The whole furry thing is creepy as hell. It's weird. Wanting to have sex with anthropomorphized animals is not a thing that should be normalized.
And it's even creepier when they add things like "kitten" or showing anthropomorphized animal kids.
And thank you to Unruffled [they/them] / Flatworm7591 @lemmy.dbzer0.com for this sane and reasonable response.
And thanks to recursive_recursion who seems to be an alt of Flatworm for continuing that sane and reasonable response. Note that in over 1,400 comments here I've never once said a single word against trans people. Not once.
It really bothers me when people lie about racism. So many people really do experience it so much in life, and lying using false racism accusations as a sword and shield to make other people look bad and make themselves look like the victim is demeaning to every real instance people suffer.
Hopefully one day this person realizes that lying about transphobia for the same reasons does the same thing.
How am I preaching intolerance? If you swap one noun for any thing that any person dislikes or finds creepy with a noun for the ones Hitler or Farage were known to complain the loudest about then of course it becomes something awful.
It seems weird and creepy. That's my opinion. I'm not saying they should be set on fire. I don't care what any consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. But it's become so normalized online, and typically in clearly sexual manners, that it's starting to feel more like dragging the non-consenting general public into a fetish act.
I don't understand how someone would term that as intolerance. The world is full of strange fetishes, and they're typically kept in that private part of people's lives. There are loads of fetishes consenting adults enjoy with one another that most of the people in here down voting would complain about seeing images of posted regularly (with all genitals covered).
I mean that:
This shit is exactly what people say about queer people online. It's almost 1:1 the identical rhetoric. "I'm not saying they should be killed, I don't care what they do in their own homes, but" Please, look back on that and consider if you're seriously okay with saying this about someone else. Your arguments here are just plain bigotry, but because you feel morally justified in that they're doing weird sex pervert stuff you're making the internal distinction that this is okay behavior, even though a quick skim of your post history makes you look like someone who would be right at the front of the pushback if some chud came in to say this about any other "But I think they're weird, and I'm entitled to my own opinion!!" marginalized group.
So you don't think people are entitled to have an opinion that something is weird to them personally.
I think that if Karoline Leavitt had said the same thing, you would push back to her rhetoric just as I'm doing here and that trying to make this into an argument over someone's right to an opinion is an intellectually dishonest way to approach this conversation.
If the topic were people sexually attracted to children making artwork that depicts children characters in sexual way and wearing similar costumes in public, would you be telling someone the same thing?
Yes, we know that having sex with children is very wrong. But some people are sexually attracted to them and can't control that. Likewise having sex with animals is something we know is very wrong. Saying a drawn character isn't really an animal and they'd never do that to a real animal seems the exact same situation as those who say drawn sexualized children aren't real kids and they'd never do that to a real child.
How about if it's people masturbating in public? I don't care if they do that in the privacy of their own homes, but it's not alright to do in the middle of the street. Similarly, wearing gimp costumes, ball gags, and strap-ons while walking down a public street isn't great either even if those people aren't exposing their genitalia in public.
Yeah, saying that you don't think the actions of some people are things they should be doing in public can be twisted if you imaging they're saying they don't think people should be being black or gay in public. But that isn't what's being said, it's you trying to be tolerant and accepting to the point where anyone saying doing something in public seems bad leads to you imagining them in a KKK hood holding a torch.
Your argument is now to insist that that I'm 'too woke'. Please, just step back and listen to yourself for a moment. You're better than this, and you know these arguments are in any other context bullshit. Why is there an exception when you're the one sincerely saying these horrible things?
You're taking the exact same rhetoric they use against queers, blacks, trans...es, and just turning it onto a group of people you don't like. I'm not arguing that this could be extrapolated to you being bigoted against those people, I'm saying that you are literally using the same phrases as they use, just for a different group of people that you personally don't like.
Are they doing that, though? Because I'm pretty sure you're just equating wearing a fursuit to be the same as masturbating in public to shore up your argument.
Sorry, you edited this bit in: "Won't someone think of the children!?!" is a tired trope too. "What if children see the pride parade, is that acceptable? What if some man claims they're trans so they can sneak into the women's bathroom and peep on your kid while they jerk off in a stall!!" As has been repeatedly explained in this thread, there's a vast difference between anthro pornography and actual beastiality, much as there's a difference between lolicon and CSAM.
Sorry, no. I'm never going to say that drawn or CGI images of kids having sex is alright. It's not. I don't care that they're not real kids, I don't care that they're not real animals. It's creepy and depicting something that's very not alright.
You understand that the reason we have protected groups is because it's not considered wrong to ever dislike anything any group of people does, right?
There are tons of things that people do that are considered bad, wrong, creepy, or weird. There are an awful lot of humans, so many of those things have many people who enjoy doing those creepy, wrong things. Just because a group of people likes doing a thing doesn't mean it's evil intolerance to say that thing creeps you the fuck out. That's the reason I gave you the examples.
If there were a large group of people who decided they liked to shit their pants, reach their hands down and scoop some up and sit eating it in public, that would be weird and creepy and fucked up. Saying you found it to be that would not be similar to saying you hate Jews.
I hate when people talk on speakerphone or listen to tiktok or whatever they're doing at full volume in public. A sadly large number of people seem to like doing that. I am intolerant of that thing, because it is annoying. That does not mean I hate black people.
... I'm sorry, your argument is now "it's acceptable to be racist"?
You really might want to rephrase this because I can't figure out an interpretation of that that's more flattering for you. This is "I'm entitled to my opinion, librul" being taken to a spectacular extreme, and I'm really hoping it's just poorly said and not the mask off moment it feels like.
Can you point to the words that you're interpreting as me saying it's ok to be racist?
I did, it's that section I quoted - wherein you put forward the idea that we have protected groups (queers, blacks, women, etc) because it's not considered wrong to dislike any [protected] group of people because of what they do. Implying that we have protected groups because it's acceptable to be racist/sexist/homophobic, and by extension what you're doing is also acceptable.
You don't see the incredibly problematic comparison you've just made?
No, you're misunderstanding.
The reason we have protected groups as opposed to simply saying that voicing any dislike of anything that any group of people does is always wrong is because it's not always wrong.
... You're saying we have to protect women/blacks/queers/etc. from people because sometimes those sexists/racists/bigots/etc. dislike an entire group for totally valid reasons.
No, I'm not saying that. I said that the reason we protect certain groups and don't use those characteristics against them instead of simply saying it's always wrong to use anything anyone does as a bad thing is because people do bad things so it's not always wrong.
Saying someone shouldn't be black in public? Not alright.
Saying someone shouldn't be walking around in public in a costume made entirely of sex toys? Accurate.
Saying someone shouldn't be gay in public? Not alright.
Saying someone shouldn't be having gay sex in a crowded public park? Accurate.
Saying you hate everyone who has a certain religion? Not alright.
Saying you hate people who talk on the speaker phone at full volume while sitting waiting to be called at the DMV? Good point.
No, that's what you were saying. That's why I suggested you rephrase it, because what you're saying is exactly what I presented and I didn't think that was representative of your real opinions.
Anyways, that's a great illustration of the problem:
Saying all black people are criminals? Not alright
Saying a black person is a criminal? Accurate (er... maybe)
Saying all [group] are [anything]? Not alright
Saying all furries are sex perverts walking around in a suit 'made entirely of sextoys'? no, wait, that one is okay! (and again, something you made up)
Are you starting to see the issue here? You're claiming that tarring all members of a group with the same brush is wrong, but then you go on to do exactly that because... I guess it's okay when you do it? Presumably because you know damn well you're not a bad person, and those creepy weirdos, well you just don't like them. Sex perverts, the lot of them.
And I can see you're not a bad person - we have six months of records that show you're either a pretty damn decent person or one of the best actors I've found on here. So why are you so willing to barter away your values on this one issue, when I can fairly confidently conclude you'd never defend bullshit like this if it were being said about any other group of people?
Furry porn gets his dick hard and he is ashamed
Honestly, I doubt it. I think they just hadn't realized that having an unpopular opinion on lemmy doesn't make them special or mean people will respect them for admitting it.
Now they're all scandalized about being banned from a buncha DB0 comms after parroting a shitload of phobic talking points for several hours and like... Nah, if you walk and talk and steal soundbites from racist transphobes, kinda shouldn't be surprised when you aren't given the chance to actually be racist and transphobic. That's the price of committing to a hateful opinion - you're allowed to have it just as much as other people are allowed to make sure you can't spread it in their communities.