literally the timeline of events, and if missing your very unclear point is the sole basis of you claiming I am ignoring criticism, while dismissing the fact when you clearly pointed it out I agreed to it with no quibble?

THIS is the basis of your claim and idea, your own lack of clarity?

In the first post I say that there are syntax errors to look out for. I emboldened such an error, which is an obvious error just by looking at it, in the subsequent discussion of your essay. 

'Unclear'. Sure. 

My beef with you is that you've responded to criticism as if it's a personal insult, and even when the errors pointed out demonstrably exist, your response has essentially been 'No you'. 

Why should anybody even bother reviewing content you post here, if they know that this is how you will reply to them? :\ 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Saxon

[Summercat]

59 minutes ago, Saxon said:

In the first post I say that there are syntax errors to look out for. I emboldened such an error, which is an obvious error just by looking at it, in the subsequent discussion of your essay. 

'Unclear'. Sure. 

My beef with you is that you've responded to criticism as if it's a personal insult, and even when the errors pointed out demonstrably exist, your response has essentially been 'No you'. 

Why should anybody even bother reviewing content you post here, if they know that this is how you will reply to them? :\ 

In the first post, you start with mentioning syntax errors but don't point out a single one. With your last line you apparently tried to point one out, after talking about different topics, and A) Don't mention the syntax error, and B) respond only to the idea being brought up in the line.

That's not clarity. 

I wonder why someone might take it as an insult when you insult them and their work. Lines such as "I can only struggle to stifle laughter" certainly can in no way be taken as condescending or insulting, right? My arguments have not been "No You". You have consistently taken lines out of context, ignored clarifications, decided that any criticism was full agreement with your own (despite their own posts suggesting otherwise). You also said that asking replies to be civil was the same as demanding all replies be "This is wonderful" and dissenters banned. You pointed out exactly one actual error; the rest are your opinions on the matter. 

Your original posts had some apparent misunderstandings of what was meant. I decided to take it on good faith and see if my explanation would clear things up. You mentioned random capitalization, I explained why I choose to do that. You mentioned "syntax errors", I asked for examples. You complained of the technical error about the Id, I explained why I felt and still feel it to be correct. You mistook my observations as my conclusions, and I pointed that out. 

You were fully unclear about the typo, sorry. Yes, I missed the typo originally, and I missed it again. But when you bold something in a quote and then respond to the quote, you are bolding the specific thing you are replying to. Since, as I've said, your reply to the quote was talking solely about the concept, that is what I was responding to. It was also quite clear in my original reply that is what I thought you meant.

Basically, in the end?

You suck at giving constructive critique. Here's some for you: Keep like items to like; if you talk about syntax or typos, keep it in one single section and not spread across your post. When you do bring up something, post examples of what it is. Avoid insults, they only weaken your case and argument. 

And as a last, understand that replying to all of your points with clarifications, questions, or responses is in no way ignoring them - and that if someone responds to a criticism talking about something else, there was a communication error in there and it's up to you to clarify.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Summercat

[Saxon]

I did struggle to stifle laughter, though. :\ ...and I'm struggling to stifle it again now. 'Bolding things doesn't make them clear for me, you suck >:C'

I only wish you put a fraction of the effort into writing your actual essay as you do attempting to deflect negative comments. Even the other users, many of whom trod on egg shells to avoid upsetting you, were told that any of their criticisms about the poor flow of your writing were just because they were taking quotations out of context. 

Would it actually be possible for anybody to convince you otherwise? 

 

[Summercat]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

I did struggle to stifle laughter, though. :\ ...and I'm struggling to stifle it again now. 'Bolding things doesn't make them clear for me, you suck >:C'

I only wish you put a fraction of the effort into writing your actual essay as you do attempting to deflect negative comments. Even the other users, many of whom trod on egg shells to avoid upsetting you, were told that any of their criticisms about the poor flow of your writing were just because they were taking quotations out of context. 

Would it actually be possible for anybody to convince you otherwise? 

 

If you had bolded the quote anywhere near where you talked about syntax errors, you may have had a point.  Perhaps with the last line you should have been explicit that you were referencing a syntax error of the type mentioned at .the start of your post,.especially as there were several different ideas and mentions made between the two.

Between your inability to understand your own mistake, your attitude, and your repeated mis-stating of what I and others have said, I don't think there's any point in responding to your posts further. You want to be listened to in the future, be polite next time.

Edit: For those interested I wrote a short rant-tye thing a while back about criticism, based on my experience as an FA Admin: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7389661/

Edited April 10, 2016 by Summercat

[Saxon]

If you were an admin, that certainly explains a lot about why FA is the way it is. :\