Jump to content

Rocky Mountain Fur Con Goes Full Heisenberg Device


AshleyAshes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, BoozyB said:

Not at all!  I'm sensitive because before doing the Patreon I kept going "Ah shit, these guys are gonna think I'm making a grab for their wallets."

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll take your money. I just want you to feel like you're getting something in return.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure most furries are used to the concept of paying for things and not actually getting anything in return. They know what they're doing when they donate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of artists are present in the community, either here or the overarching furry and fandom community.
Patreon is a common source for people to keep food on their table and supplies on their desk.

I don't think there's any (common) stigma surrounding Patreon, at least not that I've seen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BoozyB said:

Hah!  I'm winding down the office for the week, and the site's stats show me where hits are coming from. I didn't recognize this referral link, so I clicked through and...here I am.

Your odds of having your next apprentice/secretary show up in fursuit to the office Halloween party just increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2017 at 6:25 AM, Zeke said:

A lot of the furries defending the raiders as a "Clean and Wholesome fun group" are either; a) in the group. b) have friends in the group, c) people who enjoy taking the piss out of while wearing mockup-nazi symbolism's cool/edgy/hip, d) only heard one perspective and see it as a bunch of SJWs attacking an "innocent" furry met and con, e) really HATES SJWs, f) Their degeneracy blackballs them from the alt-right but think that group's cool to house their political affiliations/ideas, g) Drama-mongers.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

I'd also add h) they haven't Googled the leader/the criticisms of the leader unrelated to the armband.

Being balanced and fair, of course, the people who are REALLY ADAMANT about it being a literal Neo-Nazi group, meanwhile, a) have typically come to that conclusion from afar; b) have little-to-no experience with actual Neo-Nazis, skinheads, or white supremacists; c) take a "poe-tay-to, poh-tah-to" attitude to the difference between being a jerk and being a Nazi and/or d) are SJWs.

On 4/21/2017 at 8:11 AM, kazooie said:

Back when slavery was a thing, there were black people who advocated for the slavery of black people - after all, they had been taught that they were the inferior race, it was just common sense. Plus, having a minority or two in modern supremacist groups helps act as a beard.

Uncle Ruckus lives!

On 4/21/2017 at 5:17 AM, kazooie said:

The white nationalist movement that's emerged on the internet is much, much bigger than that, and a ton of organizations have been born. Like, most members of these movements are not actually going to become armband-wearing, cross-burning, cartoon neo-nazis, but these groups that normalize racial hate create the perfect conditions for such people to emerge.

Yep, that's fair.

When I referred to people being "useful," I meant that "the new guard" often seems willing to let minorities hang out, as long as they walk the walk and talk the talk, and are willing to take a lot of passive-aggressive ribbing--but, as soon as they fail to tow the line, under the bus they go.

Case in point, I agree that they largely hate trans people, but a lot of alt-righters seem to love Blaire White, because they can use her existence to bolster many of their attitudes and claims. But, if she were to ever ask them to stop calling her a "tranny" or stop asking her about her genitals, I think they'd turn on her like a pack of wolverines. I'd say the same goes for Milo Snuffleupagus.

On 4/21/2017 at 3:23 PM, BoozyB said:

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll take your money. I just want you to feel like you're getting something in return.

By george, the lawyer has ethics! :D

Glad you could join us, Boozy! Welcome.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BoozyB said:

Not at all!  I'm sensitive because before doing the Patreon I kept going "Ah shit, these guys are gonna think I'm making a grab for their wallets."

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll take your money. I just want you to feel like you're getting something in return.

Oh no don't take what I said the wrong way. I find it fine whether or not you make money from it. Not like some scum asshole that just rapes wallets. If you make money from entertaining people that's a good thing. It means you can make things work. Some people I wonder how they make money entertaining others...but I guess that's up for another discussion. Well...ok I'll give you this funny nugget. I actually saw a reddit post where apparently there's people who engage in Erotic Roleplay on Final Fantasy XIV and get money for it. So I mean more power to them as long as they're not harming anyone and that's what people want.

This forum is really the least "furry' of them there's people more into the hobby than others but most of us just had a common interest. I've just introduced myself as an artist that happens to like furry along with lots of different artwork. My mom said comics, tmnt, transformers and all that were for boys, and I said fuck that I do what I want and enjoy drawing when I can. I just have RSI so I've been taking up 3D sculpting nowadays.

Either way welcome to the forum, really hope you enjoy it here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BoozyB With hearing you'll be doing conventions, I really hope you can actually present some enlightening information on areas of law relevant to the fandom at those panels.  While the fandom doesn't typically see SovCit's going all 'MAH LAW MAGIK', there's some pretty routine problems in regards to contract law when an artist or creator is paid to produce something or in trademark/copyright areas typically in regards to protecting ideas, characters, or other creations of theirs.  I'd actually suggest you find a place to poll the furry fandom on the kinds of legal problems typically face just in the normal realm of 'geek commerce'.

I think a major reason your article hit as hard as it did is the whole 'I'M AN ACTUAL FUCKING LAWYER' part where as most discussions of law in the fandom boil down to the uninformed hurling poorly comprehended Wikipedia quotes at each other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

@BoozyB With hearing you'll be doing conventions, I really hope you can actually present some enlightening information on areas of law relevant to the fandom at those panels.  While the fandom doesn't typically see SovCit's going all 'MAH LAW MAGIK', there's some pretty routine problems in regards to contract law when an artist or creator is paid to produce something or in trademark/copyright areas typically in regards to protecting ideas, characters, or other creations of theirs.  I'd actually suggest you find a place to poll the furry fandom on the kinds of legal problems typically face just in the normal realm of 'geek commerce'.

I think a major reason your article hit as hard as it did is the whole 'I'M AN ACTUAL FUCKING LAWYER' part where as most discussions of law in the fandom boil down to the uninformed hurling poorly comprehended Wikipedia quotes at each other.

I think it depends on his area of expertise? I know he said Civil law in his blog, but I know there's lawyers that specialize in creative properties (IP) in particular because it's a whole nother level of clusterfuck sometimes.

Hopefully Boozy can make his appearance here more often just cuz it's nice to see more people from different walks of life, and hopefully he doesn't run into chucklefucks that want to exchange yiff for legal advice D:

Plus I think he's hilarious and our regular forum jokesters been using the same jokes too long ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Troj said:

Case in point, I agree that they largely hate trans people, but a lot of alt-righters seem to love Blaire White, because they can use her existence to bolster many of their attitudes and claims. But, if she were to ever ask them to stop calling her a "tranny" or stop asking her about her genitals, I think they'd turn on her like a pack of wolverines. I'd say the same goes for Milo Snuffleupagus.

One particular hate-forum I follow (that specializes in stalking and doxxing internet notables) has such a goddamn bizarre love of the trans people they obsessively hate and try to ruin the lives of (almost always mtf). The types that watch milo or blair, consuming gay porn, while simultaneously despising "faggots" or "trannies" are so freakin bizarre.

 

I guess its probably just a result of repressed feelings and self-denial? A sort of tragedy of a repressive mindset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kazooie said:

One particular hate-forum I follow (that specializes in stalking and doxxing internet notables) has such a goddamn bizarre love of the trans people they obsessively hate and try to ruin the lives of (almost always mtf). The types that watch milo or blair, consuming gay porn, while simultaneously despising "faggots" or "trannies" are so freakin bizarre.

I guess its probably just a result of repressed feelings and self-denial? A sort of tragedy of a repressive mindset. 

Sometimes it's the opposite; It's self-acceptance, in that I can accept that I, existing within a narrow set of parameters, am acceptable, it's these people who deviate from those parameters, are not acceptable.  By attacking the unacceptable ones I can underline just how acceptable I am.

"Sure I'm gay, but I'm not some kind of faggot."

Some people really do spend more time defining themselves by what they are not than what they are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So naturally Cringe Master Foxler has started doing Youtube Videos to clear his name and explain things and, uhh, wow.

At 18:13 in particular; "Well that one, the screens that I just said about hating black people, I made that comment to piss off an artist that wouldn't do my ref sheet.  So that's where that came from."

Yes, yes, that sounds like a perfectly normal and healthy reaction to an artist not making your ref sheet.  There is nothing to be concerned about here.

Later at 18:52: "I didn't realize that people were gonna fuckin' get drama squirty, happy over, ya know, me, that's retarded."

Because declaring that you hate black people in reaction to having your ref sheet declined is not 'drama squirty happy' or 'retarded' but people reacting to you declaring that you hate black people, that is 'drama squirty happy' and 'retarded'.

Foxler was doing a MUCH better job when he dressed like a Nazi, said Nazi things, then stuck his tongue out and said 'I'm not a Nazi, never used that word before and this thing on my arm?  It's a PAW.'  His move into explaining things in detail is not as effective as his previous stance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So naturally Cringe Master Foxler has started doing Youtube Videos to clear his name and explain things and, uhh, wow.

At 18:13 in particular; "Well that one, the screens that I just said about hating black people, I made that comment to piss off an artist that wouldn't do my ref sheet.  So that's where that came from."

Yes, yes, that sounds like a perfectly normal and healthy reaction to an artist not making your ref sheet.  There is nothing to be concerned about here.

Later at 18:52: "I didn't realize that people were gonna fuckin' get drama squirty, happy over, ya know, me, that's retarded."

Because declaring that you hate black people in reaction to having your ref sheet declined is not 'drama squirty happy' or 'retarded' but people reacting to you declaring that you hate black people, that is 'drama squirty happy' and 'retarded'.

Foxler was doing a MUCH better job when he dressed like a Nazi, said Nazi things, then stuck his tongue out and said 'I'm not a Nazi, never used that word before and this thing on my arm?  It's a PAW.'  His move into explaining things in detail is not as effective as his previous stance.

 

740full-fun-with-dick-and-jane-photo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

So naturally Cringe Master Foxler has started doing Youtube Videos to clear his name and explain things and, uhh, wow.

At 18:13 in particular; "Well that one, the screens that I just said about hating black people, I made that comment to piss off an artist that wouldn't do my ref sheet.  So that's where that came from."

Yes, yes, that sounds like a perfectly normal and healthy reaction to an artist not making your ref sheet.  There is nothing to be concerned about here.

Later at 18:52: "I didn't realize that people were gonna fuckin' get drama squirty, happy over, ya know, me, that's retarded."

Because declaring that you hate black people in reaction to having your ref sheet declined is not 'drama squirty happy' or 'retarded' but people reacting to you declaring that you hate black people, that is 'drama squirty happy' and 'retarded'.

Foxler was doing a MUCH better job when he dressed like a Nazi, said Nazi things, then stuck his tongue out and said 'I'm not a Nazi, never used that word before and this thing on my arm?  It's a PAW.'  His move into explaining things in detail is not as effective as his previous stance.

 

2e0.jpg.2e09261fbbeba936f94dcdd72adafbb6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're on the subject now, I practically cringed myself into a parallel dimension when he offered the "I'm a furry; I don't see human problems" soundbite to a couple of news outlets. Oy fucking gevalt. People who read that sort of thing will not find it cute, convincing or charming; they'll think you're an infantile nutter who's fallen too far down the foxhole of their animal-people fantasy.

Well, and since his real name has been all over the news, I really wonder what his employers, family, and non-furry associates think.

Oh, and I've heard rumors of him harassing at least one other person who did a commission he didn't like, so that seems to be a pattern.

So, here we've gotten to the real crux of the issue. I told his boyfriend that if we're being honest, this isn't just about the armbands. People have just latched onto the armbands as a symbol that represents their miscellaneous other concerns. I'd actually love it if the furry community at large stopped talking about the damn armbands, because it's kind of a distraction from the real meat here, which you guys are seeing now (like in that video).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Troj said:

it's kind of a distraction from the real meat here, which you guys are seeing now.

My god Troj, how many times does everyone have to agree that the Furry Raiders are clearly not true Aryan, honest to god Neo-nazis before you stop going on about how the Furry Raiders are clearly not true Aryan, honest to god Neo-nazis as if you were the first person to clue into this 'astonishing' revelations and you think that only the rest of this are getting 'woke' to it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, you're right. I'm getting perseverative and boring, and you guys actually aren't the ones who need to 'get woke' here. I'm just frustrated and annoyed with the ongoing local drama, and how it just continues to circle the drain with no resolution. Things appear to settle, and then something kicks it up again. Local people who used to get along fine are sniping at each other and trying to get others to take sides. I warn people I know that saying or doing something will cause another problem, and they do it anyway.

I'm also pretty angry that people like Foxler basically get tons of attention for absolutely idiotic bullshit that will ultimately amount to nothing, when there are plenty of people in the world who deserve attention for their real accomplishments.

This stuff also gloms onto the preexisting ball of anger I have around Trump et al.

So, this is just me trying to release my frustrated energy here, and that amounts to preaching to the choir.

Thanks for letting me know that I was doing what I was actually worried I was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troj said:

Sorry, you're right. I'm getting perseverative and boring, and you guys actually aren't the ones who need to 'get woke' here. I'm just frustrated and annoyed with the ongoing local drama, and how it just continues to circle the drain with no resolution. Things appear to settle, and then something kicks it up again. Local people who used to get along fine are sniping at each other and trying to get others to take sides. I warn people I know that saying or doing something will cause another problem, and they do it anyway.

I'm also pretty angry that people like Foxler basically get tons of attention for absolutely idiotic bullshit that will ultimately amount to nothing, when there are plenty of people in the world who deserve attention for their real accomplishments.

This stuff also gloms onto the preexisting ball of anger I have around Trump et al.

So, this is just me trying to release my frustrated energy here, and that amounts to preaching to the choir.

Thanks for letting me know that I was doing what I was actually worried I was doing.

I gotta be completely honest here... I am most certainly not racist, however if I took a car and painted 'DIE N*****S DIE GO BACK TO AFRICA' on the side because 'I wanted to see the reaction all the bleeding heart liberals cry about their hurt fee fees, but this most certainly isn't racist, I'm just trolling' I feel that I'd probably be pretty deserving of any and all bricks with 'RACIST CUNT' that fly through my front window.  While probably some small collection of fuckwits may argue 'Well, she's not REALLY racist, so it doesn't matter WHAT she painted on the car, cause she's not REALLY racist.  You guys don't know what a racist really is!' in my favor, I feel that most would argue that I made my bed and I have to lie in it.

So I still don't see how the 'They aren't REALLY Nazis' is a critical point here.  The Furry Raiders dressed like Nazis and started saluting so now they have to deal with the blow back from that.  If you don't want to be called a 'Nazi', you should probably keep the swastikas to a bare minimum.  And if you can name someone who's Jewish and a member of the Furry Raiders, maybe that's less evidence of them not being Nazis and more evidence that someone is seriously fucked in the head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I think you missed my intention here.

I basically agree with you that it "doesn't really matter," but I'm searching for some kind of way here to get people to step back and use their heads instead of letting Foxler manipulate their emotions for his benefit. If you see a better way of doing that, I'm definitely all ears.

My quip about the armbands was more that they are the ONLY thing a lot of people (including several journalists) talk about, and that allows the Raiders to claim plausible deniability, and 'round and 'round we go. The favorite line among the Raiders is that people only dislike them because of the armbands, and nothing else. It's a dead-end argument that actually allows the group to play the martyr card.

Well, here we have a video (for example) that has PLENTY in it for people to criticize! He'd littered the Internet with all sorts of comments and other things that people could easily call him out on. He's given people lots of material, and they just need to exploit it.

Basically I'd really like for more people to take a deep breath, draw their arrows, and actually hit the target. I'd love for people to be smart and strategic in how they deal with the group, so they can actually drain it of its negative power and influence.

Right now, a lot of people are just being hysterical, and they're firing off arrows that either aren't landing, or are landing in the wrong places. That's the current situation in Colorado.

If people are going to fight, I want them to fight smart, and not just hard, and I think starts with having some insight into the psychology of the group and its members, which is why I keep harping on certain points about the group and what I've observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Boozy go further and further down the rabbit holes is really amusing.

https://twitter.com/BoozyBarrister/status/856297150073974784

I guess stuff like this is more awesome than worrying about the Raiders....just feels like it's just eating its own tail at this point and seeing Boozy's posts are more refreshing and hilarious. That tweet reminds me of when I was fresh into the fandom online and enjoyed drawing and finding community back then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 5:58 PM, AshleyAshes said:

Actually you know what?  I think I'm wrong, it's not him.  Yeah, scratch that last comment.

Scorch and Kahuki wrote the letter together because they live together. They are both sovcits.

 

Pic is from Scorch's gallery:

1492325364.scorch_group (1).jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2017 at 8:41 AM, Troj said:

were singling out and harassing Jewish members of the fandom, physically attacking people at gatherings, actively trying to exclude "untermenschen" from meets, or disseminating racist literature.

I think you are not aware of the Raiders threatening people in Colorado in person, by phone, and by messages. Or threatening RMFC staff and Sorin himself. Or that they got banned from Fox Trot (a CO dance club meet) when Foxler assaulted Mykonos when the venue asked the Raiders to remove the arm bands. They also drive hours to attend meets they are banned from, which is almost funny given Foxler, Kody, Sugar Ray etc drove 2 hours to eat at the same Village Inn during the local furry meet hosted there that they were banned from (to make a statement) and then drove 2 hours home. I got contacted by a lot of people in CO who are genuinely afraid of them. I heard a lot of stories and dirt. Eventually I will write it all out. But one thing to keep in mind is that the Raiders actively intimidate, harrass, and threaten local CO furs. Also I have evidence that Kahuki's past about kids is not so distant as we would all hope so as much as I would like to say "oh that happened 25 years ago and he's a changed man" well, not so much.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2017 at 10:13 PM, Troj said:

I basically agree with you that it "doesn't really matter," but I'm searching for some kind of way here to get people to step back and use their heads instead of letting Foxler manipulate their emotions for his benefit. If you see a better way of doing that, I'm definitely all ears.

The core of this particular issue was not that foxler was getting attention, but an organization with clear neo-nazi ties was being allowed to operate at a con. The "better way of doing" would have been to ban them, but the board of directors didn't, so the issue escalated to what it is now. There is no reason to allow a group that clearly celebrates neo-nazism to operate in a space that's supposed to be inclusive, because inclusiveness goes against the very nature of racial hate groups. And yeah, you might believe they "aren't for real" or whatever (hint: many members reportedly believe in the white ethnostate), but minorities attending the con would probably have very different opinions on that matter - I'm sure plenty would feel unsafe at a con with an organized group of "fake" neo-nazis, and those tensions can transform into very real problems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Toshabi mentioned it, "Its all in the timing. They are pushing for a new Colorado con WAAAYY too fast imo. The dust hasn't settled yet, and all we are going to do is set up a new house and watch it get dirtied by the filth raining down from above."

DenFur was being planned since last year. They just got their hotel negotiations under way for a final contract, but they have been putting together staff and scouting locations, etc since last year. They were keeping quiet to not get anyone's hopes up, but with the end of RMFC they went public to try and give the CO furry community hope and also offered spots on staff to RMFC staff members if they wanted to so they would not feel cut out after years of hard work.

 

Also, regarding my "gloating" or "Deo is way too fucking outspoken and comes off like an extra strength edgelord which did NOT help to sort shit out. I kind of hate the fact that she is being praised as a hero ... With how vile she was being".

I have recieved literally over a thousand messages about this mess. These fuckers threatened my home, then tried to pin their mess on me. I am outspoken because I did not make this mess and I am sure as hell not going to sit idly by and let them hang me for it. I am going to talk openly about their actions leading up to this poweder keg that kileld a con and their scummy actions of trying to scapegoat me. Hell yeah I am going to boil them when I can catch them. I have been trying to get through this shit storm with humor and put up a strong face. Some see my reaction as narcissism or fame or whatever, but I never asked for the shit snowball to fall on my front lawn. It landed here so I am going to deal with it head on and publicly/transparently rather than let this ferment in the dark while I run away with my tail between my legs to hide it out in silence. A lot of people bemoan that I talked about this publicly, if only I had stayed silent about child raping soveriegn citizen nazifurs then the con would be alive! Vile woman, making a big deal about Directors of a large furry con doxxing, impersonating lawyers, and mailing threats! Ask yourselves what you would do if a group threatened your home and your family, blamed you for their mistakes and tried to make you a leper in your social community, sent you death threats and rape threats, posted your address and name online, and started contacting your employer to get you fired. And then you have people telling you that it's all your fault that you're responsible for the actions of assholes trying to fuck your life up. All because you reported to con security some idiot talking about bringing a gun to the con. So yeah I am mad, yeah I am roasting every little shithead that tries to have a go at me. My patience is fucking gone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2017 at 4:02 PM, AshleyAshes said:

I for one look forward to him explaining at a panel that 'No, your terms of service can not include the clause 'If I ever decide I dislike you, I get to cancel the contract, keep the money AND keep the fursuit/art'.  It would be unenforceable.'

Fun fact, I've met an suitmaker who thought this way. Ended up keeping a customer's half-completed suit (their fursona too), and sold it to her patrons after getting pissy when the customer asked why the suit hasn't seen reasonable progress in years. Blocked the customer from all communication. She at least *partially* refunded the commission.

Anyway, as much as people blame assholes for cons going under, like the diapers of RF, or the nazifurs here, it always comes back to scummy con administration. If there's a problem, it needs to be fixed before it festers. The raiders should probably have been simply banned to just end the drama right there, and the con might have gone on another year...if the sovcit tax fraud wasn't an issue. But no, when your constaff has a sovcit alt-right pedophile in its ranks, nothing good can come of it.

I worry about other cons. Not just about the raiders or others going elsewhere to cause headaches, but if other cons are this badly managed by kooks. Sure, other cons can pop up, but hotels might be wary of fur cons unfortunately, so it could be tricky to get these new ones up and running fast enough.

Still, you always have cons like BLFC, which sound amazing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kazooie said:

The core of this particular issue was not that foxler was getting attention, but an organization with clear neo-nazi ties was being allowed to operate at a con. The "better way of doing" would have been to ban them, but the board of directors didn't, so the issue escalated to what it is now. There is no reason to allow a group that clearly celebrates neo-nazism to operate in a space that's supposed to be inclusive, because inclusiveness goes against the very nature of racial hate groups. And yeah, you might believe they "aren't for real" or whatever (hint: many members reportedly believe in the white ethnostate), but minorities attending the con would probably have very different opinions on that matter - I'm sure plenty would feel unsafe at a con with an organized group of "fake" neo-nazis, and those tensions can transform into very real problems.

You seem to think my argument is that it's "all just jokes," when that's never been my argument. I agree with you whether you fly a Nazi flag or say racist stuff ironically or ironically doesn't matter, and that you don't get to cry to mama either way when people don't like it.

So, here, we're back yet again to one thing I've said all along in different settings, which is that we need to focus on behaviors, and not give people wiggle room to debate beliefs or intentions. (One of my problems with calling them "Nazis" is that they've consistently dodged criticism by pointing out their dissimilarities with "real Nazis.") Like Ashley says, it doesn't matter whether bad behavior is "real" or "fake," and I absolutely agree with that. In this case, the gathering or convention rules should be, "Symbols of XYZ nature will not be allowed in the con space," "Hate speech (as defined by XYZ) will not be tolerated," and "Harassment will not be tolerated."

In contrast, saying "haters won't be tolerated" sets you up for a never-ending fight over who is or isn't a "hater." This broad rhetoric creates the sort of loopholes that the Raiders regularly slip through.

In this case, the gathering or convention rules should be, "Symbols of XYZ nature will not be allowed in the con space," "Hate speech (as defined by XYZ) will not be tolerated," and "Harassment will not be tolerated."

In contrast, saying "haters won't be tolerated" sets you up for a never-ending fight over who is or isn't a "hater." This broad rhetoric creates the sort of loopholes that the Raiders regularly slip through.

Banning "the Raiders," creates problems, too, since they've been known to add people to their member list without their consent; some people are friends with people in the group without being members; some members are peripheral or casual; and because the media has, in a couple of cases, even identified non-Raiders as Raiders in photo captions and the like.

So, the answer is to target identifiable behaviors--and from there, your "long game" can be informed by your understanding of people's underlying motives and psychology, and that's when it matters whether someone "really believes" something or not. (The "long game" is where I tell people to treat the group as silly and trivial, rather than ooh-scary-evil intimidating.)

Anyway, it sounds like the con chair also took some kind of weird pride in never having banned anyone for any reason, which is a frankly idiotic thing to be proud of.

That photo tells me that the con staff were also clearly blinded by nepotism and favoritism, which is a common problem in the fandom (and outside of it, too). Sometimes, to be a real leader, you've even got to be willing to distance yourself from your friends and family to make the right judgment call about something, and they clearly couldn't do that.

8 hours ago, Deo said:

I think you are not aware of the Raiders threatening people in Colorado in person, by phone, and by messages.

You're right, because I wasn't at the gatherings where that stuff went down. I've begun to hear more of those stories recently, and I've also had some Raiders tell me their side of the story. (Oh goody.)

Again, if people are harassing or threatening each other, we need to focus on that first.

Why people are harassing each other is secondary, and should inform our "long game" in dealing with them.

I think if we zero in on the problem behaviors, we'll realize (as I've started to) that the same three-or-so Raider names keep surfacing in every story, and that a few non-Raider names are also consistently part of the mix, and we can begin to deal with those specific people.

5 hours ago, Calemeyr said:

Fun fact, I've met an suitmaker who thought this way. Ended up keeping a customer's half-completed suit (their fursona too), and sold it to her patrons after getting pissy when the customer asked why the suit hasn't seen reasonable progress in years. Blocked the customer from all communication. She at least *partially* refunded the commission.

Wow, that is...incredibly unethical and unprofessional.

And there, we're back to how a lot of people in the fandom are basically glorified 12-year-olds.

8 hours ago, Deo said:

My patience is fucking gone.

I believe it! Wow.

20 hours ago, QT Melon said:

Watching Boozy go further and further down the rabbit holes is really amusing.

https://twitter.com/BoozyBarrister/status/856297150073974784

I'm loving his Twitter feed and blog posts. It's also amusing how nothing phases him.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Troj said:

You seem to think my argument is that it's "all just jokes," when that's never been my argument. I agree with you whether you fly a Nazi flag or say racist stuff ironically or ironically doesn't matter, and that you don't get to cry to mama either way when people don't like it.

So, here, we're back yet again to one thing I've said all along in different settings, which is that we need to focus on behaviors, and not give people wiggle room to debate beliefs or intentions. (One of my problems with calling them "Nazis" is that they've consistently dodged criticism by pointing out their dissimilarities with "real Nazis.") Like Ashley says, it doesn't matter whether bad behavior is "real" or "fake," and I absolutely agree with that. In this case, the gathering or convention rules should be, "Symbols of XYZ nature will not be allowed in the con space," "Hate speech (as defined by XYZ) will not be tolerated," and "Harassment will not be tolerated."

In contrast, saying "haters won't be tolerated" sets you up for a never-ending fight over who is or isn't a "hater." This broad rhetoric creates the sort of loopholes that the Raiders regularly slip through.

I agree that there should be general rules for individuals regarding behaviour, rather than ideology - banning an individual nazi fur for simply having nazi imagery on their FA account or whatever is dumb. I disagree that organized groups of neo-nazis (and again, I believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to prove their alignment) should be allowed until they exhibit harmful behaviour (although it seems like the furry raiders have even done that, so it should be even more cut-and-dry).

 

Like, an individual nazifur is to the "Furry Raiders" as an individual pedophile would be to the "Young Lovers". People's behaviours change when in groups - they become emboldened from the cycles of positive reinforcement that said group provides. Just as much as you don't wait for a member of the "Young Lovers" to end up molesting a kid, you don't wait for the "Furry Raiders" to end up harming a minority. You ban the groups, suffer some negative press from whiny #gamergate anime fascists and NAMBLA, and move on.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Deo said:

Pic is from Scorch's gallery:

[pic]

Goddamn, I haven't seen so much unattractive in one place since Neer and Chase were on stage together.

Current topic: I feel like there's a line. I don't think Nazi uniforms, alone, are some heinous crime, because they have a strong general military aesthetic. Note that I said "alone."
Going too far with that symbolism and "playing the part" or whatever the fuck they want to call it starts bordering on "I'm gonna dress in KKK robes and walk my blackfaced friend around by a rope leash. Lolol relax, it's just a prank bro!"

Obviously, that would be pretty fucking unacceptable in any kind of public setting. So I'm not particularly sympathetic on the cries of "MUH RP FREEDUMS" when it comes to them having to take off the armbands and leave the more explicit imagery and behaviors at the fucking door. God forbid you break the illusion for these dumb animal nerds that they're anything intimidating IRL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, now I think I follow.

The snag with banning groups is, like I said before, you may not be able to pin down who actually belongs to the group, and this has been a problem especially with the Raiders. After all, the Daily Mail just grabbed a photo of a general Colorado furmeet and identified everyone in the photo as Raiders!

In terms of the "long game," I see other potential strategic and logistical problems with banning the Raiders wholesale.

But, you can certainly ban their paraphernalia and symbols, and I think you can also ban people for unambiguously hateful, bigoted, or threatening things they've said "on the record," such as on social media.

But, if you do ban the Raiders as a group, it should be on the grounds that they have been associated with criminal activity, drama, threats/harassment, and/or acts of violence, and not because of their beliefs--because, as we've seen, they play fast and loose with what they do or don't believe.

Of course, I think a responsible con should also demonstrate its objectivity and commitment to fairness by being willing to ban anti-Raiders or non-Raiders who exhibit the same sorts of behaviors.

But, if we've already seen that the con staff in this case were neither objective nor impartial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Troj said:

But, if you do ban the Raiders as a group, it should be on the grounds that they have been associated with criminal activity, drama, threats/harassment, and/or acts of violence, and not because of their beliefs--because, as we've seen, they play fast and loose with what they do or don't believe.

Yeah, and this is where we disagree, I guess. It seems like you're arguing that any organization, regardless of ideology, should only be banned once they do harm to others. I believe that there are ideological lines that can be crossed, and can be proven, and that racial hate groups are one of them. I believe that there is overwhelming historical evidence that racial hate groups prove an inherent risk to minorities, and that there is no reason to allow them to operate freely. Ultimately, cons are private events where the organizers have the authority to ban a clearly neo-nazi aligned group, regardless of how their members and apologists may move goalposts or whine.

Cons aren't democracies - go sperg about hitler elsewhere.

 

The specific policies required for banning groups is more complex, but in this case banning group meetings on-grounds, banning group paraphernalia, and freeing up the hotel rooms they "took hostage" or whatever would've been a start, maybe? I'm sure there are experienced organizers who have found solutions to this type of shit before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, kazooie said:

The specific policies required for banning groups is more complex, but in this case banning group meetings on-grounds, banning group paraphernalia, and freeing up the hotel rooms they "took hostage" or whatever would've been a start, maybe? I'm sure there are experienced organizers who have found solutions to this type of shit before.

Usually organizations start restricting offensive material in hopes that either they comply or not show up at all. Like the stupid armbands. The few furries that are going "MUH SPEECH" do not understand that it's a private event that can set whatever rules they want. By buying a badge/ticket, you agree to them.

Because of the raiders obstructing the convention and it's attendees via snatching up hotel blocks and whatnot should have been grounds for a ban in the first place if they couldn't negotiate without it turning into a mess. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Usually organizations start restricting offensive material in hopes that either they comply or not show up at all. Like the stupid armbands. The few furries that are going "MUH SPEECH" do not understand that it's a private event that can set whatever rules they want. By buying a badge/ticket, you agree to them.

Because of the raiders obstructing the convention and it's attendees via snatching up hotel blocks and whatnot should have been grounds for a ban in the first place if they couldn't negotiate without it turning into a mess. 

I'm not accusing you in particular of this but I find this line of reasoning really funny because people are very quick to invert that line of reasoning when it becomes about something they don't like.

Privately owned business: "I don't want to make gay wedding cakes"
Peanut Gallery: "GOVERNMENT, SIC EM"

Privately owned business: "We don't want Nazi paraphernalia at our event"
Peanut Gallery: "YEAH YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT'S ~YOUR BUSINESS~"

I don't have a horse in this race really because it's a retarded clusterfuck and you should all be ashamed but here's a political cartoon to distract everyone from examining the situation impartially and come to obnoxious conclusions about what I believe.

C-NUR5sUwAA6cVd.jpg

Good posting everyone keep it up you'll change the world some day lmao

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kazooie said:

The specific policies required for banning groups is more complex, but in this case banning group meetings on-grounds, banning group paraphernalia, and freeing up the hotel rooms they "took hostage" or whatever would've been a start, maybe? I'm sure there are experienced organizers who have found solutions to this type of shit before.

Logistically, I can see how you could have rules against proselytizing and recruitment. If you wanted to ban meetings, you'd have to be very clear about what constituted a "meeting."

Other cons have ways of preventing people from buying up multiple rooms, so that's very doable.

You know, as I was thinking today, if I were a con organizer in the current political climate, I'd be really tempted to just prohibit every symbol or logo that's come to be associated with drama--Raiders, Neo-Nazism, Antifa, MAGA, ITMFA, the Confederate flag, BLM, ALM, the whole nine yards. That's not my usual M.O., but desperate times call for desperate measures, because shit's getting ridiculous. I sure don't envy con organizers who are having to write and enforce these policies.

3 hours ago, kazooie said:

I believe that there are ideological lines that can be crossed, and can be proven, and that racial hate groups are one of them

Ethics aside, nailing people on ideological grounds can work when people are more-or-less open or honest about their beliefs--but if they play fast-and-loose about what they believe, you may not be able to successfully block them on those grounds, and/or you may set yourself up for a lot more drama as people fight over the person or group's "real" beliefs and intentions. (In other words, you end up with the current dramastorm.)

In contrast, "You're not welcome at our convention because your conduct at meets and on social media violates our Code of Conduct" is easy to understand, easy to enforce, and harder to argue with.

The key then is to have a clear, fair Code of Conduct will be enforced consistently regardless of who's in charge or who's on staff. (Because you don't want some idiot con chair deciding to ban people who merely annoy them or just don't share their opinions on things.)

I have a bad feeling the "convention community" has only seen the beginning of this kind of crap, so it actually is probably important to process it and talk about it.

Some of our talking past each other might've stemmed from the fact that I've mostly focused on how I think furries should react to the problem as a community, and you and others seem more focused on the question of what conventions and gatherings should do from an organizational standpoint. Accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troj said:

Some of our talking past each other might've stemmed from the fact that I've mostly focused on how I think furries should react to the problem as a community, and you and others seem more focused on the question of what conventions and gatherings should do from an organizational standpoint. Accurate?

Pretty much; I don't particularly see this tiny, mostly-dead forum a The Center For Convention Policy thinktank, and really don't feel much for the "long game" talk, I also believe that we all, individually, have very little influence on how others will react to shit like this - asking people to not overreact to perceived neo-nazis kinda misses the point in my eyes, such community responses are largely outside our control.

2 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

Privately owned business: "I don't want to make gay wedding cakes"
Peanut Gallery: "GOVERNMENT, SIC EM"

Privately owned business: "We don't want Nazi paraphernalia at our event"
Peanut Gallery: "YEAH YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT'S ~YOUR BUSINESS~"

One of these things stems from a basic human rights issue as well as decades of discrimination and the other is involving neo-nazis, I hope this helps you solve this complex moral puzzle

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, and given my work and my background, I can't resist delving into why people do things and what they should do instead, even when I know it's futile and nobody's going to listen to me.

At least I get to say, "I told you so," I guess?

:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kazooie said:

One of these things stems from a basic human rights issue as well as decades of discrimination and the other is involving neo-nazis, I hope this helps you solve this complex moral puzzle

I'm confused, what about my post gave you the impression I considered the scenario I outlined complex, or a puzzle?

It's really unbecoming of you to condescend to superior minds while simultaneously failing to grasp the subtext of any statement that doesn't explicitly comply with your reductive ideology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

I'm confused, what about my post gave you the impression I considered the scenario I outlined complex, or a puzzle?

It's really unbecoming of you to condescend to superior minds while simultaneously failing to grasp the subtext of any statement that doesn't explicitly comply with your reductive ideology.

honestly, i just found it hilarious that you were trying to induce a "gotcha!" moment by comparing the persecution of a minority group to that of a racial hate group

also that self-identifying alt-righter steve bannon is drawn as a good guy in that cartoon. its a good cartoon

 

first they came for the nazis

and i did nothing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kazooie said:

honestly, i just found it hilarious that you were trying to induce a "gotcha!" moment by comparing the persecution of a minority group to that of a racial hate group

also that self-identifying alt-righter steve bannon is drawn as a good guy in that cartoon. its a good cartoon

You should stop trying to glimpse insights into my motivations because you are very bad at it.

I was having a laugh at the fact that humans will utilize lines of reasoning to justify their positions regardless of what those positions are and then fail to acknowledge the validity of said arguments when they are invoked in support of actions they do not agree with.

But instead you probably read that as "Zara thinks businesses should be allowed to deny service to black people and gays because he's a Nazi" because you're retarded and the only thing making you appear even slightly competent at navigating conversation is the fact that most of your interlocutors are even more retarded than you are lmao

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Raiders wanted to start shit, they picked pretending to be Nazi's-but-totally-not-Nazi's-We-Swear to start shit with, it has proven to be very effective at starting shit, they have traveled a fair bit within their region to spread their shit starting... So yeah, banning The Raiders, or anyone emulating the Raider's, from an event makes sense because the objective is clearly 'Start Some Shit'.  Because even if someone is not ACTUALLY a member of The Raiders, if they slide on that paw print arm band at your event, they have the same 'start shit' intention. They want to be seen and to get a reaction.  You shut that shit down.

There's no moral issue with banning someone who's sole objective is to disturb the party.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zaraphayx said:

But instead you probably read that as "Zara thinks businesses should be allowed to deny service to black people and gays because he's a Nazi" 

nah

23 minutes ago, Troj said:

Well, and given my work and my background, I can't resist delving into why people do things and what they should do instead, even when I know it's futile and nobody's going to listen to me.

At least I get to say, "I told you so," I guess?

:D

Maybe I've just grown overly cynical over time, aha. In my experience, it takes quite a lot of change even a single person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<mod post>
Guys, keep it in your pants. If you have personal issues with each other, take it to a more appropriate space.
This is the second thread we've had on this particular subject, and this one doesn't need to devolve into the same shit that got the other one locked.
</mod post>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, QT Melon said:

GDI guys, not again. this tit for tat is so tiring.

TBH, it's the reason why I stay out of threads like this. The back and forth bickering is just as you said, tiring. It's like watching an old couple argue back and forth with no end in sight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Kazooie pointed it out, I didn't even recognize Bannon in that cartoon, because the artist made him look like an actual human, and not Jabba the Hutt's alcoholic cousin.

31 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

The Raiders wanted to start shit, they picked pretending to be Nazi's-but-totally-not-Nazi's-We-Swear to start shit with, it has proven to be very effective at starting shit, they have traveled a fair bit within their region to spread their shit starting... So yeah, banning The Raiders, or anyone emulating the Raider's, from an event makes sense because the objective is clearly 'Start Some Shit'.  Because even if someone is not ACTUALLY a member of The Raiders, if they slide on that paw print arm band at your event, they have the same 'start shit' intention. They want to be seen and to get a reaction.  You shut that shit down.

There's no moral issue with banning someone who's sole objective is to disturb the party.

Sounds reasonable to me. If someone's clearly stirring the pot, or doing something they've already been told not to do, there's nothing wrong with saying, "Nope, not today, Skippy." There's definitely no moral issue with banning or excluding people whose behavior signals that they want to disturb the party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vae said:

<mod post>
Guys, keep it in your pants. If you have personal issues with each other, take it to a more appropriate space.
This is the second thread we've had on this particular subject, and this one doesn't need to devolve into the same shit that got the other one locked.
</mod post>

Shut up nerd.

I contributed facetious commentary on human reasoning and the state of contemporary discourse, and as predicted in my own post some mental invalid with limited reading comprehension started with the usual routine of substituting anything valuable with more of the usual snide "I don't know if you noticed, but uhm. NAZIS!!!!" rhetoric.

If you'd also like some tips on consistency in reasoning you know where to find me.

XoXo Zara

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Troj said:

Until Kazooie pointed it out, I didn't even recognize Bannon in that cartoon, because the artist made him look like an actual human, and not Jabba the Hutt's alcoholic cousin.

all he wanted to do was smash the government and bring glory to the white race (and maybe russia??? jury's out on that one), but it turns out trump was too stupid ever for his machinations. id like to believe that, after being booted from the security council, he's retreated to a small, dark room, where he mutters to himself while madly scribbling on napkins breitbart headlines that herald a new, glorious dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...