01 October 2014
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:31 pm
Well I've created this section so for each episode we can have a thread where we can have further discussion of the topics that come up. I'll repost my comment from the announcement thread as a potential starting point.
With regards to the discussion on fursonas and what is and isn't furry I must say you guys misrepresented the position and failed to distinguish between people and their fursonas.
I've previously defined a furry character as a character who is possessed of a combination of animal and human characteristics in such a way that the new character is significantly different from the character's real or canon form. This was based on trying to best capture what the way furry is used in the furry fandom and following from its original roots.
A furry fan is obviously just someone who likes furry characters.
So now lets take someone using an anthro toaster as a fursona. The toaster is not an animal, something that has been required in all the furry definitions I've seen. So the toaster fursona is not furry. That doesn't prevent someone from using it as a fursona though. A fursona is equivalent to an avatar outside of the fandom, it's just something you use to represent yourself online. If you play on the Wii it's called a mii, if you're in the furry fandom it's called a fursona.
However a fursona (furry or not) is not required to be a furry fan, you just need to like furry characters. So I don't see a contradiction with saying "Joe Soap is a furry fan who uses an anthro toaster as a fursona" and "Anthro toasters are not furry." Anthro toasters would certainly fall in the furry-related category, just like I would say Saphira from Eragon is not furry but is furry related.
So that's the distinction between the furry fan and the fursona which I think got missed. Just because a fursona is tied to a specific person who is a furry doesn't, by extension, make it furry. Just like "Avatar is a science-fiction movie, James Cameron is therefore a science-fiction director" doesn't lead to "Titanic is a science-fiction movie."
The other part that fits in here is that not everything anthropomorphic is furry. Furry is a subset of anthropomorphism dealing with animals. It may eventually come to be broader but I don't think it's anywhere near that. If you try broaden it you're also going to come into conflict with general anthropomorphism fans. There's an anthro group on DeviantArt who are very clear that they are not furry and are fans of anthropomorphism in general. Although, judging by the group content, they're just trying to distance themselves from any negative furry reputation.
In conclusion, saying a certain thing is not furry is not the same as saying that a person that likes it or uses it to represent themself is not furry.
With regards to the discussion on fursonas and what is and isn't furry I must say you guys misrepresented the position and failed to distinguish between people and their fursonas.
I've previously defined a furry character as a character who is possessed of a combination of animal and human characteristics in such a way that the new character is significantly different from the character's real or canon form. This was based on trying to best capture what the way furry is used in the furry fandom and following from its original roots.
A furry fan is obviously just someone who likes furry characters.
So now lets take someone using an anthro toaster as a fursona. The toaster is not an animal, something that has been required in all the furry definitions I've seen. So the toaster fursona is not furry. That doesn't prevent someone from using it as a fursona though. A fursona is equivalent to an avatar outside of the fandom, it's just something you use to represent yourself online. If you play on the Wii it's called a mii, if you're in the furry fandom it's called a fursona.
However a fursona (furry or not) is not required to be a furry fan, you just need to like furry characters. So I don't see a contradiction with saying "Joe Soap is a furry fan who uses an anthro toaster as a fursona" and "Anthro toasters are not furry." Anthro toasters would certainly fall in the furry-related category, just like I would say Saphira from Eragon is not furry but is furry related.
So that's the distinction between the furry fan and the fursona which I think got missed. Just because a fursona is tied to a specific person who is a furry doesn't, by extension, make it furry. Just like "Avatar is a science-fiction movie, James Cameron is therefore a science-fiction director" doesn't lead to "Titanic is a science-fiction movie."
The other part that fits in here is that not everything anthropomorphic is furry. Furry is a subset of anthropomorphism dealing with animals. It may eventually come to be broader but I don't think it's anywhere near that. If you try broaden it you're also going to come into conflict with general anthropomorphism fans. There's an anthro group on DeviantArt who are very clear that they are not furry and are fans of anthropomorphism in general. Although, judging by the group content, they're just trying to distance themselves from any negative furry reputation.
In conclusion, saying a certain thing is not furry is not the same as saying that a person that likes it or uses it to represent themself is not furry.