Going where no Therians would dare go before...

[PariahPoet]

If you are still not inclined to be "associated" with the likes of that site... then simply leave, close your account. You CAN create your own site (it isn't as hard as it use to be) and set rules and boundries as to what you allow. That would be the only way around that.

Exactly the reason why I'm on ArtSpots instead of FA. Fantastic art, but with PG13 rating limits.

[Berserker]

As for Furaffinity while I morally don't agree with a lot of the "art" there, the reality is it would be constitutionally wrong to force them to block all content, that isn't "suitable" to MY standards per say. This is where Freedom of Speech comes into play. Once we start deeming what is appropriate to view, listen to, or whot-knot, then we might as well toss Freedom of Speech out the window.

Actually, Nitke v. Gonzalez in 2005 already upheld the prerogative of the United States Government to prohibit obscene material from protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution (also known as the Miller Test, a precedent which has existed for decades.) Whether or not that throws "Freedom of Speech out the window" is up for debate.

With that said, technically, it is well within the users' rights to pressure FurAffinity into denying, suppressing, or censoring any or all content, given that private users do not represent a government organization and are not obligated to uphold the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in the first place.

The same reasoning applies to Amazon.com, who recently pulled a book promoting pedophilia from it's marketplace.

As for my personal opinion on the matter. If furries want to keep digging a hole for themselves by allowing or promoting questionable content like "cub" art, thereby reinforcing public stereotypes that they are sick weirdos and ensuring that their fandom is never fully accepted and never breaks into the mainstream, then that's their right.

I also disagree with Vagrant's analysis of segregation of culture. I would cite Spengler's cyclical model for civilization and counter that we are actually reaching an end-point for modern society, with desegregation of ideas actually being an early symptom of mass cultural decay, given that cosmopolitanism stagnates culture by eliminating the unique traits of all groups involved, resulting in an aimless and unidentifiable conglomerate. High materialism and consumerism demand it. Vagrant's feeling that something "just isn't right" about the world might in fact be this, and not the opposite.

[alphanubilus]

I wasn't arguing against freedom of expression...

As for my comment about Jeffrey Dohmer... Understand this most serial rapists, serial killers, and other criminally deviant peoples of the world didn't start out that way. They focused on a fetish, and when they couldn't get a (for lack of better word) bonner off their "innocent" hobby any longer, it escalated to something worse. In short the innocent hobby that didn't hurt anybody eventually escalated to something that did. Just remember that kid who murdered all of those people at the Virginia College... He fantasied getting the chance to kill a lot of people, and drew graphic pictures depicting him doing these deeds... Soon enough... he DID commit those acts.

Sexual fetishes can be dangerous if not kept in check. As I stated in my last post, most normal people know when to draw (oh pun!) the fine line between keeping fantasy fantasy vs. making it reality.

Personally I feel that if something is morally wrong to do in the real world, then one should think twice about fantasizing about it the first place... but that is just me.

[Morkulv]

But again, then you have to resort to censorship. If you put the ban against something, its only going to escalate more. You basically stated what I was trying to say: if you ban something and people can't practise their fetish anymore in this way, it can escalate for some disturbed people. Its not like a ban will suddenly make these people stop practising their fetish, it will only make them look for a more extreme way to get their rocks off and thats when it starts getting dangerous in my opinion. Let me give an example of what I mean.

There are numerous neo-nazi websites out there on the internet. I'm not going to name anything to avoid promoting any of them, but they have active communities surrounding them. Their forums are full of people's thoughts on subjects that I find politically incorrect and morally wrong. However, I think I would rather see those people sharing these subjects in this way where it doesn't hurt anybody, then taking their agression out on the street where it does.

[Baphnedia]

An alternate view of the desegregation of ideas and the like; not saying that I agree with it, but it certainly got me thinking about ideas, culture and this here thread:
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of- ... rrectness/

[Vagrant]

Hm. I agree with Morkulv.

I also disagree with Berserker, but I don't think we're going to find a common ground there, I think that's more of a philosophical disagreement more than anything else stemming from different backgrounds and with very different outlooks on life, the Universe, and everything. In situations like this, there can be no right or wrong, only differing opinions.

In a situation like this, there is no objective wrong.

May I repeat that?

In a situation like this, there is no objective wrong.

That's a powerful sentence, and I'm not going to throw it around lightly. I don't plan to. I don't really take anything lightly when I step into a discussion like this. I usually don't, I've been trying to avoid serious business in general, to enjoy myself, but lately I've been introspective and this particular topic has piqued my interest. I'm going through one of those cycles where I challenge myself and what I believe in to find the worth, the truth, in it. Not objective truths. But simple self truths. For what truth there is.

There is no objective wrong.

For an objective wrong, you truly need an unethical act which causes suffering, this can be a lack of consent, or forcing something on a creature which is potentially unable to understand what's happening to it; such as a non-sapient animal or a child. Where the ethics are clear, and the suffering is obvious, we can judge the scope of an objective wrong. However, what if we begin to read objective wrongs into everything, even far into the fields of the subjective, and in doing so we create suffering?

Morkulv is correct because he recognises that there is no objective wrong. There is nothing unethical about most fetishes, and even the ones that might be unethical, the majority realise that they shouldn't practise in reality; in a situation where they might not have consent, or where their victim might not even be able to understand what's happpening to them. But most fetishes even revolve around consent and sapient beings. In fact, you'll find that many people with the most bizarre fetishes are turned off by the notion of forced suffering, or non-consensual acts, purely on an ethical basis.

Now here's the kicker.

In my anecdotal experience, I've found that those who do have bizarre fetishes and are generally a bit odd tend to have a better understanding of ethics and responsibility than the average person does. Now why could that be? How could that be? Because they're into something which doesn't have a majority normalisation factor tied to it, so they have to ask themselves questions in regards to that. They have to figure out the very nature of wrongness, of ethics, of joy, and of suffering. Someone on the fringe will find they have to ask themselves these questions more thoroughly than someone who exists more comfortably within a normality factor.

A point I was making earlier though is that a person whom is entirely correct today might not be tomorrow. Normality shifts. There are people here talking about dangerous fetishes, and abominations, and criminal intent, and whatnot. But they haven't taken the time to even consider that this might apply to every person alive. Look at it from a different angle: You might find yourself examined analytically one day, and you might find yourself wanting. There might be elements of yourself that could lead to criminal intent, or that are more than a bit off the wall, but you've never thought about them because they seem normal to you. But if normal shifts, then you're in an entirely new world, and you have to start asking yourself new questions.

And due to the nature of society, "normal" can shift every day. And really, normal is just subdivided into societal cliques, where people try to ape the head of the clique, accepting their particular takes on things as normal. In my opinion, this is how organised religion used to work. And any atrocity could be passed off, because it was a matter of holy people versus heretics. Except today, 'holy people' are 'good, healthy, normal' people, and heretics are 'strange, odd, weird people who worry you with their deviancy'. We look back now, and we see how abnormal and even how abhorrent religion was back then. How heinous some of the acts committed were. But at the time, at that time, everything for them was normal. Today, everything for a person who considers his or herself to be normal, is normal. Normal is a bit of a whitewash, innit?

The point is is that I've long felt that human individuality actually works on a basis of everyone being broken, except we're all broken in slightly different ways. This is why we have so many and varied illnesses to deal with, especially neurological ones, which number into the thousands, and we're still learning about that. What normalcy amounts to in my eyes is that people whom are broken in a similar enough way, who can share a certain verisimilitude in regards to attitude, or appearance, or whatever else, can be considered normal. But here's the fun part; A person can seem 'normal' until you push their buttons. And then they're a raving lunatic because they happen to have one opinion that exists outside of the norm. It's funny how that works, really. And that's why I'm not a fan of segregation. Because segregation is this idea of normality, where everyone of a certain group of normal people is normal, and those outside of that group are not.

But who draws the line? Who dictates what's normal? Who dictates what's abhorrent? And who watches the watchmen in this regard to ensure that the very notions of normalcy aren't just being shaped to whatever might be desirable to certain groups of people?

The thing is is that everyone is a lunatic, when it comes down to it, just in a different way. And this is why you really can't draw a line, because to do so you have to try and say that you're not as much of a loony yourself, when you really are, just in a different way to the next person whom you'd desire to segment off into their own group or faction. And we continue to subdivide like this. I see normalcy as a bit of an anti-intellectual plague, really, and something that stands in the way of human progression. I think that if we could accept that we're all different, and then base objective wrongness upon ethics, then we'd all be better off for it.

I'm sure at some point in the future, we're going to look back and realise how childish this all was. We're going to be amused at how young we were back then. With entire groups of peoples having what could only be considered the equivalent of a schoolyard clique, but on a larger scale, and how this couldn't be recognised for what it was. We're going to look very silly to future generations for this reason, for not being able to set our differences aside and accept every person as an equal, wonderful thing of brilliance. Anyone can be brilliant. And I'll tell you now that most people are brilliant, absolutely magnificent in ways that make me horribly jealous. The people I love, the people I like, the people I absolutely can't stand. All just broken in somewhat different ways.

And that's how I think sapience works, really. Something broke.

What bothers me about segregation is that it seems to happen in the pursuit of some form of perfection. When you look at really elitist, extreme segregationist groups, like White Supremacists and the like, you can really see how they're trying to forge their own image of perfect. Perfectly superior, perfectly normal, and the world should be created in their image, they don't really care to accept and embrace the differences that exist, they'd rather simply modify people to be broken in the same way. And I think that part of this is, on some level, because our brain rewards us for trying to push our own views and opinions on things, and we feel good when we win in this regard. This is something that I honestly hope our race can evolve past if we have any hope for survival, because as long as we keep doing that, we'll constantly look at things through a monochrome filter, like I said. And we'll want to segregate between those people who are like us, who are normal, and those whom aren't fortunate enough to be normal.

In my case, a recent MRI revealed that I have an entertainingly large hole in my brain. There were other elements too, such as things in general not being quite as right as they should be, and I don't want to go into too much detail lest people will rush off to research this and I fear it may be held over me in the future. But suffice it to say, there's a good chance that I'm technically retarded. In other words, I'll never have a chance at following any kind of normal, because I'll never be able to perceive the world in the same way that a person with a somewhat less broken brain (and mine is a spectacular dud) can. And at this point, you have to wonder just how much free will, individuality, and difference amounts to simple physiological differences that we're not able to detect. And if that's true, then trying to segregate people off that one might find undesirable is unethical in and of itself.

In that case, it would be no different than admonishing those whose skin colour is a different shade than yours. And look what happened with that. Those were particularly scary times, I think we can all agree.

I'm different, I'm odd, I have weird fetishes, but I also have a good grip on ethics.

You're different, you're going to be odd to someone, according to someone's view you're going to have weird fetishes, but you'll also likely have a good grip on ethics.

And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. If you have enough of a grasp on ethics, then it doesn't matter what you think, what your opinions are, or what you're into. Because at the end of the day, we're all the same in being different, that's the unifying factor. And in my personal opinion, I think we should embrace that. Yes, people are different. But we're grown-ups now, it's not like we can bully the four-eyes on the schoolyard any more, is it? We are grown ups now, we should be able to look past differences, obvious ones, and more subtle ones. And what is or isn't 'normal' really shouldn't matter to us. Only what is or isn't ethical.

[FoxKnight]

I feel the need to add some stuff now.

1. The problem with us is that we think.

2. Most people have no desire to break the norm for good. We seem to enjoy our cliques, mostly in entertainment, and think less of those who seem beyond the now because they are weird. Many reasons people hold onto their traditional beliefs involve a lack of understanding about what they believe in. Like all of those touchy subjects that Terastas can rightfully bash me about. (By the way, I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and found a lot of it to be truthful. Global warming seems more real to me now but I was not quite as alarmed as I was expecting to be)

3. Ideologies are all valid in theory, but fail when humans are added. That's why Communism failed. That why Democracy is under pressure now. (Who can say what and how much is enough. ie the FA cub art thing). And everything in between is under the same kind of stress. There cannot be a way to govern without someone screwing up the system. Religion as well. (All subjects I plan to write about in a story)

I probably am very different on an MRI test compared to the normal, maybe even mentally retarded too, but I know a good deal more than many of my peers about ethics and nature and other stuff like that. I do find myself thinking that I am odd because I do not partake in social activities very much, have little desire to find a girl friend solely because of her looks, or waste my time being part of cliques that amount to nothing in the end, like sports, but then I see that is all trivial. Which is one reason why I am in this forum. It seemed much more intellectual than anything else I've had the opportunity to be part of.

[Vagrant]

It does at that, it really does at that. I respect many people here, whether I agree with them or not, and hell, some of them might not even realise it. So yep, I like the people here. I might not agree with them, and I'll likely never live up to anyone's standards of normal (even the clique here), but I do respect them. And I suspect I always will.

As for the MRI thing, it was a bit of a revelation for me. I've had a hard time relating to people for most of my life, on the outside, half the time I feel like I'm analytically weighing people up, trying to figure them out like a machine, attempting to understand their motivations, what drives them, what their goals are, what they want out of life, what they want in regards to those around them, and even what they want right now, what they're passionate about, what matters to them, what makes them uniquely who they are.

I often have a hard time seeing a person, I often see the many component parts that make up the gestalt of a person, which is perhaps the reason for what I've learned to suspect is an unusual outlook on life. And people are really very much like biological computers at the end of the day, made up of so many little processes, some of those processes are compatible with each other and some are not. When you take away the 'person', you can find all these little processes that are compatible milling together, the common ground between people. I find that normality tends to take the person out of the equation.

Of course, like I said, anything can upset the delicate ecosystem of normality and at any time, processes could be cast off as abhorrent things, no longer necessary or even desirable for the normality gestalt to function. I think that embracing normality, you give yourself to normality in a way and sacrifice yourself, which reminds me a lot of what I've read about cults of personality, which also play into this; where you have a person who has engineered their image so well into the normal gestalt that they come across as a hero of the modern man or woman. If you're generic enough, you can be a hero to everyone. Which is why many heroes are exceedingly generic.

The problem that I see with normality is that, like I said, people give themselves over to what is normal and thus care less about their own philosophies. Then it becomes a matter of adopting the popular philosophy within each click, and each clique becomes segregated off from the next, because they each have their own version of what normal is, thus sort of creating a normal super person out of the parts of many. This usually results in heroes, celebrities, and what have you, again harking back to the cult of personality. The entertaining part is that people are always so shocked when they find out that certain celebrities aren't all that 'normal', but I digress. What I feel is that if we ever decided to cast away normalcy and accept people for who they were without the need to compare and contrast, then segregation would become completely unnecessary.

To put it succinctly, I suppose people like Grant Morrison and John Lennon describe what I would perceive to be an ideal world rather well. But everyone has their own view of an ideal, and to some people, that ideal includes normality. So at the end of the day, all we can do is the best we can to create outcomes that somehow work for everyone.

But anyway, I can certainly relate to that feeling of 'viewing things from the outside'. But my life experiences have taught me a little bit about the nature of joy, suffering (I've had a few things happen to me of the sort that no one would ever want to have happen to them), and ultimately, of ethics. And I've come to the conclusion that the only important thing to me at the end of the day is ethics. I view people as component parts, and we're all made up of different parts, but none of us actually get to choose those parts.

No one chooses to be gay, or of a certain ethnicity, or inclined toward furry, or weres, or to be otherkin, or what have you. I don't think we really choose any of this stuff, I think it chooses us, so there can be no blame (damn you Erasure). If someone is different, hell, even if they're incredibly perverted, strange, and outright odd, they're not abhorrent. That stuff chose them, it's just the way they were built, and they didn't really have a choice in the matter either. I think that as long as people are ethical, they don't willfully cause suffering, and they do what they can to make the world a better place with them in it than without, then I don't see that we should think negatively of anyone. And I certainly don't believe we should faction off 'undesirables' just because they don't meet a certain 'normality quotient' for any given clique.

Not everyone can have the right parts. But that doesn't mean that they don't have something to contribute.

Gods, I could talk and talk about this. But I'll try and stop for now.