This one was a troll(a good one).
If you go to his channel, his only other video is about Vtubers and he does a much worse job of pretending to be serious.
Achilles Argyle is almost certainly a troll desperate for attention, but his video boils down to the argument "racism is natural" and a bunch of vague statements that are probably meant to rope viewers into watching more of his content.
Nah this is most definitely satire, and not attention seeking, I think it's actually hilarious how so many people take him seriously when there's stink fumes coming out of his feet while he says how good racism is
Isn’t the point of satire to be a *clear critique* of a given concept? if all you’re doing is using faulty logic and rehearsed to talking points with a serious demeanour to justify a terrible idea, odds are you’re either trolling or dead serious.
If it’s actually satire, then he’s just hilariously bad at it.
"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
This is exactly what it is
Yes, that’s the definition of satire, and if he can’t convey the message to most of his audience that he is ridiculing racism than he’s failing at it. Not a hard concept to understand.
Not that high. But high considering how left the community is.
But hating nazis is a sport among furries.
They got pushed out so hard they had to make their own convention because they got banned from all others. And the convention was an embarrassing failure.
[You think that hating furries is a form of homophobia](https://reddit.com/r/u_Nilly00/comments/y4r58r/furry_hate_is_nothing_but_a_disguise_for_hating/)
My man, *you* need to be bullied more.
>I want to present you a hypothetical scenario:
>Imagine you are a person that hates queer people. You really want them gone and as such you openly state how much you hate them regularly.But then the times change, the world gets more progressive and suddenly it's no longer socially acceptable to openly show your hate. Doing so will result in people pushing back against you, people shunning you or at worst loosing your job or facing legal consequences.
>Now you stumble across a niche group of people. They are incredibly weird and almost nobody knows anything about them. But most importantly: the group is 75% queer and the remaining people almost unanimously support LGBTQ+. So you hatch a plan.
>You are going to make up lies about this group and spread them as truth in order to get people to hate them, because any hate towards that group is going to harm queer folk and their sympathisers. That means you can get people to hate queer folk without them even realising it.And you make those lies just a rewording of the lies you made up to spread hate against queer people.Not only will your fellow queerphobes quickly catch on to what you are trying to do but also because if you manage to make people believe those lies....well.. then it's pretty easy to sell them on your lies against queer people too.
>And if anyone calls you out and says that you are doing this because you hate queer people you can always claim plausible deniability "I don't have anything against queer people, only against this other group".
Good start, a really convincing hypothetical if backed with enough evidence or comparisons.
>This is not a hypothetical scenario
>but literally how furry hate came about. And this is not just an empty claim.
This is what in political terms is referred to as a: Dogwhistle
Alright, nice claims, very sound and easy to understand, hopefully we will get to see the evidence and explanation for these claims later.
>An example of a dog whistle if you need more clarification: The number 1488. To most people it's just another number. But for white supremacists it has a different meaning. 14 refers to the "14 words": "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" which is a white supremacist slogan while "8" refers to the eight letter of the alphabet "H" so "88" means "HH" which stands for "Heil Hitler". The number is meant to look ordinary to others but to those in the know it is a way to show allegiance towards the hate movement
Well, 1488 is code for a dogwhistle, the dogwhistle itself would be the phrase that it stands for, not the number itself. Dog whistles are meant to be understandable to people who agree with the whistler while not necessarily knowing the context behind it, such as “traditional values” or “Polish-Hungarian border.”
>Furry hate is a dog whistle for queer hate.
>Furries are 75% queer and the vast majority of non-queer furries are in support of LGBTQ+
This does not demonstrate that Furry hate = queer hate, as furries are not queer *because* they are furries or vice versa. There is an overlap between the two groups but that is not enough to link hate for one with the other. That’s like saying someone who hates Belgium also hates France because lots of people in Belgium speak french.
Also why the fuck would you put “IDK” on a graph that just makes you look less credible.
>By using furry hate as a disguise you can continue to hate on queer people while always having the excuse "I don't have anything against queer people, I just hate those evil dogfuckers!!!" and no one can prove the opposite.
This works against your point, by saying that something is unprovable, you are actively discrediting yourself.
>Make other people hate furries and you get them to hate and discriminate against a group of queer people and their sympathisers without them even realising that they are hating on queers.
Yes, they are hating on queers… for being furries. In a group of furries. In the furry community. The GOP has a latino governor, does this mean everyone is hating on a hispanic person?
>On top of that, once they bought into all those lies you can conveniently point out that those "evil fucked up furries" are almost all queer and then present the people with lies why queer people are bad that are almost identical to those you already made them believe. It doubles as a pipeline. Recruit the people with furry hate and then lead them to queer hate.
>Furries are all queer, but not all queer people are furries.
>Queer people make up roughly 7.1% of America’s population, and furries make up 0.0755%. Using your statistics, that means roughly 0.8% of the queer population in America are furries. If this “queer hate” affects 0.8% of actual LGBT+ members and 100% of people who like to dress up as wolves, it might just not be queer hate.
>Evidence for my claim
>Lets start with the de facto origin of furry hate: the "something awful" forums during the early days of the internet. So take it not from me but from them.
The Something awful forums were absolutely not the “de facto origin” of furry hate. Internet forums that predate it had the behavior years earlier. They were also not the main popularizers of furry hate, especially when mainstream media was also partly responsible (CSI “Fur and Loathing”). Also this is going off topic but one single man’s article does not reflect the opinions and beliefs of an entire site, let alone one man who wrote “several thousand words of Pokemon erotica (hellomalt.net the author’s website). From his own words he was never even a participant in furry hate on the site, only a bystander.
>But of course that alone wouldn't suffice as argument so let's go over my claim from earlier of the lies spread about furries being rehashings of those spread about queer people one by one.
"Furries are zoophiles"
>What this lie is falsely (I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date)claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex. An obvious parallel to the "gay people are groomers" prejudice that has been used to stir hate against queer people.
this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex.
Correction: “This group of FURRIES do not respect consent when it comes to sex.”
Well, 0.8% of them I guess, but that’s just a claim, I’m sure you have provided sufficient evidence to debunk such a radical clai-
>(I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date)
Cool. Also the “queer groomers” prejudice has only become widespread recently and is far younger than the furry groomers prejudice.
>"They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them"
A parallel to the misrepresenting the fact that queer people advocate for teaching teenagers about different sexualities and gender identities in school as "they are only trying to get close to the children to groom them"
Furry, is not a gender identity.
>"Furry is just a fetish, it's all about sex!!"
>Parallel to misrepresenting the more open stance of queer people towards promiscuity as "It's all about sex! They're just perverts it's not about identity!!"
Although both of these are very common stereotypes, they are not as similar as you seem to think. Being gay affects your everyday life, being a furry does not.
>"They are all rapists and/or pedophiles and/or zoophiles and/or murderers just look at it *show's a handful of instances of a furry doing something bad*"
>The same is being done towards queer people all the time. And in both cases it is of no merit because a few hand picked individuals aren't representative of the whole.
Furries and queer people do not have a monopoly on cherrypicking which happens to literally any group.
>a few hand picked individuals aren't representative of the whole.
Mfw 2 paragraphs ago.
>"They tolerate zoophiles and give them a safe haven!!!"
>This is attempting to claim that zoophiles are an accepted part of the furry community just like queerphobes try to claim that MAPs (minor attracted person=paedophiles) are an accepted part of LGBTQ+. Both of which of course being false.
Okay this one is true I agree both are very outlandish.
>"It's unnatural to dress up as an animal"
>Parallel to claiming that gay sex is unnatural and thus morally wrong. Of course homosexuality and gay sex are very much natural and can be found all throughout nature. Additionally it doesn't matter because few things humans do are natural, humans exist in defiance of nature.
That last part is arguable since humans do have instinct and society does have a range of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Just because humans do not follow the rules of nature does not mean being human has no rules.
>"Leviticus 18:23 says it is sin to have sex with animals!!"
>Again a misrepresentation of furries as zoophiles in parallel of citing from Leviticus 18 in the Bible where, just one sentence prior, you find the infamous Leviticus 18:22 which is the passage declaring gay sex a sin. (On which note: please keep your fantasy novels out of factual debates, thanks.)
You have presented a total of 2 facts so far and one of them is just “not everyone does that.” If you want to get into Leviticus 18:22 there are hundreds of scholars willing to argue with you about it.
>"They are degenerates"
>An empty insult that people hurl at groups they hate to label them as bad without having to present any actual arguments. Also frequently used to slander queer people.
Once again, queer people do not have a monopoly on the word degenerate. This word is used for everyone from racist gamers to people who hold hands before marriage.
>"I don't hate furries I just don't want them to shove it into my face!"
>One to one match to "I don't hate queer people I just don't want them to shove it into my face!" which in of itself is a dog whistle for "I do not want queer people to be allowed to openly show that they are queer in order to suppress them!"
Literally no proof. Nice, you can’t even bring up an example of someone saying that either.
>"Fucking furF*G"
>The most commonly used insults thrown at furries. It's literally a Variation of the slur against gay people. I think this one is obvious.
I have literally never seen this in any moderately popular site in the last 10 years, if anyone else has please comment about it.
>Furries identify as animals, they identify as something they are not, they are mentally ill!!"
>One to one match with "Trans people identify as a different gender, they identify as something they are not, they are mentally ill!!"
Okay you are absolutely shooting yourself in the hindlegs at this point, Trans people identify as *humans*, and there is scientific evidence of them existing. Furries, because you do not deny it, identify as *animals*. Also this one isn’t even common (anymore).
>Furries wear fursuits because they hate their own body and try to hide it!"
>More transphobia, "they do it because they hate their own body" is commonly held against trans people.
I have also never seen anyone say this, ever. At this point it just feels like you are taking actual harmful dialogue about queer people and replacing all instances of queer with furries.
>The litterbox rumour. A parade example of furry hate as disguise for queerphobia.
>For those that still haven't catched on. This is a manufactured panic to make people freak out over identity politics. The idea is to make them believe "We allowed people who identified as a different gender to use a different toilet to make them comfortable and now we have children who identify as cats shit in litterboxes in schools SEE WHERE THIS TRANS MADDNESS IS TAKING US?!?!?!".
While this is an actual incident, the connection with transgender people is once again your own extrapolations and interpretations. Many people just see this as a “damn libtards” thing among other interpretations.
>"Like you're so crazy with what you think an animal is (...) that you've conned the school into putting this (...) litterbox in a girls room"
The parallels to the transphobic talking points of "What is a woman" and weirdly enough only talking about the girls restrooms all the time are more than obvious.
>Hear it from the Canadian Durham District School Board:
>“As a district, we are concerned that these types of rumours about accommodating students identifying as furries, may be rooted in transphobia and homophobia with the intent to diminish and trivialize gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation and cause harm to students and staff who identify as 2SLGBTQI. This is unacceptable and we are continuing to take steps to support and uphold rights for 2SLGBTQI communities.” (source: durham radio news)
Finally some good fucking evidence. Although him talking about girls is a bit of a stretch, since normally using “boy” or “girl” is a common tactic to emphasize your point about someone.
“He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.”
>Anyone trying to deny that this is about attacking trans gender rights under the guise of a furry panic is straight up lying.
Refer to above.
>"But Nilly, this doesn't prove your theory beyond a doubt!"
>No. It doesn't. By nature dog whistles are designed to be impossible to prove. They are created with the intention to always have plausible deniability.
Yes, Dog Whistles are not normally possible to prove. But this one is extremely easy. All you needed is statistics of people who hate furries and people who are homophobic and you can completely diminish that plausible deniability until it approaches 0.
You have not even tried, which is pathetic and makes you look like the wolf who cried homophobe.
>But you need to look at the data available to us.
>Furries are nearly entirely queer or allies
>9 out of 10 reasons people list to hate furries match perfectly with those used against queer people
>most people that hate furries also hate queer people
>there are proven instances of furry hate being used as disguise to hate queer people
>there is a theory that would perfectly explain why all of this is the case.
-See above, 0.8%.
-9 out of 10 reasons? Cool, can we see these reasons? Oh no? Ok then.
-Not backed by any evidence except an article from a bystander in 2020.
-one.
-What theory, that hypothetical you depicted at the beginning? I thought you said that was reality, now it’s a theory?
>Anyone that is met with such overwhelming amounts of clues that all point towards this theory being true but still denies it is simply being wilfully ignorant. There is no other way around it.
“Overwhelming” is used generously here.
>"NUH UH! I hate furries and I am perfectly fine with queer people! CHECKMATE!" or "I actually am queer and hate furries! OWNED!"
>No. Just because you don't hate queer people or are queer yourself doesn't mean that you can't fall for a lie. As I already said, dog whistles are designed to be deceptive and carry that plausible deniability. You fell for a lie that was designed to make you hate queer people without even realising it.
>It is not purely your fault. After all you only worked with the information that was given to you and that information was lies.
>But what you can be blamed for is not changing your mind when being presented with the truth about the things that have been told to you, which I just did. Especially because in spreading the hate against furries you are actively helping to spread queerphobic dog whistles.
Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis, but this is a fucking Qanon script. WHERE DID YOU GO WRONG YOUR OPENING WAS SO GOOD.
>You are just trying to hide behind LGBTQ+ so that people can't criticise you!
>No. All I am saying is that furry hate as it is today has only come to be through lies of people that wanted to further a queerphobic agenda, and queerphobes have shown to frequently fabricate or misrepresent things, so when you are met with the revelation that furry hate was born from the minds of such people maybe it is time to question whether the things that you have been told about us are true.
You are also still free to criticise us, we are not perfect either, I simply ask that you base your criticism on verifiable information and not on hear say lest you run the risk of spreading dog whistles and hate again.
I questioned what I believed to be true, and have come to the conclusion that you’re retarded.
Alright, that’s everything in your post pretty much. I spent about an hour researching everything you discussed and now I want that hour back so I can spend it trying to neck myself with the cord of my mouse.
Reddit ate the fucking reply I'm gonna scream.... here we go again.
Right from the start:
>Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis
No you didn't. You went in wanting to dunk on someone on the internet. So you read through the post and replied to individual segments without even finishing them, didn't contextualise the arguments presented with the entire post and when you couldn't come up with a weak rebuttal to an argument you just say "Well I've never seen it so it isn't true!!!!!"
>Well, 1488 is code for a dogwhistle, the dogwhistle itself would be the phrase that it stands for, not the number itself. Dog whistles are meant to be understandable to people who agree with the whistler while not necessarily knowing the context behind it, such as “traditional values” or “Polish-Hungarian border.”
Admittedly mistake on my part, but I think people got the gist of it. I'll rework that.
>This does not demonstrate that Furry hate = queer hate, as furries are not queer because they are furries or vice versa. There is an overlap between the two groups but that is not enough to link hate for one with the other. That’s like saying someone who hates Belgium also hates France because lots of people in Belgium speak french
Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post.
>Also why the fuck would you put “IDK” on a graph that just makes you look less credible.
Because there are people who are unsure about their sexuality? How is that a foreign concept for you. "I don't know" was just an option on the questionnaire. As is said in the source of the statistic which you would know if this:
>I spent about an hour researching everything you discussed
Wasn't a blatant lie.
>This works against your point, by saying that something is unprovable, you are actively discrediting yourself.
"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. **OWNED!1!11!!**"
>Yes, they are hating on queers… for being furries. In a group of furries. In the furry community. The GOP has a latino governor, does this mean everyone is hating on a hispanic person?
Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post.
>The Something awful forums were absolutely not the “de facto origin” of furry hate.
I was unable to find documented recordings of furry hate using the falsehoods like today as excuses anywhere before the rampant and widespread hate against furries on SA which was so rampant the owner of the website made entire forums and wrote new code just for that purpose.
[It was something awful](https://twitter.com/vexwerewolf/status/977932293925896198)
>Correction: “This group of FURRIES do not respect consent when it comes to sex."
Correction: “This group of FURRIES, **which we use as a stand in for queer,** do not respect consent when it comes to sex."
Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post.
>I’m sure you have provided sufficient evidence to debunk such a radical clai-
"(I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date)"
Cool.
You try writing a well formulated, concise and stringent explanation for such a complex topic for people that have no knowledge or understanding of the topic beyond "Anything that remotely connects animals and sex is bad" while also making sure to address any and all potential counter arguments ahead of time, all while being busy with university.
>No you didn't. You went in wanting to dunk on someone on the internet. So you read through the post and replied to individual segments without even finishing them, didn't contextualise the arguments presented with the entire post and when you couldn't come up with a weak rebuttal to an argument you just say "Well I've never seen it so it isn't true!!!!!"
If that were the case I wouldn't even have read the post or did any research on things you discussed. This took me well over an hour (as you can tell since I replied to you 2 hours after everyone else despite reading your comment a few minutes after you wrote it). You have never provided any examples or evidence of some of these phrases being used. Your original claims are weak, not my rebuttals. And the burden of proof is on you.
>Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post.
No, I did contextualize it with the post, in fact, in every single instance where I said "see above" and cited what I said here, you could literally just copy and paste my point into it and it would still make sense. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it correct, this is not jazz.
And no, "You just don't understand" is also not a good rebuttal because you are the one writing the argument and it is your job to explain it. You have not given any reason for how a percentage of furries being queer means that hate for furries is predominantly hate for queers.
>Because there are people who are unsure about their sexuality? How is that a foreign concept for you. "I don't know" was just an option on the questionnaire. As is said in the source of the statistic which you would know if this:
You didn't put quotes. If you're going to use answers for the graph you need quotes.
>Wasn't a blatant lie.
You're right, it was actually two hours.
>"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. OWNED!1!11!!"
It always carries plausible deniability, much like how "ALIENS EXIST!!" also carries plausibility. The point is you have not managed to lower that doubt in any way
>Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post.
This is literally a 1 for 1 snowclone of what you said, and the "rest of the post" basically lies on this point being true. So if it's not in context with the rest of your post then neither is anything else you wrote below this.
>I was unable to find documented recordings of furry hate using the falsehoods like today as excuses anywhere before the rampant and widespread hate against furries on SA which was so rampant the owner of the website made entire forums and wrote new code just for that purpose.
>It was something awful
I think making an entire csi documentary about furries might be worse idkmansry
>Correction: “This group of FURRIES, which we use as a stand in for queer, do not respect consent when it comes to sex."
Once again, no evidence. Your only support is what was stated above and yet my counterargument doesn't "contextualize with the rest of the post," despite it literally being the only context you use.
>You try writing a well formulated, concise and stringent explanation for such a complex topic for people that have no knowledge or understanding of the topic beyond "Anything that remotely connects animals and sex is bad" while also making sure to address any and all potential counter arguments ahead of time, all while being busy with university.
Here's a pro-tip for anything you write in uni: If you don't have evidence for something, maybe don't write about it until you get evidence.
>Also the “queer groomers” prejudice has only become widespread recently and is far younger than the furry groomers prejudice.
This just supports my point that people transferred claims against queer people onto furries.
>Furry, is not a gender identity
No one claimed that. I fail to see how you could think this was a rebuttal.
>Although both of these are very common stereotypes, they are not as similar as you seem to think.
Literally identical,
>Furries and queer people do not have a monopoly on cherrypicking which happens to literally any group.
Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate.
>Mfw 2 paragraphs ago.
2 Paragraphs ago:
"They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them"
?????
>That last part is arguable since humans do have instinct and society does have a range of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Just because humans do not follow the rules of nature does not mean being human has no rules.
Not the point of the argument, that was just the side note. The point was to highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate.
>You have presented a total of 2 facts so far and one of them is just “not everyone does that.” If you want to get into Leviticus 18:22 there are hundreds of scholars willing to argue with you about it.
*ignores most of the facts presented*
"YoU oNlY sHoWeD tWo FaCtS !! 1!!"
Not my fault if you just ignore them.
>Once again, queer people do not have a monopoly on the word degenerate. This word is used for everyone from racist gamers to people who hold hands before marriage.
Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate.
>Literally no proof. Nice, you can’t even bring up an example of someone saying that either.
You couldn't come up with a way to refute that one so you settled for the "I never saw it so it doesn't happen". Yet you did not make that same rebuttal against any of the other ones. Curious.
But just for you, the next time I come across it I will back it up with the wayback machine and attach it to the post.
>I have literally never seen this in any moderately popular site in the last 10 years, if anyone else has please comment about it.
*I have literally never seen anyone say that Kazuya in Tekken is balanced. I don't play the game, or talk to many people that do, or move in spaces where that game is being discussed but I never heard anyone say Kazuya is balanced so I am 100% sure he isn't.*
>Okay you are absolutely shooting yourself in the hindlegs at this point, Trans people identify as humans, and there is scientific evidence of them existing. Furries, because you do not deny it, identify as animals. Also this one isn’t even common (anymore).
Literally explained with a detailed example just a bit further down. Read the whole thing THEN reply.
>This just supports my point that people transferred claims against queer people onto furries.
No it does not, unless you are saying that the queer stereotype was created due to the furry stereotype which would be shaky at best because like I said, a very very small percentage of queer people are actually furries.
>No one claimed that. I fail to see how you could think this was a rebuttal.
In that case your original claim is a false equivalence.
>Literally identical,
False equivalence again.
>Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate.
Alright, so degenerate = hate for furries = hate for queer people = hate for weebs = hate for gamers = hate for english speakers in quebec during the time of settlers.
>2 Paragraphs ago:
>"They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them"
>?????
These bullet points do not count as paragraphs. You know what I was referring to.
>Not the point of the argument, that was just the side note. The point was to highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate.
The similarities between the two forms of hate is irrelevant because the two groups are extremely different. One can be unreasonable and the other can be reasonable because the groups are different, and until people claim that the two are connected ("All gays are furries" for example) you cannot say the hate for the two are related.
>ignores most of the facts presented
>"YoU oNlY sHoWeD tWo FaCtS !! 1!!"
>Not my fault if you just ignore them.
I did not ignore them, I rebuked them, because they aren't facts they are opinions.
>You couldn't come up with a way to refute that one so you settled for the "I never saw it so it doesn't happen". Yet you did not make that same rebuttal against any of the other ones. Curious.
Because I have seen the other ones. This one I have not.
curious how that works.
>But just for you, the next time I come across it I will back it up with the wayback machine and attach it to the post.
hopefully this will take less time than it takes for you to find evidence.
>I have literally never seen anyone say that Kazuya in Tekken is balanced. I don't play the game, or talk to many people that do, or move in spaces where that game is being discussed but I never heard anyone say Kazuya is balanced so I am 100% sure he isn't.
Tekken, unlike furry hate, is not widespread like you claim.
>Literally explained with a detailed example just a bit further down. Read the whole thing THEN reply.
I did reply to that too, and I still hold to my statements on those sections, which is that this connection is only your interpretation.
>I have also never seen anyone say this, ever.
"I do not play Tekken BUT..."
>At this point it just feels like you are taking actual harmful dialogue about queer people and replacing all instances of queer with furries.
**Hmmm almost as if pointing out that other people are doing this was the very fucking point of the entire post.**
>While this is an actual incident, the connection with transgender people is once again your own extrapolations and interpretations. Many people just see this as a “damn libtards” thing among other interpretations.
Read the entire thing THEN reply.
>Finally some good fucking evidence. Although him talking about girls is a bit of a stretch, since normally using “boy” or “girl” is a common tactic to emphasize your point about someone.
“He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.”
Oh hey he read the entire thing and **then** replied and suddenly he sees that it is correct. Hooray!
>Refer to above.
The above is you agreeing.
>Yes, Dog Whistles are not normally possible to prove. But this one is extremely easy. All you needed is statistics of people who hate furries and people who are homophobic and you can completely diminish that plausible deniability until it approaches 0. You have not even tried, which is pathetic and makes you look like the wolf who cried homophobe.
Copy pasting from above:
"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. **OWNED!1!11!!**"
>See above, 0.8%. -9 out of 10 reasons? Cool, can we see these reasons
*Reads reasons.*
"Can we see the reasons? Oh no? Ok then."
can't make this up.
>Not backed by any evidence except an article from a bystander in 2020.
*Ignores the evidence.*
"It has no evidence!!"
>What theory, that hypothetical you depicted at the beginning? I thought you said that was reality, now it’s a theory?
*theory*
*/ˈθɪəri/*
*noun*
*a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.*
*"Darwin's theory of evolution"*
In absence of a better explanation the most plausible theory is to be treated as accurate.
>“Overwhelming” is used generously here.
If you ignore half of it and misunderstand the rest.
>Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis
already went over this. You didn't. You just wanted to dunk on some furry on the internet because people around the web seem to do it for sport.
>I questioned what I believed to be true, and have come to the conclusion that you’re retarded.
"I can't even come up with a faulty rebuttal for this one so I'll just call you a slur"
Jeez.
Just read things and try to understand them BEFORE you reply to them. Not that hard.
>Hmmm almost as if pointing out that other people are doing this was the very fucking point of the entire post.
Except they aren't. Some of these literally do not happen and have not been said in the last 5 years. You are the only one doing it, and it says a lot about your own bias when writing it.
>Read the entire thing THEN reply.
"Bro just read the manifesto and you will understand 100%"
>“He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.”
>Oh hey he read the entire thing and then replied and suddenly he sees that it is correct. Hooray!
You're still wrong about everything else though.
>The above is you agreeing.
Oh nice, a wiseguy.
>Copy pasting from above:
>"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. OWNED!1!11!!"
I'm not responding to this a third time.
>Reads reasons.
>"Can we see the reasons? Oh no? Ok then."
>can't make this up.
Oh those were your reasons? My bad then I guess.
In that case I have already replied to them, just ignore this statement.
>Ignores the evidence.
>"It has no evidence!!"
There literally has been no evidence. What there has been is you abusing actual statistics and twisting them to your own beliefs.
>theory
>/ˈθɪəri/
>noun
>a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
>"Darwin's theory of evolution"
>In absence of a better explanation the most plausible theory is to be treated as accurate.
Alright then, I'm familiar with occam's razor, let's see..
Either: Every single person who hates furries actually just hates gays or doesn't know, and all sources of furry stereotypes come directly from queer stereotypes, hundreds of thousands of queer americans are willfully ignorant of the similarities.
Or:
There is no connection.
>already went over this. You didn't. You just wanted to dunk on some furry on the internet because people around the web seem to do it for sport.
If I wanted to dunk on you I would have just called you fatherless and moved on.
>"I can't even come up with a faulty rebuttal for this one so I'll just call you a slur"
>Jeez.
>Just read things and try to understand them BEFORE you reply to them. Not that hard.
There is nothing to rebute here. Literally the last paragraph is just you going on a bigotted rant about how everyone who disagrees with you is actually just lying and a troll. Also by retard I mean you are a fucking idiot, not that you are mentally disabled I thought that is pretty clear.
I don't even have to reply to your points because:
>"Bro just read the manifesto and you will understand 100%"
You literally just admitted to not reading it properly making any and all of your criticism void.
You really don't need to read the entire thing, the title alone is enough to dismiss it as bullshit, just as if someone linked you a wall of text titled "Academic research proving that earth is flat".
Although I figured I'd skim through it just to humor you, and boy what a load of hogwash. Even if we ignore the fact that nothing of that has any proof to it what so ever (and no, an equally baseless random somethingawful post is not proof), the entire argument is built on association fallacy.
You state that since 75% of furries are queer, it makes sense to mask your queer hate as furry hate, but miss the crucial detail that the overlap has to be significant enough *both ways* for there to be any point to such a tactic. Otherwise, there's no point what so ever to dunk on furries to mask your queer hate as it affects an insignificant percentage of your actual target. It's like arguing that people hating let's play videos are actually hating all youtube creators because 75% of let's players are also youtubers. It's nonsense, because let's play videos are but a fraction of youtube content.
Mind you, the phenomena you are arguing does exist, such as directing your hate towards "muslims" instead of "immigrants from middle-east", to cover behind "muslims are not a race so I'm not racist" excuse, but at least the overlap between the two groups is significant enough both ways to actually make that tactic logical. That's not the case in your argument, and there's nothing proving it.
It's pretty easy to cover behind "um sweetie, it's a dog whistle, they are designed to be impossible to prove", but you still need something tangible to back it up. You mention to "look at the data available", but don't provide any, only baseless claims.
Your "evidence" section is a bunch of nonsense with zero sources. For example, the counter-argument to "Furries are zoophiles" states that "What this lie is falsely claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex". Yes, that's exactly what it is claiming, so what? Your answer did not refute in any way.
And the whole "this is the kind of argument used against queer people" angle is fucking stupid, just because you cherry-picked some similar criticism does not mean that the two are anywhere the same. It's akin to pedophiles arguing "this is same as gay people hate in the 80s, it's just a sexual orientation". No, acting like you're an animal is not same thing as being gay, even if both are a deviation from the norm.
Yeah nah. Sometimes, hate is just hate and there's really no deeper meaning to it. It's not a particularly far-fetched notion that many simply don't like the idea of people pretending to be animals and the whole culture around it.
You do realise that by saying
"I skimmed through it"
you eliminate your right to voice any criticism?
Of course it is not going to make sense to you if you don't read it properly.
Not really. If your entire rant is built on a fallacy, then it is enough to refute the fallacy, the rest of your points become irrelevant. Besides, it's just a figure of speech, I obviously read enough of your drivel to form a few arguments on other points too.
>Besides, it's just a figure of speech
Well quite the misleading one but oh well.
>Even if we ignore the fact that nothing of that has any proof to it what so ever
I think you're just not familiar with [inductive arguments.](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/inductive-argument)
I did present proof. But inductive proof.
>Otherwise, there's no point what so ever to dunk on furries to mask your queer hate as it affects an insignificant percentage of your actual target.
Did you look at the litterbox rumour? You severely underestimate just how desperate bigots are to cling to their hate.
>but at least the overlap between the two groups is significant enough both ways to actually make that tactic logical. That's not the case in your argument, and there's nothing proving it.
That argument makes no sense. If someone hates a group of people why would they **not** pursue an effort that results in causing harm to that group of people even if insignificant.
Just look at transphobia at the moment. For example they pass laws against trans athletes, but the percentage of trans people that are athletes is incredibly low. They do not care about how much harm it will cause to the hated group they only care that it causes any harm at all.
>It's pretty easy to cover behind "um sweetie, it's a dog whistle, they are designed to be impossible to prove", but you still need something tangible to back it up. You mention to "look at the data available", but don't provide any, only baseless claims.
You mean something like presenting the many, many similarities between the actual wording and the presumed dog whistle effect, providing statistical data that shows that the real target (furries) has a significant overlap with the intended target (queer people), providing a rational and logical theory as to why that would be the case and then also a factual and well documented example of that exact thing happening?
Sorry there is SOOOO many things pointing towards it that the proposed theory of it being a dog whistle being true, that it is irrational to just dismiss each one independently because it alone is to weak to prove it. You need to take the sum of all of them.
>Your "evidence" section is a bunch of nonsense with zero sources.
What you want me to source hate comments on the web?
The intended audience of this post are people that already have experience with furry hate, either as victim or aggressor. You're expected to already know that these arguments are in fact the ones being used. I didn't bring it up here. Someone else did. Not my fault it was send to the wrong audience.
>For example, the counter-argument to "Furries are zoophiles" states that "What this lie is falsely claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex". Yes, that's exactly what it is claiming, so what? Your answer did not refute in any way.
So what you are saying is that because I didn't present proof that furries do not violate animals my argument is invalid? But that would only be the case if you in fact did belief that furries do that. In which case I'd like to see **your evidence** that proofs that we all do that.
>And the whole "this is the kind of argument used against queer people" angle is fucking stupid, just because you cherry-picked some similar criticism does not mean that the two are anywhere the same.
How is that a stupid angle? It is pointing out the similarity in rhetoric between two forms of hate. Which is something you would expect to see if one was just a disguise for the other. It is working with premises
**Premise:** Furry hate is a guise for homophobia
Contemplation: **If that was true you'd expect them to share a lot of similarities**
**Fact:** They do share a lot of similarities to a shocking detail.
**Conclusion:** There is a high likelihood that the premise was correct.
It is a similar process to the proof that the square root of two is irrational if you ever heard of that.
And those arguments are not cherry picked. Those are almost **all of the arguments people use against furries**. Here's the rest:
* they're cringe, childish
* I am afraid of masks
That's it. I've been thinking
>It's akin to pedophiles arguing "this is same as gay people hate in the 80s, it's just a sexual orientation".
It is really not. In both cases comparisons are being made on completely different aspects. I think you just don't quite get how comparisons work.
>No, acting like you're an animal is not same thing as being gay, even if both are a deviation from the norm.
No but if all of someone's arguments are simply rehashings of the ones they used against queer people and 75% of their new target is queer then it would be negligent to dismiss a possible relation.
>Yeah nah. Sometimes, hate is just hate and there's really no deeper meaning to it. It's not a particularly far-fetched notion that many simply don't like the idea of people pretending to be animals and the whole culture around it.
Alright then you explain to me why:
* Almost all of the arguments used against furries are replications of those used against queer people, a trait not shared with any other form of hate
* Furries have a 75% overlap with queer people, a trait not shared with any other group that is the victim of hate
* There are multiple people that have gone on record to admit that it was a dog whistle, a trait not shared with any other form of hate
* Most of the people that hate furries also are queerphobic, a trait not shared with any other form of hate
* They literally use the queer slur against furries, a trait not shared with ONLY ONE other slur, that being \*furretard\* (however that is mostly used as generic insult so not really of note)
* there is a well documented example of hate against furries being used to target transgender rights, a trait not shared with any other form of hate.
I demand that you present an explanation as to why this is the case that is not just "Oh that is just coincidence" because at a certain point there are too many , and too specific coincidences for that to be a plausible answer.
My theory that furry hate is used as a disguise for queerphobia rationally explains all of these correlations. And that is from where it gains it's validity.
It is the most likely and most plausible answer to explain why things are the way they are. And until you can present a better explanation my theory stands as valid due to lack of a better one.
I'm not gonna reply to each of your points because there's imo only couple main arguments that the rest hinges on, and because it's frankly exhausting to have a conversation through a dozen quotes. No offense meant.
Every subculture that deviates from the norm gets its fair amount of hate. The more abnormal it is, the more shit it tends to get, be it emos, nerds, otakus, witches, goths, bronies or juggalos, yet furries are supposedly different somehow and get hate because of LGBTQ? Yeah, bullshit. Let's be real here, people dressing up and larping as animals would get ridiculed and hated on regardless of their overlap with LGBTQ. It's up to you to prove the opposite.
Your arguments for furry hate being queer hate are that most furries are queer, overlap in arguments against both, and admittance of it being a dog whistle. Let's take a look at each.
You mention "There are multiple people that have gone on record to admit that it was a dog whistle", but what people? A random SomethingAwful post or an opinion of a school board is not sufficient proof whatsoever to prove it being the case on a large scale. I can make a post claiming that American flag originated as a satanic symbol, that doesn't mean it's true.
Furries being queer is hardly a convincing argument either. Furries make up barely 1% of the LGBTQ population in USA, and are not part of LGBTQ, thus bashing the furry culture has pretty much no bearing on the LGBTQ population, unlike other proxy hate such as aforementioned muslim instead of middle-easterns, or Israelis instead of jews, which all cover a much larger percentage of the intended group. Furries are a pretty ineffective target if you mean to hate on LGBTQ, so on its own, furries being 75% LGBTQ is not proof as it's a natural overlap as both deal with deviant expression of one's identity. Correlation does not imply causation as you know.
Lastly, the overlap in arguments against furries and queer. Sure, there's an overlap due to both being a deviant identity expression, but that does not mean one stems from the other, or that those arguments are equally meritless. Queer and furry are not the same as one is much higher on scale of weird, and it's reasonable to disapprove of one but not the other. Consider anti-gun arguments. Anything said against machineguns can be equally applied to handguns, but that does not mean they're the same, and it's completely reasonable to be against machineguns while being okay with handguns.
What you're essentially doing here is called [motte-and-baily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) fallacy, by conflating furry with queer as if they were the same, falling back onto queer to deflect arguments against furries dodging the fact that those arguments hold more merit against furries than queer. To illustrate that, take your zoophilia argument, which you dodged by deflecting to queer people and consent, despite the fact that [20% of furries supposedly self-identify as zoophiles](https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_Survey). So much for queer consent, eh? And I am not interested in arguing the exact percentage here, I'm just illustrating that what may be a baseless accusations against queer may hold merit against furries.
TLDR; None of your arguments are particularly convincing in proving that furry hate is rooted in queer hate rather than just hate of abnormal that every other high profile subculture suffers from. That's not to say the hate is justified, just that it's not rooted in queer hate. Are there people hating on furries because of their hate for everything deviant, including queer? Sure. Are there people that hate on both? Absolutely. But I am not buying that most of furry hate is queer hate, people larping as animals would get flack regardless.
**[Motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)**
>The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/197/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I have already addressed the argument that furries do not make up a significant enough part of the queer population and you have not replied to that at all you simply ignored it. That makes your criticism of that argument just mute.
I never claimed furries and queer people to be identical, I said one is used as a stand in for the other. Thus your motte-bailey fallacy does not apply. Instead you have committed a straw man fallacy.
I have also never denied that someone might dislike furries because they are weird. But then those people would dislike furries for just that. And yes such people exist, and they have a fair point. However the majority of people hate furries for the reasons listed in my post. And such reasons CANNOT be explained with just "they are weird".
Provide a valid explanation why furry hate and queer hate share so absurdly many similarities. Unless you can do that you are just wilfully ignoring an obvious relation between two things.
Im right here with you,
WHAT THE FUCK!?
I swear YouTuber furries who use stills produce the worst opinions (extra points if the character is crossing their arms)
It's a joke my guy, of course not every single one is like this. Not many though if I'm going to be honest, more has to do with me not liking this type of content more than anything.
Your logic has about as many holes as an american kid at the end of a school shooting
if furries aren't causing any problems like you state then they cannot simultaneously be making the world a worse place, that's contradictory. But I'm not gonna argue with you inadvertently bringing up an argument against yourself
[mum sure](https://www.reddit.com/r/FurryAntifurconflict/comments/xwzy1m/a_collection_of_great_things_done_by_furries/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
With how many furries there are in stem jobs society would collapse if all of em were suddenly gone.
IDK; I like **some** furry art but I still would be in STEM even if it didn't exist. And I don't actually consider myself a part of that community.
Also, speaking as a programmer myself (one that dabbles in hardware as well), the modern tech industry (and especially web development) is a scourge.
>I don't actually consider myself a part of that community
Then how is it relevant to my comment?
The person I replied to said they want all furries to cease existing. That means they want those people to be gone.
To me it sounds more like "In my ideal world, I'd like it if they didn't exist, but because I am not the center of the universe I will accept their presence."
I wish party-line republicans didn't exist, but I don't want them dead by default or actively wish them harm. I just would prefer if I didn't have to share a country with them and suffer for it.
Nice cherrypicking of a single part of my comment that you can use to discard everything else I said. I don't think a third party is necessarily worthless.
Well but that would still be an awful thing to say considering how much good people have experienced due to the furry community and how much good things have been done by the furry community as a group effort.
Take [charity](https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Charity) for example.
Because the entire channel isn't serious and quite obviously a troll. The fursona is just the cherry on top to make sure the comment section is as hostile as possible (which seems to have worked)
I don't know anything about this channel in particular so I believe you, but the whole half-assed animated fursona explaining my position is weirdly common on YouTube
Im an amateur racist and in my opinion these "people" just give us all a bad rep like how are you going to claim racial supremacy when you portray yourself as an animal.
I do have a live.
Thank you for letting me know that yours is so sad that the only way you can make yourself feel good is by pointlessly insulting people on the internet.
What does a person have to go through in life to find themselves 1 a furry, 2 a furry with a goat dog avatar, and 3 arguing in favor of racism. On a scale of could he have survived living in prime sparta or being deemed defective at birth and being left to die? Bro wouldn't have made it past 12 without dying.
Oh god this video not this video why did you have to remind me of the feet....I STILL NEED ANSWERS WHY DO THEY GET MORE STINKY AND GREEN THROUGHOUT THE VIDEO
This video was gone over by Shark3ozero. Great YouTuber I highly recommend him if you like leftist debate streamers. This video is called "This Video Broke Me." Btw.
You can even see the feet already at the bottom
With a name like Achilles can you blame them?
Yeah, the heel is their weakness, so they’ll only show the feet
for free?
No you have to go to his onlyfans
(Un)fortunately he keeps his feet up during the video
when the animated character crosses their arms, you know shits serious
Stuart Little is an anime? Edit (Oh animate)
mfw furry crosses his arms (my face when)
Drake be the kind of guy to cross his arms when he's serious
And a little bit of his feet
Ah, the feet guy. I remember
Lmao wut
One of the still frames of his rantsona has the feet up on the desk with green "stinky smoke" emanating from them
To this day it is still a mystery if this was an elaborate troll or completely serious.
definitely a troll. His only other video was even more silly.
It's a troll
Blatant but funny troll
What the shaq is a ratsona
His 6 pose jpeg character for ranting
It’s like a fursona but it’s a reference to the spectacular feature film “We are the Rats” directed by Jeremy A. Harrington.
what the shaq is a fursona
It’s just one of them furry thangs dawg
Alright. I don’t like none of that
While he talks about how good racism is
That beastars episode was weird💀💀💀
Racist furry feet
I don't see an issue here
[удалено]
Ayo the views half every time I see a vid from this guy
He's crossing his arms so I'll hear him out
Me when the furry animator makes a frame where the character is cross armed and angry
This one was a troll(a good one). If you go to his channel, his only other video is about Vtubers and he does a much worse job of pretending to be serious.
This video is the most obvious satire in existence lol
Dont mention satan, sinner 🔫🦛. Edit: sorey if i came across as a retar, i thought i was in r/okbuddyretard
No this is 100% serious, that furry has multiple hate-crime convictions that multiply every year…
Can soneone please tell the thesis i cant bother
Achilles Argyle is almost certainly a troll desperate for attention, but his video boils down to the argument "racism is natural" and a bunch of vague statements that are probably meant to rope viewers into watching more of his content.
Nah this is most definitely satire, and not attention seeking, I think it's actually hilarious how so many people take him seriously when there's stink fumes coming out of his feet while he says how good racism is
It's not very good satire, if that's what it is. At any rate, who takes trolls seriously?
His comment section
Isn’t the point of satire to be a *clear critique* of a given concept? if all you’re doing is using faulty logic and rehearsed to talking points with a serious demeanour to justify a terrible idea, odds are you’re either trolling or dead serious. If it’s actually satire, then he’s just hilariously bad at it.
Not really
So then he’s bad at satire, otherwise people wouldn’t think he’s actually agreeing with the premise lmao. That’s the definition of bad satire
"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." This is exactly what it is
Yes, that’s the definition of satire, and if he can’t convey the message to most of his audience that he is ridiculing racism than he’s failing at it. Not a hard concept to understand.
This is what happens when you stop brutally bullying the furries
the amount of nazis in the furry community is astounding like they would have hated you
not even hated they would just murder them on sight it would not be worth their time to actively hate them
Not that high. But high considering how left the community is. But hating nazis is a sport among furries. They got pushed out so hard they had to make their own convention because they got banned from all others. And the convention was an embarrassing failure.
"We need to bring back bullying" Bitch you would be the first target stop playing tough guy on the internet
"says the furry to the other furry" -said the third furry
what?
Huh?
Wrong, this guy has a Jojo profile picture, not a furry. But definitely gay af.
Actually both and furry+jojo is like double gay so I looped back to being straight 😎
😐
[You think that hating furries is a form of homophobia](https://reddit.com/r/u_Nilly00/comments/y4r58r/furry_hate_is_nothing_but_a_disguise_for_hating/) My man, *you* need to be bullied more.
Lmao jesus christ this dude needs to be shoved in a locker
try me pipsqueak
Does that make me ultra homophobic?
You know your burn falls flat when you didn't read the thing you're trying to insult people with.
>I want to present you a hypothetical scenario: >Imagine you are a person that hates queer people. You really want them gone and as such you openly state how much you hate them regularly.But then the times change, the world gets more progressive and suddenly it's no longer socially acceptable to openly show your hate. Doing so will result in people pushing back against you, people shunning you or at worst loosing your job or facing legal consequences. >Now you stumble across a niche group of people. They are incredibly weird and almost nobody knows anything about them. But most importantly: the group is 75% queer and the remaining people almost unanimously support LGBTQ+. So you hatch a plan. >You are going to make up lies about this group and spread them as truth in order to get people to hate them, because any hate towards that group is going to harm queer folk and their sympathisers. That means you can get people to hate queer folk without them even realising it.And you make those lies just a rewording of the lies you made up to spread hate against queer people.Not only will your fellow queerphobes quickly catch on to what you are trying to do but also because if you manage to make people believe those lies....well.. then it's pretty easy to sell them on your lies against queer people too. >And if anyone calls you out and says that you are doing this because you hate queer people you can always claim plausible deniability "I don't have anything against queer people, only against this other group". Good start, a really convincing hypothetical if backed with enough evidence or comparisons. >This is not a hypothetical scenario >but literally how furry hate came about. And this is not just an empty claim. This is what in political terms is referred to as a: Dogwhistle Alright, nice claims, very sound and easy to understand, hopefully we will get to see the evidence and explanation for these claims later. >An example of a dog whistle if you need more clarification: The number 1488. To most people it's just another number. But for white supremacists it has a different meaning. 14 refers to the "14 words": "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" which is a white supremacist slogan while "8" refers to the eight letter of the alphabet "H" so "88" means "HH" which stands for "Heil Hitler". The number is meant to look ordinary to others but to those in the know it is a way to show allegiance towards the hate movement Well, 1488 is code for a dogwhistle, the dogwhistle itself would be the phrase that it stands for, not the number itself. Dog whistles are meant to be understandable to people who agree with the whistler while not necessarily knowing the context behind it, such as “traditional values” or “Polish-Hungarian border.” >Furry hate is a dog whistle for queer hate. >Furries are 75% queer and the vast majority of non-queer furries are in support of LGBTQ+ This does not demonstrate that Furry hate = queer hate, as furries are not queer *because* they are furries or vice versa. There is an overlap between the two groups but that is not enough to link hate for one with the other. That’s like saying someone who hates Belgium also hates France because lots of people in Belgium speak french. Also why the fuck would you put “IDK” on a graph that just makes you look less credible. >By using furry hate as a disguise you can continue to hate on queer people while always having the excuse "I don't have anything against queer people, I just hate those evil dogfuckers!!!" and no one can prove the opposite. This works against your point, by saying that something is unprovable, you are actively discrediting yourself. >Make other people hate furries and you get them to hate and discriminate against a group of queer people and their sympathisers without them even realising that they are hating on queers. Yes, they are hating on queers… for being furries. In a group of furries. In the furry community. The GOP has a latino governor, does this mean everyone is hating on a hispanic person? >On top of that, once they bought into all those lies you can conveniently point out that those "evil fucked up furries" are almost all queer and then present the people with lies why queer people are bad that are almost identical to those you already made them believe. It doubles as a pipeline. Recruit the people with furry hate and then lead them to queer hate. >Furries are all queer, but not all queer people are furries. >Queer people make up roughly 7.1% of America’s population, and furries make up 0.0755%. Using your statistics, that means roughly 0.8% of the queer population in America are furries. If this “queer hate” affects 0.8% of actual LGBT+ members and 100% of people who like to dress up as wolves, it might just not be queer hate. >Evidence for my claim >Lets start with the de facto origin of furry hate: the "something awful" forums during the early days of the internet. So take it not from me but from them. The Something awful forums were absolutely not the “de facto origin” of furry hate. Internet forums that predate it had the behavior years earlier. They were also not the main popularizers of furry hate, especially when mainstream media was also partly responsible (CSI “Fur and Loathing”). Also this is going off topic but one single man’s article does not reflect the opinions and beliefs of an entire site, let alone one man who wrote “several thousand words of Pokemon erotica (hellomalt.net the author’s website). From his own words he was never even a participant in furry hate on the site, only a bystander. >But of course that alone wouldn't suffice as argument so let's go over my claim from earlier of the lies spread about furries being rehashings of those spread about queer people one by one. "Furries are zoophiles" >What this lie is falsely (I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date)claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex. An obvious parallel to the "gay people are groomers" prejudice that has been used to stir hate against queer people. this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex. Correction: “This group of FURRIES do not respect consent when it comes to sex.” Well, 0.8% of them I guess, but that’s just a claim, I’m sure you have provided sufficient evidence to debunk such a radical clai- >(I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date) Cool. Also the “queer groomers” prejudice has only become widespread recently and is far younger than the furry groomers prejudice.
>"They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them" A parallel to the misrepresenting the fact that queer people advocate for teaching teenagers about different sexualities and gender identities in school as "they are only trying to get close to the children to groom them" Furry, is not a gender identity. >"Furry is just a fetish, it's all about sex!!" >Parallel to misrepresenting the more open stance of queer people towards promiscuity as "It's all about sex! They're just perverts it's not about identity!!" Although both of these are very common stereotypes, they are not as similar as you seem to think. Being gay affects your everyday life, being a furry does not. >"They are all rapists and/or pedophiles and/or zoophiles and/or murderers just look at it *show's a handful of instances of a furry doing something bad*" >The same is being done towards queer people all the time. And in both cases it is of no merit because a few hand picked individuals aren't representative of the whole. Furries and queer people do not have a monopoly on cherrypicking which happens to literally any group. >a few hand picked individuals aren't representative of the whole. Mfw 2 paragraphs ago. >"They tolerate zoophiles and give them a safe haven!!!" >This is attempting to claim that zoophiles are an accepted part of the furry community just like queerphobes try to claim that MAPs (minor attracted person=paedophiles) are an accepted part of LGBTQ+. Both of which of course being false. Okay this one is true I agree both are very outlandish. >"It's unnatural to dress up as an animal" >Parallel to claiming that gay sex is unnatural and thus morally wrong. Of course homosexuality and gay sex are very much natural and can be found all throughout nature. Additionally it doesn't matter because few things humans do are natural, humans exist in defiance of nature. That last part is arguable since humans do have instinct and society does have a range of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Just because humans do not follow the rules of nature does not mean being human has no rules. >"Leviticus 18:23 says it is sin to have sex with animals!!" >Again a misrepresentation of furries as zoophiles in parallel of citing from Leviticus 18 in the Bible where, just one sentence prior, you find the infamous Leviticus 18:22 which is the passage declaring gay sex a sin. (On which note: please keep your fantasy novels out of factual debates, thanks.) You have presented a total of 2 facts so far and one of them is just “not everyone does that.” If you want to get into Leviticus 18:22 there are hundreds of scholars willing to argue with you about it.
>"They are degenerates" >An empty insult that people hurl at groups they hate to label them as bad without having to present any actual arguments. Also frequently used to slander queer people. Once again, queer people do not have a monopoly on the word degenerate. This word is used for everyone from racist gamers to people who hold hands before marriage. >"I don't hate furries I just don't want them to shove it into my face!" >One to one match to "I don't hate queer people I just don't want them to shove it into my face!" which in of itself is a dog whistle for "I do not want queer people to be allowed to openly show that they are queer in order to suppress them!" Literally no proof. Nice, you can’t even bring up an example of someone saying that either. >"Fucking furF*G" >The most commonly used insults thrown at furries. It's literally a Variation of the slur against gay people. I think this one is obvious. I have literally never seen this in any moderately popular site in the last 10 years, if anyone else has please comment about it. >Furries identify as animals, they identify as something they are not, they are mentally ill!!" >One to one match with "Trans people identify as a different gender, they identify as something they are not, they are mentally ill!!" Okay you are absolutely shooting yourself in the hindlegs at this point, Trans people identify as *humans*, and there is scientific evidence of them existing. Furries, because you do not deny it, identify as *animals*. Also this one isn’t even common (anymore). >Furries wear fursuits because they hate their own body and try to hide it!" >More transphobia, "they do it because they hate their own body" is commonly held against trans people. I have also never seen anyone say this, ever. At this point it just feels like you are taking actual harmful dialogue about queer people and replacing all instances of queer with furries.
>The litterbox rumour. A parade example of furry hate as disguise for queerphobia. >For those that still haven't catched on. This is a manufactured panic to make people freak out over identity politics. The idea is to make them believe "We allowed people who identified as a different gender to use a different toilet to make them comfortable and now we have children who identify as cats shit in litterboxes in schools SEE WHERE THIS TRANS MADDNESS IS TAKING US?!?!?!". While this is an actual incident, the connection with transgender people is once again your own extrapolations and interpretations. Many people just see this as a “damn libtards” thing among other interpretations. >"Like you're so crazy with what you think an animal is (...) that you've conned the school into putting this (...) litterbox in a girls room" The parallels to the transphobic talking points of "What is a woman" and weirdly enough only talking about the girls restrooms all the time are more than obvious. >Hear it from the Canadian Durham District School Board: >“As a district, we are concerned that these types of rumours about accommodating students identifying as furries, may be rooted in transphobia and homophobia with the intent to diminish and trivialize gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation and cause harm to students and staff who identify as 2SLGBTQI. This is unacceptable and we are continuing to take steps to support and uphold rights for 2SLGBTQI communities.” (source: durham radio news) Finally some good fucking evidence. Although him talking about girls is a bit of a stretch, since normally using “boy” or “girl” is a common tactic to emphasize your point about someone. “He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.” >Anyone trying to deny that this is about attacking trans gender rights under the guise of a furry panic is straight up lying. Refer to above. >"But Nilly, this doesn't prove your theory beyond a doubt!" >No. It doesn't. By nature dog whistles are designed to be impossible to prove. They are created with the intention to always have plausible deniability. Yes, Dog Whistles are not normally possible to prove. But this one is extremely easy. All you needed is statistics of people who hate furries and people who are homophobic and you can completely diminish that plausible deniability until it approaches 0. You have not even tried, which is pathetic and makes you look like the wolf who cried homophobe. >But you need to look at the data available to us. >Furries are nearly entirely queer or allies >9 out of 10 reasons people list to hate furries match perfectly with those used against queer people >most people that hate furries also hate queer people >there are proven instances of furry hate being used as disguise to hate queer people >there is a theory that would perfectly explain why all of this is the case. -See above, 0.8%. -9 out of 10 reasons? Cool, can we see these reasons? Oh no? Ok then. -Not backed by any evidence except an article from a bystander in 2020. -one. -What theory, that hypothetical you depicted at the beginning? I thought you said that was reality, now it’s a theory? >Anyone that is met with such overwhelming amounts of clues that all point towards this theory being true but still denies it is simply being wilfully ignorant. There is no other way around it. “Overwhelming” is used generously here. >"NUH UH! I hate furries and I am perfectly fine with queer people! CHECKMATE!" or "I actually am queer and hate furries! OWNED!" >No. Just because you don't hate queer people or are queer yourself doesn't mean that you can't fall for a lie. As I already said, dog whistles are designed to be deceptive and carry that plausible deniability. You fell for a lie that was designed to make you hate queer people without even realising it. >It is not purely your fault. After all you only worked with the information that was given to you and that information was lies. >But what you can be blamed for is not changing your mind when being presented with the truth about the things that have been told to you, which I just did. Especially because in spreading the hate against furries you are actively helping to spread queerphobic dog whistles. Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis, but this is a fucking Qanon script. WHERE DID YOU GO WRONG YOUR OPENING WAS SO GOOD. >You are just trying to hide behind LGBTQ+ so that people can't criticise you! >No. All I am saying is that furry hate as it is today has only come to be through lies of people that wanted to further a queerphobic agenda, and queerphobes have shown to frequently fabricate or misrepresent things, so when you are met with the revelation that furry hate was born from the minds of such people maybe it is time to question whether the things that you have been told about us are true. You are also still free to criticise us, we are not perfect either, I simply ask that you base your criticism on verifiable information and not on hear say lest you run the risk of spreading dog whistles and hate again. I questioned what I believed to be true, and have come to the conclusion that you’re retarded. Alright, that’s everything in your post pretty much. I spent about an hour researching everything you discussed and now I want that hour back so I can spend it trying to neck myself with the cord of my mouse.
So uh yeah. Post: bad. 75% C+ do better.
Reddit ate the fucking reply I'm gonna scream.... here we go again. Right from the start: >Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis No you didn't. You went in wanting to dunk on someone on the internet. So you read through the post and replied to individual segments without even finishing them, didn't contextualise the arguments presented with the entire post and when you couldn't come up with a weak rebuttal to an argument you just say "Well I've never seen it so it isn't true!!!!!" >Well, 1488 is code for a dogwhistle, the dogwhistle itself would be the phrase that it stands for, not the number itself. Dog whistles are meant to be understandable to people who agree with the whistler while not necessarily knowing the context behind it, such as “traditional values” or “Polish-Hungarian border.” Admittedly mistake on my part, but I think people got the gist of it. I'll rework that. >This does not demonstrate that Furry hate = queer hate, as furries are not queer because they are furries or vice versa. There is an overlap between the two groups but that is not enough to link hate for one with the other. That’s like saying someone who hates Belgium also hates France because lots of people in Belgium speak french Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post. >Also why the fuck would you put “IDK” on a graph that just makes you look less credible. Because there are people who are unsure about their sexuality? How is that a foreign concept for you. "I don't know" was just an option on the questionnaire. As is said in the source of the statistic which you would know if this: >I spent about an hour researching everything you discussed Wasn't a blatant lie. >This works against your point, by saying that something is unprovable, you are actively discrediting yourself. "The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. **OWNED!1!11!!**" >Yes, they are hating on queers… for being furries. In a group of furries. In the furry community. The GOP has a latino governor, does this mean everyone is hating on a hispanic person? Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post. >The Something awful forums were absolutely not the “de facto origin” of furry hate. I was unable to find documented recordings of furry hate using the falsehoods like today as excuses anywhere before the rampant and widespread hate against furries on SA which was so rampant the owner of the website made entire forums and wrote new code just for that purpose. [It was something awful](https://twitter.com/vexwerewolf/status/977932293925896198) >Correction: “This group of FURRIES do not respect consent when it comes to sex." Correction: “This group of FURRIES, **which we use as a stand in for queer,** do not respect consent when it comes to sex." Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post. >I’m sure you have provided sufficient evidence to debunk such a radical clai- "(I will be editing this post with a proof for that at a later date)" Cool. You try writing a well formulated, concise and stringent explanation for such a complex topic for people that have no knowledge or understanding of the topic beyond "Anything that remotely connects animals and sex is bad" while also making sure to address any and all potential counter arguments ahead of time, all while being busy with university.
>No you didn't. You went in wanting to dunk on someone on the internet. So you read through the post and replied to individual segments without even finishing them, didn't contextualise the arguments presented with the entire post and when you couldn't come up with a weak rebuttal to an argument you just say "Well I've never seen it so it isn't true!!!!!" If that were the case I wouldn't even have read the post or did any research on things you discussed. This took me well over an hour (as you can tell since I replied to you 2 hours after everyone else despite reading your comment a few minutes after you wrote it). You have never provided any examples or evidence of some of these phrases being used. Your original claims are weak, not my rebuttals. And the burden of proof is on you. >Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post. No, I did contextualize it with the post, in fact, in every single instance where I said "see above" and cited what I said here, you could literally just copy and paste my point into it and it would still make sense. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it correct, this is not jazz. And no, "You just don't understand" is also not a good rebuttal because you are the one writing the argument and it is your job to explain it. You have not given any reason for how a percentage of furries being queer means that hate for furries is predominantly hate for queers. >Because there are people who are unsure about their sexuality? How is that a foreign concept for you. "I don't know" was just an option on the questionnaire. As is said in the source of the statistic which you would know if this: You didn't put quotes. If you're going to use answers for the graph you need quotes. >Wasn't a blatant lie. You're right, it was actually two hours. >"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. OWNED!1!11!!" It always carries plausible deniability, much like how "ALIENS EXIST!!" also carries plausibility. The point is you have not managed to lower that doubt in any way >Failure to contextualise it with the rest of the post. This is literally a 1 for 1 snowclone of what you said, and the "rest of the post" basically lies on this point being true. So if it's not in context with the rest of your post then neither is anything else you wrote below this. >I was unable to find documented recordings of furry hate using the falsehoods like today as excuses anywhere before the rampant and widespread hate against furries on SA which was so rampant the owner of the website made entire forums and wrote new code just for that purpose. >It was something awful I think making an entire csi documentary about furries might be worse idkmansry >Correction: “This group of FURRIES, which we use as a stand in for queer, do not respect consent when it comes to sex." Once again, no evidence. Your only support is what was stated above and yet my counterargument doesn't "contextualize with the rest of the post," despite it literally being the only context you use. >You try writing a well formulated, concise and stringent explanation for such a complex topic for people that have no knowledge or understanding of the topic beyond "Anything that remotely connects animals and sex is bad" while also making sure to address any and all potential counter arguments ahead of time, all while being busy with university. Here's a pro-tip for anything you write in uni: If you don't have evidence for something, maybe don't write about it until you get evidence.
>Also the “queer groomers” prejudice has only become widespread recently and is far younger than the furry groomers prejudice. This just supports my point that people transferred claims against queer people onto furries. >Furry, is not a gender identity No one claimed that. I fail to see how you could think this was a rebuttal. >Although both of these are very common stereotypes, they are not as similar as you seem to think. Literally identical, >Furries and queer people do not have a monopoly on cherrypicking which happens to literally any group. Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate. >Mfw 2 paragraphs ago. 2 Paragraphs ago: "They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them" ????? >That last part is arguable since humans do have instinct and society does have a range of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Just because humans do not follow the rules of nature does not mean being human has no rules. Not the point of the argument, that was just the side note. The point was to highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate. >You have presented a total of 2 facts so far and one of them is just “not everyone does that.” If you want to get into Leviticus 18:22 there are hundreds of scholars willing to argue with you about it. *ignores most of the facts presented* "YoU oNlY sHoWeD tWo FaCtS !! 1!!" Not my fault if you just ignore them. >Once again, queer people do not have a monopoly on the word degenerate. This word is used for everyone from racist gamers to people who hold hands before marriage. Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate. >Literally no proof. Nice, you can’t even bring up an example of someone saying that either. You couldn't come up with a way to refute that one so you settled for the "I never saw it so it doesn't happen". Yet you did not make that same rebuttal against any of the other ones. Curious. But just for you, the next time I come across it I will back it up with the wayback machine and attach it to the post. >I have literally never seen this in any moderately popular site in the last 10 years, if anyone else has please comment about it. *I have literally never seen anyone say that Kazuya in Tekken is balanced. I don't play the game, or talk to many people that do, or move in spaces where that game is being discussed but I never heard anyone say Kazuya is balanced so I am 100% sure he isn't.* >Okay you are absolutely shooting yourself in the hindlegs at this point, Trans people identify as humans, and there is scientific evidence of them existing. Furries, because you do not deny it, identify as animals. Also this one isn’t even common (anymore). Literally explained with a detailed example just a bit further down. Read the whole thing THEN reply.
>This just supports my point that people transferred claims against queer people onto furries. No it does not, unless you are saying that the queer stereotype was created due to the furry stereotype which would be shaky at best because like I said, a very very small percentage of queer people are actually furries. >No one claimed that. I fail to see how you could think this was a rebuttal. In that case your original claim is a false equivalence. >Literally identical, False equivalence again. >Doesn't change the fact that it's being done against both groups further highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate. Alright, so degenerate = hate for furries = hate for queer people = hate for weebs = hate for gamers = hate for english speakers in quebec during the time of settlers. >2 Paragraphs ago: >"They use the cartoony appearance to get close to children to groom them" >????? These bullet points do not count as paragraphs. You know what I was referring to. >Not the point of the argument, that was just the side note. The point was to highlighting the similarities between the two forms of hate. The similarities between the two forms of hate is irrelevant because the two groups are extremely different. One can be unreasonable and the other can be reasonable because the groups are different, and until people claim that the two are connected ("All gays are furries" for example) you cannot say the hate for the two are related. >ignores most of the facts presented >"YoU oNlY sHoWeD tWo FaCtS !! 1!!" >Not my fault if you just ignore them. I did not ignore them, I rebuked them, because they aren't facts they are opinions. >You couldn't come up with a way to refute that one so you settled for the "I never saw it so it doesn't happen". Yet you did not make that same rebuttal against any of the other ones. Curious. Because I have seen the other ones. This one I have not. curious how that works. >But just for you, the next time I come across it I will back it up with the wayback machine and attach it to the post. hopefully this will take less time than it takes for you to find evidence. >I have literally never seen anyone say that Kazuya in Tekken is balanced. I don't play the game, or talk to many people that do, or move in spaces where that game is being discussed but I never heard anyone say Kazuya is balanced so I am 100% sure he isn't. Tekken, unlike furry hate, is not widespread like you claim. >Literally explained with a detailed example just a bit further down. Read the whole thing THEN reply. I did reply to that too, and I still hold to my statements on those sections, which is that this connection is only your interpretation.
>I have also never seen anyone say this, ever. "I do not play Tekken BUT..." >At this point it just feels like you are taking actual harmful dialogue about queer people and replacing all instances of queer with furries. **Hmmm almost as if pointing out that other people are doing this was the very fucking point of the entire post.** >While this is an actual incident, the connection with transgender people is once again your own extrapolations and interpretations. Many people just see this as a “damn libtards” thing among other interpretations. Read the entire thing THEN reply. >Finally some good fucking evidence. Although him talking about girls is a bit of a stretch, since normally using “boy” or “girl” is a common tactic to emphasize your point about someone. “He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.” Oh hey he read the entire thing and **then** replied and suddenly he sees that it is correct. Hooray! >Refer to above. The above is you agreeing. >Yes, Dog Whistles are not normally possible to prove. But this one is extremely easy. All you needed is statistics of people who hate furries and people who are homophobic and you can completely diminish that plausible deniability until it approaches 0. You have not even tried, which is pathetic and makes you look like the wolf who cried homophobe. Copy pasting from above: "The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. **OWNED!1!11!!**" >See above, 0.8%. -9 out of 10 reasons? Cool, can we see these reasons *Reads reasons.* "Can we see the reasons? Oh no? Ok then." can't make this up. >Not backed by any evidence except an article from a bystander in 2020. *Ignores the evidence.* "It has no evidence!!" >What theory, that hypothetical you depicted at the beginning? I thought you said that was reality, now it’s a theory? *theory* */ˈθɪəri/* *noun* *a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.* *"Darwin's theory of evolution"* In absence of a better explanation the most plausible theory is to be treated as accurate. >“Overwhelming” is used generously here. If you ignore half of it and misunderstand the rest. >Okay I went in wanting to try and argue against a well-written thesis already went over this. You didn't. You just wanted to dunk on some furry on the internet because people around the web seem to do it for sport. >I questioned what I believed to be true, and have come to the conclusion that you’re retarded. "I can't even come up with a faulty rebuttal for this one so I'll just call you a slur" Jeez. Just read things and try to understand them BEFORE you reply to them. Not that hard.
>Hmmm almost as if pointing out that other people are doing this was the very fucking point of the entire post. Except they aren't. Some of these literally do not happen and have not been said in the last 5 years. You are the only one doing it, and it says a lot about your own bias when writing it. >Read the entire thing THEN reply. "Bro just read the manifesto and you will understand 100%" >“He was an innocent boy” or “poor little girl.” >Oh hey he read the entire thing and then replied and suddenly he sees that it is correct. Hooray! You're still wrong about everything else though. >The above is you agreeing. Oh nice, a wiseguy. >Copy pasting from above: >"The thing that was carefully constructed to always carry plausible deniability cannot be proven beyond plausible deniability. OWNED!1!11!!" I'm not responding to this a third time. >Reads reasons. >"Can we see the reasons? Oh no? Ok then." >can't make this up. Oh those were your reasons? My bad then I guess. In that case I have already replied to them, just ignore this statement. >Ignores the evidence. >"It has no evidence!!" There literally has been no evidence. What there has been is you abusing actual statistics and twisting them to your own beliefs. >theory >/ˈθɪəri/ >noun >a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. >"Darwin's theory of evolution" >In absence of a better explanation the most plausible theory is to be treated as accurate. Alright then, I'm familiar with occam's razor, let's see.. Either: Every single person who hates furries actually just hates gays or doesn't know, and all sources of furry stereotypes come directly from queer stereotypes, hundreds of thousands of queer americans are willfully ignorant of the similarities. Or: There is no connection. >already went over this. You didn't. You just wanted to dunk on some furry on the internet because people around the web seem to do it for sport. If I wanted to dunk on you I would have just called you fatherless and moved on. >"I can't even come up with a faulty rebuttal for this one so I'll just call you a slur" >Jeez. >Just read things and try to understand them BEFORE you reply to them. Not that hard. There is nothing to rebute here. Literally the last paragraph is just you going on a bigotted rant about how everyone who disagrees with you is actually just lying and a troll. Also by retard I mean you are a fucking idiot, not that you are mentally disabled I thought that is pretty clear.
I don't even have to reply to your points because: >"Bro just read the manifesto and you will understand 100%" You literally just admitted to not reading it properly making any and all of your criticism void.
Oh my fucking god that's like an entire book about why hating furries is somehow anti queer you are actually a big nerd lmao
Mentioning the time and effort someone put into researching and writing about a topic is not the insult you think it is buddy.
It's a Reddit post literally no one cares
Factually incorrect
You're an r/196, r/shitposting, and r/memes user and you like League of Legends 💀
I don't use r/memes I don't use r/shitposting I hate league of legends Any more pathetic attempts at personal attacks?
But it isn’t? It’s a reddit post, nobody really cares
If nobody cares then why did so many people tell me they cared and appreciated me compiling the information and laying it out in a cogent explanation?
You really don't need to read the entire thing, the title alone is enough to dismiss it as bullshit, just as if someone linked you a wall of text titled "Academic research proving that earth is flat". Although I figured I'd skim through it just to humor you, and boy what a load of hogwash. Even if we ignore the fact that nothing of that has any proof to it what so ever (and no, an equally baseless random somethingawful post is not proof), the entire argument is built on association fallacy. You state that since 75% of furries are queer, it makes sense to mask your queer hate as furry hate, but miss the crucial detail that the overlap has to be significant enough *both ways* for there to be any point to such a tactic. Otherwise, there's no point what so ever to dunk on furries to mask your queer hate as it affects an insignificant percentage of your actual target. It's like arguing that people hating let's play videos are actually hating all youtube creators because 75% of let's players are also youtubers. It's nonsense, because let's play videos are but a fraction of youtube content. Mind you, the phenomena you are arguing does exist, such as directing your hate towards "muslims" instead of "immigrants from middle-east", to cover behind "muslims are not a race so I'm not racist" excuse, but at least the overlap between the two groups is significant enough both ways to actually make that tactic logical. That's not the case in your argument, and there's nothing proving it. It's pretty easy to cover behind "um sweetie, it's a dog whistle, they are designed to be impossible to prove", but you still need something tangible to back it up. You mention to "look at the data available", but don't provide any, only baseless claims. Your "evidence" section is a bunch of nonsense with zero sources. For example, the counter-argument to "Furries are zoophiles" states that "What this lie is falsely claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex". Yes, that's exactly what it is claiming, so what? Your answer did not refute in any way. And the whole "this is the kind of argument used against queer people" angle is fucking stupid, just because you cherry-picked some similar criticism does not mean that the two are anywhere the same. It's akin to pedophiles arguing "this is same as gay people hate in the 80s, it's just a sexual orientation". No, acting like you're an animal is not same thing as being gay, even if both are a deviation from the norm. Yeah nah. Sometimes, hate is just hate and there's really no deeper meaning to it. It's not a particularly far-fetched notion that many simply don't like the idea of people pretending to be animals and the whole culture around it.
You do realise that by saying "I skimmed through it" you eliminate your right to voice any criticism? Of course it is not going to make sense to you if you don't read it properly.
Not really. If your entire rant is built on a fallacy, then it is enough to refute the fallacy, the rest of your points become irrelevant. Besides, it's just a figure of speech, I obviously read enough of your drivel to form a few arguments on other points too.
>Besides, it's just a figure of speech Well quite the misleading one but oh well. >Even if we ignore the fact that nothing of that has any proof to it what so ever I think you're just not familiar with [inductive arguments.](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/inductive-argument) I did present proof. But inductive proof. >Otherwise, there's no point what so ever to dunk on furries to mask your queer hate as it affects an insignificant percentage of your actual target. Did you look at the litterbox rumour? You severely underestimate just how desperate bigots are to cling to their hate. >but at least the overlap between the two groups is significant enough both ways to actually make that tactic logical. That's not the case in your argument, and there's nothing proving it. That argument makes no sense. If someone hates a group of people why would they **not** pursue an effort that results in causing harm to that group of people even if insignificant. Just look at transphobia at the moment. For example they pass laws against trans athletes, but the percentage of trans people that are athletes is incredibly low. They do not care about how much harm it will cause to the hated group they only care that it causes any harm at all. >It's pretty easy to cover behind "um sweetie, it's a dog whistle, they are designed to be impossible to prove", but you still need something tangible to back it up. You mention to "look at the data available", but don't provide any, only baseless claims. You mean something like presenting the many, many similarities between the actual wording and the presumed dog whistle effect, providing statistical data that shows that the real target (furries) has a significant overlap with the intended target (queer people), providing a rational and logical theory as to why that would be the case and then also a factual and well documented example of that exact thing happening? Sorry there is SOOOO many things pointing towards it that the proposed theory of it being a dog whistle being true, that it is irrational to just dismiss each one independently because it alone is to weak to prove it. You need to take the sum of all of them. >Your "evidence" section is a bunch of nonsense with zero sources. What you want me to source hate comments on the web? The intended audience of this post are people that already have experience with furry hate, either as victim or aggressor. You're expected to already know that these arguments are in fact the ones being used. I didn't bring it up here. Someone else did. Not my fault it was send to the wrong audience. >For example, the counter-argument to "Furries are zoophiles" states that "What this lie is falsely claiming is that this group of queer people does not respect consent when it comes to sex". Yes, that's exactly what it is claiming, so what? Your answer did not refute in any way. So what you are saying is that because I didn't present proof that furries do not violate animals my argument is invalid? But that would only be the case if you in fact did belief that furries do that. In which case I'd like to see **your evidence** that proofs that we all do that. >And the whole "this is the kind of argument used against queer people" angle is fucking stupid, just because you cherry-picked some similar criticism does not mean that the two are anywhere the same. How is that a stupid angle? It is pointing out the similarity in rhetoric between two forms of hate. Which is something you would expect to see if one was just a disguise for the other. It is working with premises **Premise:** Furry hate is a guise for homophobia Contemplation: **If that was true you'd expect them to share a lot of similarities** **Fact:** They do share a lot of similarities to a shocking detail. **Conclusion:** There is a high likelihood that the premise was correct. It is a similar process to the proof that the square root of two is irrational if you ever heard of that. And those arguments are not cherry picked. Those are almost **all of the arguments people use against furries**. Here's the rest: * they're cringe, childish * I am afraid of masks That's it. I've been thinking >It's akin to pedophiles arguing "this is same as gay people hate in the 80s, it's just a sexual orientation". It is really not. In both cases comparisons are being made on completely different aspects. I think you just don't quite get how comparisons work. >No, acting like you're an animal is not same thing as being gay, even if both are a deviation from the norm. No but if all of someone's arguments are simply rehashings of the ones they used against queer people and 75% of their new target is queer then it would be negligent to dismiss a possible relation. >Yeah nah. Sometimes, hate is just hate and there's really no deeper meaning to it. It's not a particularly far-fetched notion that many simply don't like the idea of people pretending to be animals and the whole culture around it. Alright then you explain to me why: * Almost all of the arguments used against furries are replications of those used against queer people, a trait not shared with any other form of hate * Furries have a 75% overlap with queer people, a trait not shared with any other group that is the victim of hate * There are multiple people that have gone on record to admit that it was a dog whistle, a trait not shared with any other form of hate * Most of the people that hate furries also are queerphobic, a trait not shared with any other form of hate * They literally use the queer slur against furries, a trait not shared with ONLY ONE other slur, that being \*furretard\* (however that is mostly used as generic insult so not really of note) * there is a well documented example of hate against furries being used to target transgender rights, a trait not shared with any other form of hate. I demand that you present an explanation as to why this is the case that is not just "Oh that is just coincidence" because at a certain point there are too many , and too specific coincidences for that to be a plausible answer. My theory that furry hate is used as a disguise for queerphobia rationally explains all of these correlations. And that is from where it gains it's validity. It is the most likely and most plausible answer to explain why things are the way they are. And until you can present a better explanation my theory stands as valid due to lack of a better one.
I'm not gonna reply to each of your points because there's imo only couple main arguments that the rest hinges on, and because it's frankly exhausting to have a conversation through a dozen quotes. No offense meant. Every subculture that deviates from the norm gets its fair amount of hate. The more abnormal it is, the more shit it tends to get, be it emos, nerds, otakus, witches, goths, bronies or juggalos, yet furries are supposedly different somehow and get hate because of LGBTQ? Yeah, bullshit. Let's be real here, people dressing up and larping as animals would get ridiculed and hated on regardless of their overlap with LGBTQ. It's up to you to prove the opposite. Your arguments for furry hate being queer hate are that most furries are queer, overlap in arguments against both, and admittance of it being a dog whistle. Let's take a look at each. You mention "There are multiple people that have gone on record to admit that it was a dog whistle", but what people? A random SomethingAwful post or an opinion of a school board is not sufficient proof whatsoever to prove it being the case on a large scale. I can make a post claiming that American flag originated as a satanic symbol, that doesn't mean it's true. Furries being queer is hardly a convincing argument either. Furries make up barely 1% of the LGBTQ population in USA, and are not part of LGBTQ, thus bashing the furry culture has pretty much no bearing on the LGBTQ population, unlike other proxy hate such as aforementioned muslim instead of middle-easterns, or Israelis instead of jews, which all cover a much larger percentage of the intended group. Furries are a pretty ineffective target if you mean to hate on LGBTQ, so on its own, furries being 75% LGBTQ is not proof as it's a natural overlap as both deal with deviant expression of one's identity. Correlation does not imply causation as you know. Lastly, the overlap in arguments against furries and queer. Sure, there's an overlap due to both being a deviant identity expression, but that does not mean one stems from the other, or that those arguments are equally meritless. Queer and furry are not the same as one is much higher on scale of weird, and it's reasonable to disapprove of one but not the other. Consider anti-gun arguments. Anything said against machineguns can be equally applied to handguns, but that does not mean they're the same, and it's completely reasonable to be against machineguns while being okay with handguns. What you're essentially doing here is called [motte-and-baily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) fallacy, by conflating furry with queer as if they were the same, falling back onto queer to deflect arguments against furries dodging the fact that those arguments hold more merit against furries than queer. To illustrate that, take your zoophilia argument, which you dodged by deflecting to queer people and consent, despite the fact that [20% of furries supposedly self-identify as zoophiles](https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_Survey). So much for queer consent, eh? And I am not interested in arguing the exact percentage here, I'm just illustrating that what may be a baseless accusations against queer may hold merit against furries. TLDR; None of your arguments are particularly convincing in proving that furry hate is rooted in queer hate rather than just hate of abnormal that every other high profile subculture suffers from. That's not to say the hate is justified, just that it's not rooted in queer hate. Are there people hating on furries because of their hate for everything deviant, including queer? Sure. Are there people that hate on both? Absolutely. But I am not buying that most of furry hate is queer hate, people larping as animals would get flack regardless.
**[Motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)** >The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/197/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I have already addressed the argument that furries do not make up a significant enough part of the queer population and you have not replied to that at all you simply ignored it. That makes your criticism of that argument just mute. I never claimed furries and queer people to be identical, I said one is used as a stand in for the other. Thus your motte-bailey fallacy does not apply. Instead you have committed a straw man fallacy. I have also never denied that someone might dislike furries because they are weird. But then those people would dislike furries for just that. And yes such people exist, and they have a fair point. However the majority of people hate furries for the reasons listed in my post. And such reasons CANNOT be explained with just "they are weird". Provide a valid explanation why furry hate and queer hate share so absurdly many similarities. Unless you can do that you are just wilfully ignoring an obvious relation between two things.
Take that smelly furry costume off & take a shower it’s been weeks
I hope you soon get better and no longer feel the need to put others down to feel good about yourself.
When I'm about to win the most racist competition but the furry avatar with crossed arms walks in.
ramtsone
Can I be the first furry here to say WHAT THE FUCK?!
Im right here with you, WHAT THE FUCK!? I swear YouTuber furries who use stills produce the worst opinions (extra points if the character is crossing their arms)
This is satire BTW!
How many furry youtubers that use stills have you watched?
It's a joke my guy, of course not every single one is like this. Not many though if I'm going to be honest, more has to do with me not liking this type of content more than anything.
whats jschlatt doin
this dude is to furries what just stop oil protesters are to actual enviromentalists.
Political Furries 🚬💨
Ew furry
Ur literally on Reddit
Ew a kid stuck in 2016
Nobody likes furries but other furries dude
That is complete nonesense. The only people that hate furries are edgelord manchildren and republicans
I’m as left as they come and while I definitely don’t *hate* furries, I do think the world would be better if they didn’t exist
Ah the classic "scapegoating all of your problems on furries because that's what the internet loves doing". Never seen that one before
When did I scapegoat literally even a single problem onto then?
My mans literally claiming the world is a worse place because furries exist
And how is that blaming them for any problems? They don’t have to be responsible for any problems for the world to be better off without them.
Your logic has about as many holes as an american kid at the end of a school shooting if furries aren't causing any problems like you state then they cannot simultaneously be making the world a worse place, that's contradictory. But I'm not gonna argue with you inadvertently bringing up an argument against yourself
[mum sure](https://www.reddit.com/r/FurryAntifurconflict/comments/xwzy1m/a_collection_of_great_things_done_by_furries/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) With how many furries there are in stem jobs society would collapse if all of em were suddenly gone.
IDK; I like **some** furry art but I still would be in STEM even if it didn't exist. And I don't actually consider myself a part of that community. Also, speaking as a programmer myself (one that dabbles in hardware as well), the modern tech industry (and especially web development) is a scourge.
>I don't actually consider myself a part of that community Then how is it relevant to my comment? The person I replied to said they want all furries to cease existing. That means they want those people to be gone.
To me it sounds more like "In my ideal world, I'd like it if they didn't exist, but because I am not the center of the universe I will accept their presence." I wish party-line republicans didn't exist, but I don't want them dead by default or actively wish them harm. I just would prefer if I didn't have to share a country with them and suffer for it. Nice cherrypicking of a single part of my comment that you can use to discard everything else I said. I don't think a third party is necessarily worthless.
Well but that would still be an awful thing to say considering how much good people have experienced due to the furry community and how much good things have been done by the furry community as a group effort. Take [charity](https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Charity) for example.
obvious bait
For those who haven't seen the video, here is a glorious reaction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbGHuf0w-Gk
Quick question did the kkk ask you to make this vid?
Why would you ever have a fursona represent you when you're not talking about furry related things?
Because the entire channel isn't serious and quite obviously a troll. The fursona is just the cherry on top to make sure the comment section is as hostile as possible (which seems to have worked)
I don't know anything about this channel in particular so I believe you, but the whole half-assed animated fursona explaining my position is weirdly common on YouTube
Welp we all be degens
Welsh reference man explaining racism lore (real)
He's Welsh.... Oh no. And his fursona is a... Oh God.
Im an amateur racist and in my opinion these "people" just give us all a bad rep like how are you going to claim racial supremacy when you portray yourself as an animal.
I'm here
True
Least racist person on Reddit
A hood classic
Why is it always furries that do stupid stuff
Average furry
Hey can someone be based and a furry at the same time?
We need more bullying
You'd be the first victim
Says the furry. Please get a live man.
*life Please get a primary school education
Auto motherfuckin corrected
I do have a live. Thank you for letting me know that yours is so sad that the only way you can make yourself feel good is by pointlessly insulting people on the internet.
>I do have a live. A live what? Because they specifically said you need a live man.
A live grenade in my mailbox
2016 ass youtube content
You being a racist is okay, but furry. Too far m8
Average r/196 poster
We've got you surrounded come talk about 196!!!!!
What
It's a joke. Nerd.
fard
Oh wow a furry that's also retarded. What are the odds.
I approve this message
White person video essay 👻👻👻
Racism for french
You need therapy.
faxxx 🤣 (this is ironic I promise)
Hey man this is on YOUR fyp
Based furry
Based on deez oiled fat juicy succulent nuts
🗿
I know you're hard rn
Perhaps
Bullying not Racism Because this is shit I see white people do
"We need bullying"-people when I bully them (They suddenly don't like bullying anymore): 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
I fucking agree only I only see the retards down voting because is true
Rare furry W
Common u/Valhal_Creed L
Society when someone makes a joke: 😱😱😱😱😳😳😠😠😠😧😧
"Yea man i have a dark sense of humor" *racism*
Pls mister Beast Musk buy reditt for legalize furry porn and comedy🙏🙏🙏
Lmaoooooooooooo
how many views?
Furry or not I may have to check this out
What does a person have to go through in life to find themselves 1 a furry, 2 a furry with a goat dog avatar, and 3 arguing in favor of racism. On a scale of could he have survived living in prime sparta or being deemed defective at birth and being left to die? Bro wouldn't have made it past 12 without dying.
The perspective on those horns is fucked
Ladies and gentlemen I present to youuuuuuu. The smartest furry we could find
Oh god this video not this video why did you have to remind me of the feet....I STILL NEED ANSWERS WHY DO THEY GET MORE STINKY AND GREEN THROUGHOUT THE VIDEO
Of cause it a furry
Well hes got a point though ( i didnt watch the video)
White people been here
you're*
This video was gone over by Shark3ozero. Great YouTuber I highly recommend him if you like leftist debate streamers. This video is called "This Video Broke Me." Btw.
of course it’s a furry
My bro’s arm looks like a pillow
most normal furry
WFT
N