Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

Any discussion not related to furry goes in here. Politics, religion, current affairs...this is the place for it.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#1

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Long read, first published on Flayrah: https://www.flayrah.com/7076/free-speec ... rry-fandom
Probably best to read it there for lots of reasons but I will try keep all the important bits here as well.
-----

What is free speech?

Of the many rights which are available to us, none is as important as free speech. However, a combination of factors including the high-profile activities of the alt-right in the US, resurgence of right-wing parties across Europe, emergence of various special interest and rights groups and the ease and speed at which news, ideas and, especially, outrage can spread over the internet have led some to question its necessity.

The most concerning statements that I've seen in the furry fandom have been those saying that certain people should not be allowed to speak and should be banned from websites and conventions for holding their views and the idea that it is okay to assault people who hold certain views. In the light of this, I feel it is necessary to explain what free speech is and isn't, why it is important and try to highlight some of the ways in which it directly impacts the furry fandom.

I will start with the Wikipedia article on free speech which describes it thus:
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.
Further down in the article it breaks freedom of speech into three discrete aspects.
1. the right to seek information and ideas;
2. the right to receive information and ideas;
3. the right to impart information and ideas
In some cases these will be limited due to laws regarding privacy or similar rules but such cases will not be considered here as those limitations generally do not affect free speech in the way that it applies to the furry fandom vis-à-vis the expression of alt-right ideas.

As can be seen with the definition above, this right is not only meant to limit government interference with the free flow of ideas and opinions although it is often and wrongly interpreted that way. For example within the furry fandom we see freedom of speech misunderstood by Dogpatch Press who tweeted about free speech.
He can have fun in concept-land, the rest of us are on earth (and the US, in this specific topic.)
Or even really smart people, like at XKCD, who put out this misguided cartoon about free speech.

Image

Comics such as that fail to distinguish between free speech, which is a universal human right, and the first amendment, which is specifically limited to government interference but also only applies to the US. While many furry sites are hosted in the US and fall under US law, that does not apply to all of them and country-specific law is of limited use when discussing the broader implications of free speech for an international community such as the furry fandom.

Furthermore although government interference in free speech is something to guard against so are the chilling effects of societal sanctions. In fact, in his 1859 work On Liberty, which is the major work defining and defending free speech, John Stuart Mill expressed great concern about the threat to free speech from society as well as from government.
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
When furs like @fluffigator say:
Freedom of speech is NOT FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCE
One has to wonder how they conceive of free speech. The point of free speech is to provide protection from consequences in the interest of expanding ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you decouple free speech from whether or not there are consequences— well, down that path madness lies. I would contend that a country where the consequences of criticising the government are imprisonment or execution does not have free speech in any meaningful way. And whether the consequences of free speech are dealt out by government or by society at large is irrelevant if the effects are the same.

Having said that, I will also acknowledge that there are some consequences which can occur despite free speech. If you exercise your free speech then there may be societal consequences such as lowering people's opinion of you and perhaps limiting future opportunities. However, such consequences should not be as a result of society trying to punish that person for their speech, excepting in cases where such speech were to violate specific rules of a particular site, to use an example most relevant for the furry fandom.

Such consequences could likely only occur after the fact and should be relevant to that case. For example, banning a white supremacist from using a dating site is just wrong and misguided if he did not violate their terms of service. As an administrator on a furry forum, I can say that we do not punish users for what they do off the forum; although such information may be valuable when deciding on the severity of a punishment or assessing the probability of them re-offending. It is also incorrect to pre-emptively ban furs from attending a furry convention a la Furrydelphia. This is essentially the equivalent of arresting someone because you think they might rob your shop.

These issues gain importance because, while in the past many artists and writers had their own small websites, the furry fandom today is concentrated primarily on a small number of much larger websites. While many artists do maintain profiles on several different sites, many others are only available on one. This raises the further complication that when a large website takes a decision to ban a user they can severely restrict that user's ability to interact with the furry community. This is perhaps an issue which has not been given as much attention as it would deserve and parallels with the real world suggest that it is something which administrations of larger websites should spend time ruminating on. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that convicted sex offenders could not be barred from joining social media sites even if those sites contained children. Part of the reasoning was that many politicians use social media and that people "structure their civil community life" around social media sites. This is perhaps even more true for the furry fandom and would suggests that self-moderation policies, such as those promoted by Inkbunny, are the best course of action.

Why do we need free speech?

We should all now understand what I mean when I say free speech but the question then becomes "why do we need it?" Or, more specifically given the current issues dominating the American political landscape and which are driving the issues, "why should we allow the alt-right or Nazis free speech?" The necessity of free speech falls broadly main reasons; the theoretical benefit that is gained from a diversity of opinions and the practical benefit of protecting our own future right to free speech.

These days we live in a pluralistic and multicultural society made up of people from different countries, cultures, religions and more. The fact is that these groups differ in what they believe and value and, at times, these beliefs will conflict with one another. Obviously, we consider our own beliefs to be true; if not we would not hold those beliefs. But this is a subjective position and it is very difficult to say which beliefs and world views are objectively correct and indeed it may be impossible. If people follow different philosophies based on different values it may not be clear why one thing should be valued over another. If it were clear then presumably everyone would follow the same philosophy. As we can not be sure who is objectively correct, we cannot justify giving preferential treatment to one group, hence the need for all people to have an opportunity to present their own case and try to convince society that their way is best.

Even if one view were demonstrably better than another, when there is no challenge to that view, the reasons that people hold that view will be lost and it will become dogma rather than a reasoned position. By allowing different thoughts and opinions, we ensure that those views will be challenged and people have to continually reflect on what they believe and why they believe it. It is not enough to say that all races are equal. You need to understand why all races are equal and you need to be able to articulate that. Shutting down opposing speech does not inspire confidence; it looks as though either the censor does not know why the opposing view is wrong or it suggests that they doubt that their own arguments are convincing. And, if their own arguments are not convincing, then perhaps whatever belief they hold is not true and should be revised.

On the more practical side, we need to protect the right of free speech even for those detested views as this is necessary to protect our own right to free speech. Free speech is usually under fire by those who seek to suppress others to secure their own position. This is misguided as it cannot be guaranteed that your own views will always be the ones that are favoured. With time, society and laws change and, if you found yourself the holder of a minority view which was despised by the rest of society yet which you held to be true, you would no doubt want protection to say your part.

Global warming and climate change is of concern around the globe and is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. We need to be able to discuss this issue in order to try and mitigate its effects. In the US, this has been made more difficult under the Trump administration which has banned the use of those terms. Luckily this does not affect the entirety of the country but it should be cause for concern. Without the ability to talk about a topic, we make it far more difficult to find solutions to those problems and to affect social change. One of the achievements of the US that liberals, and the vast majority of the furry fandom, would have celebrated was the eventual legalisation of gay marriage throughout the US two years ago. This represents a major shift in society's opinion of what is and is not acceptable. Such a shift would've been much more difficult, if not impossible, without free speech if promotion of gay marriage had been deemed illegal as it is in Russia or if the terms had been banned as for climate change.

Now one might object and say that even if it were the case that we need dissenting opinions to further understand our own position or that we should protect speech that we disagree with, the Nazis are spreading hate speech and there we must draw the line. Indeed, many countries do, wrongly, draw a line at hate speech. However hate speech is not clear cut, it is subjective. What is, to one person, an expression of hatred is, to another, just a plain statement of fact.

Let us take homosexuality as one example. Much homophobia, as with many prejudices including the anti-Semitism that is distinctive about Nazism, is motivated by religion. If one were to say, "god hates gays" or "gays will burn in hell" that would be considered hate speech by some. To others, this is totally correct, depending on your religious beliefs. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a piece meant to summarise the beliefs which every Catholic holds is clear that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law," "do[es] not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity" and "under no circumstances can [it] be approved." Is merely stating your religious beliefs hate speech? Probably but we should not prevent people from stating their religious beliefs if it does not directly harm someone.

Furthermore there is an interesting phenomenon that hate speech only applies to speech that the person describing it as hate speech disapproves of. Seldom do we hear people complaining about hate speech directed at various criminals, in fact it is more likely that we will see such speech being hailed. Even in the conversations around Nazis and hate speech, there is no shortage of people directing hate in that direction. Whether that hate is deserved or not will again depend on your belief system and is the problematic aspect of forbidding hate speech.

There is a particularly good lecture by Christopher Hitchens on free speech that he gave at the University of Toronto in 2006. You can read the full transcript here but I will also provide the video itself as he is an excellent speaker and it is 20 minutes that is well worth of your attention. On the topic of hate speech and censorship, this the question that he posed for the audience and which is relevant now when reflecting on the situation in the US and our response to it.


Bear in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else, in potencia, you’re making a rod for own back. Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is simply this: who’s going to decide?

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?
Think carefully because it will not be easy to change in the future and once you provide allow the justification that ideas you dislike can be banned then the question who has the power becomes very important. Maybe you are happy to see Nazi's speech being shut down, possibly you were also happy when Australia denied a visa to an anti-vaxer and maybe you didn't even care when the UK police arrested a man for burning a poppy. But you probably do care about the Russian law against gay propaganda, the fact that Saudi princes who are critical of the regime tend to disappear or the fact that Indonesia only recognises six official religions. But those are different countries; at least if you were living in the United States you could be sure that you would never have a president who might support racial bigotry or act out of spite.

Restrictions on free speech

At this point one might get the idea that there are no restrictions at all on free speech. There are. Some of these restrictions will be created by people through agreements – like non-disclosure agreements, terms of services and so forth – and others will come on into being due to privacy or other legal obligations but these are generally limited and specific to certain situations. The restrictions I will talk about here are more general; they are cases where, in principle, free speech does not apply and are generally where, to my mind, the actions themselves would serve to undermine free speech.

Violence

Free speech does not protect incitement to violence. The second principle at Oxford University's Free Speech Debate project, currently supported by 81% of voters, states:
We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.
Violence and the use of force to shut down discussion or to force one's view on others is completely antithetical to the concept of free speech and we should find any promotion of it incredibly troubling. People then say that Nazi speech should not be protected because they believe that violence against certain groups is acceptable or even should be encouraged. However, the restriction on violence is toward incitement to violence or the risk of imminent violence, not to arguing that violence is acceptable in certain cases.

For example, in the majority of developed countries there is no death penalty for crimes. There are groups within such countries who believe that the death penalty should be reinstated. Free speech protects such a view just the same as it would protect a Nazi arguing that certain groups are valid targets of violence but such protection does not equal endorsement. Free speech would not protect people promoting the death penalty if they encourage vigilante justice as this is a direct incitement to violence.

This is of particular importance because many otherwise reasonable people, both in the furry fandom and beyond, think that violence against facism, often in the guise of the loosely grouped Antifa movement, is acceptable. It is not and that promotion of violence against non-violent speech, even racist and fascistic violent speech, is making it harder to fight against the alt-right for two reasons.

Firstly, the violence against fascists is not going to convince anyone that the alt-right is wrong. Now I can agree that one side has a much nicer end goal than the other but if you look at the alt-right and you look at Antifa, you just see violence. And I don't think you can say that the ends justify the means. We are talking about the kind of world we want to create and if we're going to abandon our principles to create it, then what the hell are we fighting for? And if Antifa is not abandoning their principles, if they truly believe that violence is an acceptable way of promoting their ideas, then I must stand opposed to them. Two sections from Give me the good news, a famous South African song from the 80's seem applicable here to whoever is considering violence.
You can't use guns to build a nation
A bullet never was creation
/…/
You can't use force to sell a promise
Dictatorship was never honest
I am certainly not the only one to have realised this and those that support Antifa's tactics would be well-advised to realise it before making the situation worse. I know people will argue that you can't reason with the alt-right and that is probably true for the leaders but who you do need to reason with and convince are those that are closer to the political middle who will currently be pushed away from the left by Antifa. This is recognised by some journalists, philosophers and academics, with Noam Chomsky calling Antifa a "major gift to the right." The Daily Show also points out the way that Antifa is going to drive more and more people away from their cause if they continue with their current tactics.



Second, the use of violence, whether equivalent or not, is now explicitly stating that violence is acceptable against those with whom you disagree. When you eschew violence, it is easy to condemn it from the alt-right. When you fail to condemn punching Nazis and actively support the use of force in political debates you set yourself up for trouble. If it's acceptable for one side to use violence then it must be acceptable for the other side to use violence. This is not a situation that we should create; we must oppose all violence, no matter who it is by.

This really brings us back to the point of who makes decisions. From an individual's perspective, their view is correct but other people are viewing the situation from different perspectives and acting accordingly. If you now say it is acceptable to use violence to suppress the free speech of those with whom you disagree, are you prepared to accept the consequences? It hasn't even been three years since the majority of the world stood up to protest the murder of 12 people affiliated with the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo! Once you open the door to violence to fulfill political ends, you can't easily close it again. And you won't be able to dictate which causes may use violence to promote their ends.

Deliberate falsehoods

Free speech does not protect deliberate falsehoods or lies. Free speech is there to allow the exchange of ideas and deliberately putting out incorrect information undermines the goal of those discussion. It is very important for the falsehood to be deliberate though. This is partially due to the possibility of having many different but valid views of the same thing, depending on what you value and how you weigh different types of evidence (although that does not mean that there are not incorrect views) but also because a falsehood due to ignorance is not the same as a malicious falsehood.

This shouldn't be controversial, no one says that a child lied when they give the wrong answer on a test. The child simply did not know and gave what they believed to be correct with no bad faith. Answers can even change as we learn more about the world. This also illustrates one problem with shutting down discussions. If we view those with detestable views the same way as we view the child, we can recognise that, just as banning the child from answering or kicking them out of the class, the only way to get a better answer is through engagement and education.

A further complication is that we do not always view lying to people as wrong. Some people think it is good to lie to children about the existence of Father Christmas or Santa Claus and it is necessary to lie to prepare a surprise party. In those cases you could maintain that there is no malicious intent so those lies are acceptable but that would still leave the door open for the classic "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" paternalism. I am not going to try and follow those thoughts to a conclusion at this point but merely reiterate that as long as there is no deliberate deception, even speech which is objectively wrong at that point in time would still be protected as free speech.

Harassment

Free speech does not protect harassment. It provides the freedom to discuss ideas but harassment is not about discussion, it is about targeting an individual and making their life unbearable. But we also shouldn't confuse saying things which upset certain people with harassment. It is possible to ignore, move away from, or block people that are saying things that upset one but harassment would include people trying to circumvent such blocks.

The public vs private sphere

Finally, our attention must fall on the question of public vs private arenas. Free speech applies to the public arena and within private spaces it is perfectly legitimate for the owner of said space to add their own restrictions, provided those restrictions do not contravene the law. The majority of furry activities happen within such private spaces; whether it be on various furry websites or at conventions.

Sometimes these restrictions are due to legal reasons in the country of hosting or ownership; for example to forbid Nazi symbolism in any context for legal reasons. Sometimes the restrictions are for more pragmatic reasons, such as when Fur Affinity banned cub work in 2010 over funding concerns. Others are due to the nature of the website itself; furry sites are not the place to post all your football fan art unless your team is made of furry players. While people can debate the logic or relevance of those decisions, no one is denying that the sites are within their rights to restrict content for whatever reason.

However, as was mentioned before, online social media is essentially the modern day public space. This is even more the case for the furry fandom which is predominantly online. There are no public spaces online in the same sense that there are public spaces offline but there are spaces where groups of furs can come together. Essentially there is a blurring of public and private which necessitates that any decisions made, even in the private space of furry websites, which impacts on the pseudo-public nature of those spaces needs to be given the appropriate amount of thought.

This essentially mixed space where a private site stands in for a public space means that more restrictions are possible there but also that people who do not normally have to consider wider implications of their actions now need to view a bigger picture. And this comes to the fore with the aforementioned content bans and the calls to remove furs that support the alt-right. While such actions may have the effect of creating less friction on that site they also split the furry community, reduce the diversity and tolerance that is one of the best aspects of the furry community and create echo chambers which limit societal change.

There is some evidence that, outside of the furry community, this might already be happening. Slate reported about alt-right attempts to "build their own internet." The furry fandom had small scale segregation when cub artists migrated from Fur Affinity to Inkbunny but many still maintained a presence on both sites. But, without contact, we have no way to convince people that our way is better. The alt-right will be able to flourish and recruit others with no dissenting voices to challenge them at any point. Some have said that you cannot convince Nazis through reason and this may be true but you can convince those that the Nazis might otherwise convince and many people get pulled into white supremacist and alt-right thinking due to feeling excluded. Actively excluding people is not going to help but contact and communication with them will. This is one of the things that Daryle Jenkins does and we see the same message in Angela King's story, a woman who was a white supremacist until prison forced her to live with other races and she fell in love with a black woman. Without exposure to different people and different ideas there can be no change.

The idea of redemption arcs is a large part of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic franchise, particularly from season 5 where Starlight Glimmer, the main villain all season, is finally convinced that she is wrong and, over the next two seasons, whose forgiveness and redemption we watch. Similar ideas come with Trixie who appears in an antagonistic role twice, needing to be given new chances before she is, mostly, reformed and later becomes Starlight's friend. Since almost 1/4 of furries identify as bronies it only seems natural that we take those messages and actually put them into practice.

Why free speech is particularly important for the furry fandom

I have already brought up several examples where I think we can learn something from the intersection of free speech and the furry fandom but I think we can go further. The furry fandom is a primarily online community and it is a community that is built around ideas, fantasies, art and literature. It is a community to whom free speech is particularly important and it has been since the beginning.

In 1978, between the first publication of the APA Vootie and the NorEasCon II World Science Fiction convention where Steve Gallacci's submission of an Erma Felna painting started the discussions that would lead to the modern furry fandom, we had the publication of Omaha The Cat Dancer. This was an erotic anthropomorphic comic, still sold at furry conventions today, which, along with several other comics, caused one comic book store owner to be charged with distributing obscenity. This directly lead to the formation of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to protect the First Amendment rights of those involved with comic books. From the start, the furry fandom has been involved in matters of free speech.

The controversial subject of cub art also faces legal issues in various parts of the world and, while many are not doubt pleased about that, that fantasy images are subject to such restrictions should have the furry fandom concerned about furry art in general. The idea of obscenity is not only limited to cub and some people would find furries' tolerance of many diverse sexualities and sexual acts to be problematic. This can, and has affected furries financially. Paypal has been known to freeze accounts that are used for commissioning yiff which leads to uncertainty in the fandom. This is not just a furry problem but it's a general issue that payment processors do not like adult material regardless of whether it is legal or not and which we should oppose.

Those issues revolve around adult material but even the non-adult material is not always appreciated and furs are not always treated well online. This should remind that when we talk about suppressing the speech of others that furries are also a likely target and many of the things that we don't bat an eyelid towards would be considered very strange and perhaps perverse to outsiders. But the major strength of the furry community is its acceptance and tolerance. Those are the values that society needs and needs to promote and the furry fandom must make the choices which give us the opportunity to do so. If we are not in contact with those who disagree and do not speak with those that disagree then we have no chance of changing their minds and building a better society.

Closing Words

Free speech is not the easy path but it is the right path. It doesn't mean that we just let bad ideas spread unopposed but we oppose them in a way that will protect us as well. Follow the advice of Carol Christ, chancellor of UC Berkley where the free speech movement in the 60's began.
Nonetheless, defending the right of free speech for those whose ideas we find offensive is not easy. It often conflicts with the values we hold as a community — tolerance, inclusion, reason and diversity. Some constitutionally protected speech attacks the very identity of particular groups of individuals in ways that are deeply hurtful. However, the right response is not the heckler’s veto, or what some call platform denial. Call toxic speech out for what it is, don’t shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech.
We should be thankful that we have leaders like her and organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union who will defend the free speech rights of every person and every perspective. Because, as legal director David Cole explains:
If we defended speech only when we agreed with it, on what ground would we ask others to tolerate speech they oppose?
As furries, we should have learnt about the political use of fear from Zootopia. To quote mayor Bellweather, “Fear always works.” We must do better. We can not give in to fear of the alt-right and make rash decisions that impede our liberty. President Bush used fear after 9/11 to increase surveillance and introduce the Patriot Act to the US which reduced the rights of American and foreign citizens and remains law twelve years after it was supposed to expire. And, to remain with the theme of Nazism and fear, Hitler used the fear and confusion of the Reichstag fire to enact emergency provisions and take complete control of government from 1933 to 1945.

We know what happened in the past, we know that we have limits and we do not know who will write the laws of the future. We need to think clearly, logically and dispassionately. Free speech is the only human right which allows the discussion and formation of others and the progress of society. We should not throw it away lightly in fear of a vocal minority and abandon the principles which we believe in.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
Cape_F0X
Light-footed
Posts: 2294
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:35 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Vulpes chama
Region: Western Cape

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#2

Post by Cape_F0X »

Image
User avatar
Koda
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:33 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Wusky
Region: Gauteng
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#3

Post by Koda »

Unfortunately, free speech is a dying concept. Just look at what the far left is demanding: "trigger warnings" and "safe zones". Everything offends, everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is some form of discrimination. To be honest, I am just glad we are still allowed to speak as is, at this stage.
*Jumps from out of the tall grass* Hug attaAAAAAAAAAck!!!!!*and then falls flat on his face*
User avatar
Faanvolla
Plaas Brak
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:55 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Dog (Vampire)
Region: Western Cape
Location: Stellenbosch
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#4

Post by Faanvolla »

I'm still gradually working through the massive wall of text,

But @Koda,
I've never understood the hatred of trigger warnings. It's literally just a tag on top of a discussion, it doesn't say the discussion shouldn't exist.
Like, if you tag a lecture or movie or book with "TW: Rape / Suicide " that just makes everyone aware of what's going to happen. And then the people who were going to attend who themselves dealt with issues like that know to prepare accordingly, or not attend, if they can't deal with it. That doesn't silence the discussion.

And safe spaces definitely aren't a "far left" thing; r/t_d immediately bans anyone who says something even slightly negative about trump.
Go into your nearest anti-gay/right church and see how much free speech they'd give you to talk about how gay people should exist before legally evacuating you from the premises.
Seize the day, not your bearings.
Steam, Rockstar SocialClub, Uplay, Battlenet: Faanvolla#2539, Telegram: @Faanvolla
Switch Code: SW-0054-4917-1029
DeviantArt,Furaffinity,SoFurry, Weasyl, FurryNetwork
ProfilePic by hanimetion
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#5

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Faanvolla wrote:I'm still gradually working through the massive wall of text,
^^; Though it is broken up with sections, quotes, videos etc, so not really a wall of text as I understand it.
Faanvolla wrote:I've never understood the hatred of trigger warnings. It's literally just a tag on top of a discussion, it doesn't say the discussion shouldn't exist.
I agree with tagging videos and stuff but I think one of the big issues was when it was being promoted for universities and lectures. There you should know what topics are coming up. If you need a trigger warning for blood or dead bodies then you probably should rethink becoming a doctor. And if you're studying law you should know that rape and assault are going to be topics that feature.Then there was the wider aspect that anything can be a trigger so it's impossible to know beforehand what is a likely trigger for an audience.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#6

Post by Leeward »

Also in fiction trigger warnings could be major spoilers.
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#7

Post by Franky »

Faanvolla wrote:
And safe spaces definitely aren't a "far left" thing; r/t_d immediately bans anyone who says something even slightly negative about trump.
Go into your nearest anti-gay/right church and see how much free speech they'd give you to talk about how gay people should exist before legally evacuating you from the premises.
I don't think anyone is arguing that when attacking the far left / alt left or whatever it's called now.

The simplest way to explain the ridiculousness of the left is by going in with liberal views and if you stand just a little bit right of the next person you are labelled alt right followed by White supremacist, Neo Nazi, Misogynistic, rape apologist, homophobic, transphobic blah blah blah. Yes that is the argument I get in return when saying illegal immigration is a problem.

This is why Left safe spaces are a cesspool of reinforcing each other's victimhood creating the worse perception of reality I've ever seen followed by finger snapping because clapping is apparently a micro aggression.

I'm not a Trump supporter but I sure as hell can see why people voted for him.



I'm not a Hillary fan either BTW.
User avatar
Galahad
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:31 pm
Gender: Male
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#8

Post by Galahad »

Rakuen, might I suggest you add the definition of "brevity" to your array of research? :P
User avatar
Faanvolla
Plaas Brak
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:55 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Dog (Vampire)
Region: Western Cape
Location: Stellenbosch
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#9

Post by Faanvolla »

Leeward wrote:Also in fiction trigger warnings could be major spoilers.
Put them after the blank last page of the book, people who think they might need them can go look.
/hide them in the options menu of games, give a potential spoiler warning screen to access that menu.
Makes it so ""normal"" people won't have to even acknowledge it exists, and people who know they might get triggered by something to prepare, not buy, or refund.

Movies already have a Sex/Violence rating thing, and no one is complaining that a sex tag on a romance movie 'spoils the ending' :P
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
^^; Though it is broken up with sections, quotes, videos etc, so not really a wall of text as I understand it.

I agree with tagging videos and stuff but I think one of the big issues was when it was being promoted for universities and lectures.
Yeah, but I've been waiting to watch the vids and stuff too before I read past them.


I still agree with that too,
If it's a medical or law course, is it really too much effort to just write on the course details they deal with those issues?
The professor can just say in his email or course planner or whatever "heads up, next week's course deals with rape".
Then if people decide to not go, mark them as absent, like if they decided to not go normally. And the people who do go even get a chance to prepare their own debate points.
I literally see no negative issue at all here.
It only becomes a negative if people want to STOP all discussion of certain issues, ie Ban all the rape cases from the law course.



@Franky, there's dumbasses everywhere on the spectrum.
Seize the day, not your bearings.
Steam, Rockstar SocialClub, Uplay, Battlenet: Faanvolla#2539, Telegram: @Faanvolla
Switch Code: SW-0054-4917-1029
DeviantArt,Furaffinity,SoFurry, Weasyl, FurryNetwork
ProfilePic by hanimetion
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#10

Post by Franky »

Faanvolla wrote:
@Franky, there's dumbasses everywhere on the spectrum.
Sure, but one side is genuinely louder and able to influence more media outlets and such like.

SJW advertises equality though it's everything but which is why their biggest enemies are sceptics practicing their free speech. They don't block Milo, Ben or whoever from talking hate speech at collage campuses. They're silencing them because they have destructively good opposing arguments and these okes are from more rational centrist type positions.
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#11

Post by Splicer-Fox »

Laws, respect and free speech do not matter in the greater scheme of things.
This is just going to happen again and again.
Ideas are subject to natural selection and its a game with no rules or referees.
Free speech is an idea in on itself.

All that matters is winning OR surviving in the end.
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#12

Post by Sudan Red »

On "trigger warnings". My most major annoyance with them is that folks are warned, proceed anyway & then are HORRIBLY OFFENDED at the content they were warned about.

I just can't deal with this wilfullness. It is like the mere existence of something you don't agree with is enough to insist that the content be made unavailable to EVERYONE.

I have literally muted several words from my twitter feed because I am so tired of people bitching about Trump for example. They can still bitch about Trump all they want, but I don't have to "listen". Same with any other topic. I don't know why people WANT to be offended & actively seek out such offense.
If it's a medical or law course, is it really too much effort to just write on the course details they deal with those issues?
The professor can just say in his email or course planner or whatever "heads up, next week's course deals with rape".
Then if people decide to not go, mark them as absent, like if they decided to not go normally. And the people who do go even get a chance to prepare their own debate points.
I literally see no negative issue at all here.
It only becomes a negative if people want to STOP all discussion of certain issues, ie Ban all the rape cases from the law course.
DISCLAIMER/"TRIGGER WARNING": My job deals with serial rapists, so I am uniquely desensitised to the topic. I suppose I am sorry if I sound brutal.

I don't agree with this. In those professions you cannot pick & choose who/what you deal with in your case work. Speaking from personal experience, you either make a decision to help victims of crimes or you GTFO. As an adult, I expect you to understand the full implications of your career choice and to realise that no employer, especially in public medicine/law, is going to create a "safe space" for you at work. If you can't even sit through a LECTURE on rape, how are you going to stitch up a 9year old that was torn when her uncle raped her brutally?

ALSO, we are entering a convoluted space of "fairness". Is it fair for those students to miss those classes? Can they then insist that they not be tested on the topic? Is it fair to their future patients/clients that they have this gap in their knowledge?
User avatar
CyntheWightRabbit
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#13

Post by CyntheWightRabbit »

Sudan basically said most of what I would have had to say regarding this topic as I agree 100% with it.

But, I do have some two cents that I still want to add, though this will be more opinionated than anything so disclaimer for that. :v

Firstly, you say that there are dumbasses on both sides when Franky mentioned his point, but I dungetit. Sure you are right but what do the majority of people think of when they hear SJW's? Exactly. It's the loud, trigger happy, I'm a special snowflake types; the ones you're basically calling the dumbasses. And that's the problem. How can you stand behind a cause whose figureheads are these people you call such?? And honestly why don't the 'rational' ones, (like you?) actually either break away from them or try to real them in? It doesn't make much sense? (Well I suppose having their support does help your causes too so eh.) [This one isn't meant to be as confrontational as it sounds. If anything I'm genuinely interested.]

Do you want to know why I think trigger warnings won't actually catch on? Or why people dislike it? I'll answer with something that I heard from an SJW youtuber (I think? It was a video of their's that appeared on a video from a channel that was making fun of them. :V) and what he/she said is that they were triggered by the colour blue. Apparently. I hope not but he/she/it/they/whatever seemed serious. And that's why. So what? You want people to put trigger warnings on all art that contain that colour just for them? Really?

Even worse, I heard about a thread on tumblr where someone posted a photo of a fruit cut in half. (For artistic reasons, I guess.) AND people literally asked them to add a gore trigger warning to it?? Yes. Because seeing fruit cut up is very offensive.

And this is why I personally can't take SJW's all that seriously. Even if they initially were meant to have a proper meaningful purpose, now it's been perverted into something that defies logic. IT was even made fun of on the cartoon show Gumball for caffeine's sake.

#Myopinionalert. #Nooffensemeant. #Thisendedupbeinglongerthanexpected. #Iamstupidasfrak.
Sarcasm in the lowest form of wit.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#14

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

CyntheWightRabbit wrote:#Thisendedupbeinglongerthanexpected.
I think in context that will be forgiven.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Faanvolla
Plaas Brak
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:55 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Dog (Vampire)
Region: Western Cape
Location: Stellenbosch
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#15

Post by Faanvolla »

CyntheWightRabbit wrote: How can you stand behind a cause whose figureheads are these people you call such?? And honestly why don't the 'rational' ones, (like you?) actually either break away from them or try to real them in? It doesn't make much sense? (Well I suppose having their support does help your causes too so eh.) [This one isn't meant to be as confrontational as it sounds. If anything I'm genuinely interested.]
Honestly, I don't have a solution.
// I'm going to be generalizing a lot, I know. If you call me out on that, I'll agree it's more nuanced than I'm making it.( But right now I'd rather make a For Loop than 500 If statements. :P )

When some people became extreme under the feminist banner, a whole bunch of people did try to make a new group, "Equalitarians" or something. (Or it already existed and they joined it?)
However, that just cause fighting between the two "progressive" groups, instead of them 'fighting' against the "conservatives".
Both say they want equality for everyone, but now they're spending a lot of their time fighting over the semantics of what equality means, rather than getting everyone at least semi equal. ( and how equal things are varies from country to country obviously)

Like I said earlier though, it's everywhere on the spectrum.
even the various groups on the right/conservative side don't always agree on what they stand for.
The Alt - Right is either just against "over the top progressives", or they're full flung KKK members.
They say they aren't Nazis, and then a whole bunch of their members post swastikas and do hitler salutes. They say they also want equality, and then chant "white power".

"But that's not all of them, only some!" Exactly.

Same with the Antifa 'movement'.
People doing good, raising charity money, peacefully protesting in their name,
People breaking windows, burning things, assaulting people in their name.

Even furries having pedos in it makes some people go "I'm not a furry, I'm just an Anthro Appreciater.

In any group of people you're going to get dumbasses. Who you consider the dumbass is your own subjective opinion.

So no, I don't have a solution at all.
With every online "debate" these days being more about "winning", no one is talking and listening anymore. Because getting "convinced" one way or the other means you "lose". So people just close their ears and shout.
And splitting your group into a new group every time there's bad apples means you end up with a lot of unorigized tiny groups.
Seize the day, not your bearings.
Steam, Rockstar SocialClub, Uplay, Battlenet: Faanvolla#2539, Telegram: @Faanvolla
Switch Code: SW-0054-4917-1029
DeviantArt,Furaffinity,SoFurry, Weasyl, FurryNetwork
ProfilePic by hanimetion
User avatar
Darq
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Species: Kitteh =3
Region: Gauteng

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#16

Post by Darq »

CyntheWightRabbit wrote:Firstly, you say that there are dumbasses on both sides when Franky mentioned his point, but I dungetit. Sure you are right but what do the majority of people think of when they hear SJW's? Exactly. It's the loud, trigger happy, I'm a special snowflake types; the ones you're basically calling the dumbasses. And that's the problem. How can you stand behind a cause whose figureheads are these people you call such?? And honestly why don't the 'rational' ones, (like you?) actually either break away from them or try to real them in? It doesn't make much sense? (Well I suppose having their support does help your causes too so eh.) [This one isn't meant to be as confrontational as it sounds. If anything I'm genuinely interested.]
Just addressing this part.

Because "SJW" isn't the cause people are fighting for or the group people are claiming affiliation to. Most people are arguing for equal opportunities for minorities, and reasonable accommodations for people with different needs. These people do not call themselves SJWs, they are not figureheaded by SJWs, and cannot break away from or reel in the SJWs.

It's far too easy to dismiss a group by listening to extremists, who just happen to co-opt the same cause. Free speech is being defended by Neo-Nazis, equality is being defended by SJWs. That doesn't mean that free speech or equality are bad ideas, or not worth fighting for.

And besides...

Lately "SJW" is often just a label applied to someone in order to write off what they have to say, effectively silencing them. It's far too easy to just attach a label to someone, rather than addressing their arguments.

I'm 100% pro free-speech. In defending that stance I've been called a misogynist and a racist. Though I haven't been called a Nazi yet, small victories.

I'm also an egalitarian, will argue for transgender acceptance, and in general believe in respecting those with different needs. In defending those beliefs I've been called a SJW.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here.
Backpackcat. Enby, they / them. Telegram and Twitter: @Darq_At
User avatar
Galahad
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:31 pm
Gender: Male
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#17

Post by Galahad »

Darq wrote:Most people are arguing for equal opportunities for minorities, and reasonable accommodations for people with different needs.
What opportunities available to the majority are unavailable to these minorities? Employment? University attendance? Not those, evidently, as the constitution and rights charter makes discrimination on the of basis religion, sex, race, sexuality and so on not just frowned upon, but a criminal violation. What rights or opportunities exactly, in 2017, do these minorities not have?

If you refer to economic disadvantage, there are several programmes already in place to attempt to correct that, but most are failing because, as harsh as it is to say, there are factors involved that make the economically disadvantaged unlikely to capitalise on what is offered to them and the investment to be mostly wasted. An example of this is welfare grants in the U.S.
User avatar
Darq
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Species: Kitteh =3
Region: Gauteng

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#18

Post by Darq »

Galahad wrote:
Darq wrote:Most people are arguing for equal opportunities for minorities, and reasonable accommodations for people with different needs.
What opportunities available to the majority are unavailable to these minorities? Employment? University attendance? Not those, evidently, as the constitution and rights charter makes discrimination on the of basis religion, sex, race, sexuality and so on not just frowned upon, but a criminal violation. What rights or opportunities exactly, in 2017, do these minorities not have?

If you refer to economic disadvantage, there are several programmes already in place to attempt to correct that, but most are failing because, as harsh as it is to say, there are factors involved that make the economically disadvantaged unlikely to capitalise on what is offered to them and the investment to be mostly wasted. An example of this is welfare grants in the U.S.
Apologies, perhaps I should clarify that my personal position is for equal and consistent treatment for all, and tolerance of each other's differences. Regardless of status as majority or minority.

The part you quoted is me trying to differentiate between a moderate advocate for equality, as compared to a more radical "SJW".

And indeed, we have laws mandating equality. Some places do not, and as you noted in your second paragraph, in many cases these efforts have not been successful. Some groups also face hatred and violence in parts of their lives that cannot and should not be covered by law. So I do think there is still something to fight for.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here.
Backpackcat. Enby, they / them. Telegram and Twitter: @Darq_At
User avatar
Fluke
Tyrant's Eye
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:47 am
Region: Other

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#19

Post by Fluke »

Trigger warnings are akin to the reddit/facebook-style of content consumption. Where people are only exposed to things they like and agree with, and vehemently avoid anything new or different.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#20

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Yeah. It's hard to have any sort of discussion or convince anyone of anything when...

Image
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Fluke
Tyrant's Eye
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:47 am
Region: Other

Re: Free speech and why it matters to the furry fandom

#21

Post by Fluke »

You can almost extrapolate that less than 2% of people are neutral from that.
Post Reply