Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

ZenZhu · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 475

I've noticed a trend in some conversations recently on FurCentral.net and the Eat All Furries board for furries to be labeling anything with an animal or anyone that likes animals as "furry." I don't know if it's just cropping back up, or it's a growing thing, but there seems to be this trend in thought that folks that like animals or even has a passing interest in morphs is furry and just doesn't know it yet.

Got a copy of The Lion King? You're a closet furry in denial. Did you decorate your kitchen with a holstein print theme? Oh man... you're on your way to the next con.. you just don't realize it enough to have bought tickets yet. You know those soccer moms that eat up anything with Winnie the Pooh on it are just a half-step away from achieving enlightenment and donning fake ears and a tail and hosting skritch parties. You know all of those ancient Egyptians prostrating themselves before statues of Anubis? You guessed it.. furries. They just weren't advanced enough to recognize it yet.

I'd honestly say this is one of the furry WTF moments that can actually piss me off to some degree.

So, what do you think it is? Are they just getting desparate enough to have things to identify with that they have to create this illusion that the world is furrier than it realizes? Can they just not separate their furryness from their perception of the world that anything at all with an animal in it is furry?

My counter theory in those discussions is just that whether or not someone is furry depends on if they identify with the fandom or not. I even go to the extreme and say that being a bestialist does not qualify you as furry.. just an animal rapist. Does owning a copy of Star Trek VI immediately make you a Trekkie? No.

So, anyone have any ideas besides they're just sad fucks?

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

I don't like this arguement from either side. Its kind of a waste of time IMO.

Furries at times use the word 'furry' to mean animal morph or hybrid or whatever else

So saying these characters are "furries", it is true in context. Its all semantics and the only important part is what information is actually being conveyed by the language

How many of them are actually laying claim to things in question?
Furries are notoriously stupid but I don't really believe that is the case THAT often.

Its like people getting pissed off that thier comic lands on "furry comic" lists. All it means is that it may be of interest to furry fans.

"If you like cartoon animals, you might like this because...uh it has cartoon animals in it"

another example re the egyptian god issue:

Who is being more pretentious here? I mean really

The big picture is that its a group of furries who like drawing animal headed egyptian gods...and a white girl from fucking new jersey gets offended because they are stepping on and assimilating her faith...give me a fuckin break. Sorry honey, I dont think furry fans are capable of rewriting history...its a subculture/art scene, there is really nothing to worry about (personally I like 'Furry' Anubis art...and furry fandom is really the only place I have seen it.m Especially stylizations, then again I havent crawled through much of the art world..its too big)

Gene Ternruh · Recusant Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 18

Technicially EAF hasn't been using that argument so much as the furries trolling EAF have.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Technicially EAF hasn't been using that argument so much as the furries trolling EAF have.

Yeah, ok, but what if you detest cartoons, but use them as a form of a sexual release, or merely like the paedos, to pick up young boys?

Blawgh. I typed that in jest, but now I'm disgusted with myself. :evil:

Tailgunner · Coadjutor Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 161

Well, my ass is fuzzy, that mean its furry too?

creature · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Nov 2003 Posts: 132

Personally, I just see it as a bunch of jackasses who saw the Mummy Returns and got a hardon. It's been a pretty recent thing with a lot of people, maybe two or three years old. Before that it was just a hand full of people.

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

So, what do you think it is? Are they just getting desparate enough to have things to identify with that they have to create this illusion that the world is furrier than it realizes? Can they just not separate their furryness from their perception of the world that anything at all with an animal in it is furry?

I still remember rolling my eyes when I read about Merlino blathering on in his ConFurence newsletters about how the debut of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie was going to help usher in awhole new era of furry movies in Hollywood. Needless to say, all it ever really did was milk the corpse of a dying cash cow, and maybe give David Warner another cheap acting paycheck.

ZenZhu · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 475

The thing that has me baffled isn't so much movies and stuff, as folks that suggest if you even so much as decide to decorate your kitchen with a holstein cow theme, then that means you're a furry and just don't know it yet. It's like they can't separate animals in general from furrydom. I mean, a vegetarian isn't inherently furry simply because they like animals enough to not eat them. How how about folks that work at those wolf centers out near Yellowstone and such..... are they closet furries who are unaware of their furry nature because they dedicated their life to helping to balance and maintain wolf populations? That's where things start getting stretched truly thin in my book.... the thing that sparked this was the following from FurCentral.net:

So, I think just because someone decorates their kitchen with a holstein cow theme, or someone likes animals enough to join PETA, that doesn't make them a furry any more than owning one of the Final Fantasy video games makes you an otaku.

Oh wow, I didn't even think of that point, ZenZhu... Hmmm...

What about if this theme was in part for recreation/culture, like an RPG character ID or an artwork, instead of simply just liking animal themes, on the basis of a heartfelt affinity towards this?

How the hell does some soccer mom do a holstein cow theme in her kitchen as part of a culture???

Jiffers · Recusant Joined: 12 Mar 2004 Posts: 3

Hey. Allow me to speak up for a moment here.

Buidling on what mouse originally said, I just want to clarify the two separate issues here.

(1) Whether something is "furry" or not; and
(2) Whether liking said something makes one a "furry" or not.

(We really need more words than "furry" itself, because the sheer overloading of the term is causing some mass confusion. :))

Anyway, (1) is pretty cut and dry. Lion King, Winnie the Pooh, Anubis, TMNT - those are all patently "furry". It's in the FAQ. They're anthropomorphized animals.

(2) is where the argument starts, and where I'm also going to say it's pointless to discuss further, as mouse did. The realm of personal identification/delusion with the Furry fandom cannot really be explained by any sort of rationale or logic. It truely is a religion to some people.

ZenZhu · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 475

TMNT, Pooh, and The Lion King are furry to furries. They're anthropmorphic to non-furries. We've got two equations going on here, depending on your perspective. The part that trips me up is when the furries make this leap of logic:

Non-furry person owns Lion King --> Lion King has anthros --> Anthros = furry to furries --> non-furry = furry that has yet to realize his destiny

I guess it's the revisionist history furries have used for a while (i.e., Egyptian gods prove furries have been around for ages) to make themselves feel like their fandom is more than it is. I had just not put much thought into it until now. I guess the trick is to go back to not thinking about it.

So I guess the two Godzilla figures I have on my filing cabinet make me a macrophile.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

TMNT, Pooh, and The Lion King are furry to furries. They're anthropmorphic to non-furries. We've got two equations going on here, depending on your perspective. The part that trips me up is when the furries make this leap of logic:

Non-furry person owns Lion King --> Lion King has anthros --> Anthros = furry to furries --> non-furry = furry that has yet to realize his destiny

If you hadn't posted this succently, I planned on stating virtually the same.

So I guess the two Godzilla figures I have on my filing cabinet make me a macrophile.

Kudos, bro, you're now in WINGAR TERRITORY!

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

TMNT, Pooh, and The Lion King are furry to furries. They're anthropmorphic to non-furries.

What you are talking about here is nothing more than jargon. This is my larger point here. It would be like someone speaking a different language, and getting upset because you don't like thier particular word for whatever. "Furry" means too many things at once..and thats a larger a problem, but its stupid to complain about a subcultures language...it doesnt change easily.

'Furry' and 'Anthropomorphic' actually DO mean the same thing, its far better to look at them as being from different languages (and for all intents and purposes they are) one is scientific, one is slang.

Im sure this is also the reason that for ex. when furries when they would go for jobs in the industry they would largely fail. Because they would be talking about stuff and they would be using fandom jargon. People dont like jargon...in fact people HATE jargon. If you want to make someone feel stupid start using it around them...its at least part of the reason for animosity towards furries.

What I see alot of is when "tech nerds" are talking about computer shit, and you have some guy who knows nothing about computers and these guys are talking about chipsets and all sorts of intricacies...the guy that is shoved out of the conversation is gonna get chaffed by that. Thats just the way it works. (in fact I've seen friends of mine get bored/pissed off when me and another mutual friend talk about engine parts or something)

Non-furry person owns Lion King --> Lion King has anthros --> Anthros = furry to furries --> non-furry = furry that has yet to realize his destiny

I guess it's the revisionist history furries have used for a while (i.e., Egyptian gods prove furries have been around for ages) to make themselves feel like their fandom is more than it is. I had just not put much thought into it until now. I guess the trick is to go back to not thinking about it.

it shows humans have been adding human traits to animals for ages. Anthropomorphism. again "Furry" is just slang.

Even the most batshit lifestyler doesnt think furry fandom existed before Christ. (ok, maybe some of them do....)

Where-ever furry fandom is at right now..is not really inmoptant here...it was originally formed as an anthromorphic animal media fandom.

Yes, there is a lunatic fringe that looks at things EXACTLY the way you are describing...but I don't feel that reflects reality at all.

creature · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Nov 2003 Posts: 132

Anyway, (1) is pretty cut and dry. Lion King, Winnie the Pooh, Anubis, TMNT - those are all patently "furry". It's in the FAQ. They're anthropomorphized animals.

So does that mean that because it says God Hates Fags in some FAQ it's patently true? Because it says Jews secretly rule the world and should be gassed in some FAQ that makes it true?

Yeah, I know, go to extremes, but it's fun.

Paul · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 138

Non-furry person owns Lion King --> Lion King has anthros --> Anthros = furry to furries --> non-furry = furry that has yet to realize his destiny

I guess it's the revisionist history furries have used for a while (i.e., Egyptian gods prove furries have been around for ages) to make themselves feel like their fandom is more than it is.

That's one aspect. The other is that many furries are painfully aware of the generally negative image the fandom has, so if they can convince more "normal" people that having a framed picture of a cat on the wall makes them furry, it just might give the fandom better press, or something to that effect. It's a rather desperate attempt at (re)gaining some acceptance, I'd say.

So saying these characters are "furries", it is true in context. Its all semantics and the only important part is what information is actually being conveyed by the language

'Furry' and 'Anthropomorphic' actually DO mean the same thing, its far better to look at them as being from different languages (and for all intents and purposes they are) one is scientific, one is slang.

Agreed on the first part, disagreed on the second. The problem with the word "furry" as an alternative to "anthropomorphic" is that it's become tainted by the grottier aspects of the fandom that we all know too well. This is the exact reason Stan Sakai insists that Usagi Yojimbo is anthropomorphic, NOT furry. In the context of the fandom, "furry" forever has the added meaning of "perverted".

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

http://65.24.81.11/sounds/movies/waynes/bugs_bun.au

'Nuff said.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Agreed on the first part, disagreed on the second. The problem with the word "furry" as an alternative to "anthropomorphic" is that it's become tainted by the grottier aspects of the fandom that we all know too well. This is the exact reason Stan Sakai insists that Usagi Yojimbo is anthropomorphic, NOT furry. In the context of the fandom, "furry" forever has the added meaning of "perverted".

Just a clarification here, I only call stuff 'furry' if it is stuff that is being produced by a furry fan, or a publisher involved with furry fandom. Part of what I'm getting at here, is if a furry fan says to me: whatever is 'furry' I understand what they are saying to me, so I'm not argue with the guy about it. I usually know exactly what they are saying. Most stuff that I like I personally call anthropomorphic...more often funny-animal, since "cartoons" specifically are more along the lines of what I like. To people who know nothing about furry fandom - Im not gonna say I like 'furry' because to them that doesn't mean anything. Im just pointing out, there should be some understanding of whats going on regarding language and the words being used.

Look at it like this: furry fans actually condense thier language. Just the word "furry" means so many things. Look at how many times the word 'furry' is used just on this message board. To understand what is being talked about you have to read and understand the context that it appears in. Everyone on this board, by definition, is exposed to furry fandom related things pretty frequently...so you tend to ignore it, you just read and understand what is being talked about. To a true outsider, most of this is enough to make thier head spin, I'm sure.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Look at it like this: furry fans actually condense thier language. Just the word "furry" means so many things.

What the SMURF are you on about? ;)

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Furry: may or may not involve anthropomorphics of some sort but almost certainly involves appreciation, usually in a creepy way, of mammals.

Anthropomorphics: involving the application of human traits to non-human things.

Furries break things into furry, feathery, scaly.

Normal people just lump it altogether as anthropomorphics.

Furries have no lives or pretty close, pretty often.

Normal people...

Well, you get the differences and where this goes. What is the point of all this in the first place? We know furrydom is fucked and there's no chance of anthropomorphics as a genre ever being taken seriously as long as furry continues as it does.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

"Furry" means too many things at once.

Furry only has three definitions:
1. Consisting of or similar to fur.
2.a. Covered with fur, wearing, or trimmed with fur. b. Covered with a furlike substance.
3. Having a furlike quality, as in tone; fuzzy: a furry voice.

Any other usage of this word is incorrect.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

"Furry" means too many things at once.

Furry only has three definitions:
1. Consisting of or similar to fur.
2.a. Covered with fur, wearing, or trimmed with fur. b. Covered with a furlike substance.
3. Having a furlike quality, as in tone; fuzzy: a furry voice.

Any other usage of this word is incorrect.

Here are three words I'm considering using in this thread, which you might like to look up to make sure I use them correctly: dipshit, troll, and banned.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Here are three words I'm considering using in this thread, which you might like to look up to make sure I use them correctly: dipshit, troll, and banned.

<Sigh>. I saw the "Newest User" subtext, spotted Our hero, and was getting ready to write a "How long until this one supernovas?" Of course, I've been beaten.

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

Well, if you own a copy of Lion King and think of yourself as a furry, you are a furry. Just about anyone can be a furry just by saying they are one. There is no good definition for being a furry.
But, what do I win if I say Im a furry? What do I get?
I cant think og anything, (this is offtopic, sorry!) and I dont really consider me a furry anymore. I just dont care about it.
I did appear on a radioshow not to long ago, I tried to make a good first-impression on furry in media here but I failed :) So, Im doing what I should have done in the first place, leaving furry alone and stop bothering with it.

Skunkfuckers Inc. · Coadjutor Joined: 20 Jan 2004 Posts: 75

TMNT, Pooh, and The Lion King are furry to furries. They're anthropmorphic to non-furries.

Not trying to bust into your argument here, but...

We have to remember most normal people don't think of Winnie the Pooh as something athropomorphic. They look at it and see an innocent children's story. The same way they look at Disney movies or Warner Bros. stuff and see cartoons; only furries or people infected with the knowledge of furries use those terms with any regularity.

Even the term "funny animals" was something I'd never heard of until running into the anthro community, and I'm still torn on whether or not that's really just some made up furry faggot shit. I've honestly never heard a normal person use that term before. I wonder how many people here have forgotten what it's like NOT to have furry on the brain?

As for what a furry is, isn't a prerequisite some sort of emotional retardation, leaving them stunted to where they relate more to cartoon characters than real life? Since most of what we are is driven by our sexuality, and with that not being fully developed to an adult level in furries, any sort of off-center stimuli is internalized and can mutate into a socialy paralysing fantasy (the true clinical definition of the word "fetish"). Add that on top of already shaky social skills and easily bruised emotional state and you're left with a sad little pudding of a person indeed.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Even the term "funny animals" was something I'd never heard of until running into the anthro community, and I'm still torn on whether or not that's really just some made up furry faggot shit.

Funny Animals is an industry term going back to the 60's for sure...although it probably goes back even farther than that.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

"Furry" means too many things at once.

Furry only has three definitions:
1. Consisting of or similar to fur.
2.a. Covered with fur, wearing, or trimmed with fur. b. Covered with a furlike substance.
3. Having a furlike quality, as in tone; fuzzy: a furry voice.

Any other usage of this word is incorrect.

Actually, not to piss off Mitch as I really am not looking to, but we might want to use this to beat furries with for amusement. I mean, WE know this is horseshit, but if you say it convincingly and with sincerity, and don't break, it might be good to annoy and troll furries with.

"Furry is the wrong word to call it. Doesn't fit the accepted definitions."

"But we make our definitions as we go. Who said?"

"Funk and Wagnalls."

"Well, we'll have to do a petition online to change that."

"I'll see a petition to counter that."

Of course, idiot baiting is just too easy when the pond is swimming so freaking thick with them. Like fishing for Koi at a Japanese restaurant.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Easy litmus test: if the subject IN ANY WAY is turned on by or finds a remotely good or positive the image of Christopher Robbin boning Winnie the Pooh up the backside, they're certainly a furry.

Paul · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 138

Just a clarification here, I only call stuff 'furry' if it is stuff that is being produced by a furry fan, or a publisher involved with furry fandom.

Ah, OK. Actually, I've heard neither "furry" nor "anthropomorphic" used outside the circles of comics/cartoon creators or fans thereof. "Funny animal" I've heard used, though very rarely, by "average" people. Simply saying "animal comic" or "animal cartoon" seems to be the order, if people even bother to make a distinction between works of fiction with human characters and works of fiction with antropomorphic animal characters. Usually, people don't bother, they'll just discuss whether it's a good work regardless of how the characters look.

I suspect the word "furry" is used by furries themselves in order to identify each other (fail to call "Brother Bear" furry and you aren't one of the elite), like a secret club password or something.