127
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
127 points (82.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43719 readers
1649 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
...TIL furries have any relation to gay people (except I don't actually believe they do)
There is a significantly higher proportion of LGBTQ+ representation within the furry community than the general populace, and it makes sense why. Fursonas are another way to explore sexual and gender identities in a safe way, and furry communities tend to be pretty accepting places.
This is just my opinion, but I see kink in the furry community criticized the same way I see kink at Pride events criticized.
I don't know what you mean using "kink" this way, but the general population is not aware of this connection and thus it would only be a coincidence if what you're saying is true. I mean, furries are kinda weird but I don't get why they're even a topic. I've never met one and I doubt I will. Being gay is probably ten times more common.
You are right, but a lot of the roots of furry criticism do tend to be queerphobic in origin. It's just something to recognize.
I'm using kink in a pretty generic way because a lot of the criticisms of furries relate to sex (e.g. beastiality or pedophilia), and thus any depiction of kink (like bondage gear) is used to demonize them that it's a fetish (and one that is coming for your children.)
That might be fair in some contexts but I think most people would only make any connection to beastiality, which is probably fair, no? The whole thing is dressing up like an animal and it's confusing for most people who don't do it.
A furry is someone that identifies with anthropomorphic animal characters (or sometimes just animal characteristics). No dressing up required. Now, a lot of the people that go to cons tend to have more money, so you will see more fursuits and such, but most furries do not dress up.
TIL. I first heard of furries like 10 years ago and hadn't ever known this. I thought the entire thing was dressing up.
I used to as well until I looked into it, which is why I now know way, way more than anyone really needs to (there is... a lot.) Anyway, figured I'd explain just in case. You didn't seem like you had bad intentions, so thanks for being understanding.
Thanks for the info. I do appreciate the assumption that I was coming in good faith. So often people assume the opposite based on one comment that they misunderstand!
Correlation does not signal causation
I'm not sure I understand how that applies here or changes what I posted.
I would explain, but i don't feel like typing
You do know that being gay and being furry ain't mutually exclusive right, but I guess whatever justification you can find for letting your true feelings out.
Might wanna practice reading more carefully. I just said they are two separate and unrelated things. And here you are acting like I said they are one and the same and in a homophobic way or something. Bizarre.
I don't think it's forbidden knowledge that a large portion of furries are LGBT. Don't know why you're calling them unrelated.
At no point did I say anything insulting. Claiming that two groups aren't one and the same isn't hateful, and it's frankly weird you're trying to twist my words into that. Whoever hurt you is not me.
Kinda is though. Trying to remove the LGBT aspect from a group largely consisting of LGBT.
This is so dumb. Please leave me alone
P(Person is queer | Person is furry) > P(Person is queer), therefore these are not separate and unrelated
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability#Statistical_independence
So because I am white and a male, I guess you can't say anything about what it means to be male without that applying to white women too? Do you actually speak English or what?
I have no clue what you're trying to say. How many women are men?
Exactly zero, because (excluding certain trans identities for the purpose of simplification) there is no intersection between the two groups. Talking about what it means to be a men doesn't involve a single woman, therefore it doesn't apply to them.
Hating a primarily queer subgroup has very much homophobic implications, the same way the war on drugs is obviously racist:
The analogy was straightforward. My whiteness apparently makes me the same as every other white person. You're trying to find something that isn't here, at all
"I don't hate group ABC. I just hate group XYZ that happens to be almost solely composed of members of ABC."
Next you will be arguing why hating blues, jazz and rap with every fibre of your being isn't racist.
And to further show why your analogy doesn't work:
P(Person being white | Person being male) = P(Person being white).
Being white and being male is unrelated and separate (<=> statistically independent), unlike being a furry and being queer which is actually related as mentioned earlier.