Inkbunny

Yah, but boycotting FA won't do a lick of good. Here? Couldn't hurt.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Why?

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Because they didn't like his views. All he ever did was post journals.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

What views did he have? No art?

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Very conservative views. And he had some artwork, but mostly journals.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Yes, I remember now, but why would someone with conservative ideas be shut down? Doesn't he have the right to express himself?

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Not around here, apparently. :P

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

@ marmelmm

But why not? Do the moderators here dislike conservatives?

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Most of furry fandom dislikes non-liberal due to the problem of people who demand tolerance and open mindedness from other being the most intolerant and closed minded people out there.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Thank you explaining that, so you think furries are intolerant while demanding tolerance? Is that correct?

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

If you've been a furry for more than five minutes then you know that's how a good chunk of them are.

They are extremely respectful and tolerant of the views of others...so long as those views match their own.

Should you have any doubts then find a furry forum and share that you're sad Trump lost the election, feel that Christians had a valid, non-homophobic reason to oppose gay marriage and that science does establish we cannot change our sex by an act of will.

The open minded and tolerant furries will then flame you so hard that you'll be able to use their posts so forge and temper steel.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Well I am not sure whether I agree with your statements about Trump and sex. Personally I didn’t care for Trump and as to changing sex I am not so sure that is impossible. This does however entitle me to flaming you. If you have been flamed by people who claim to be tolerant I am betting most suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect regarding their own ability to remain respectful. This inability isn’t necessarily restricted to furries either. What kind flames did you get that were so bad “you could forge steel”?

Have a nice day, yours, FoxyCubLover

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

LOL, I'm afraid you misunderstood - doesn't matter how you feel on those, although it's nice to see you're willing to live and let live - the point was for you to do to make those claims so you could see that many in fandom are highly intolerant of those with different opinions.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Oh that? I have seen intolerance regarding many other things. You should see what kind reactions me being into cub art got me or what kind of bizarre drawn out debates I get caught up in at the DOSBox and VBForum forums... At times I got so frustrated I forgot to be respectful myself. I actuallly managed to have reasonably civil debate at Rhjunior.com's forums about Trump's impeachtment while there were many Trump supporters over there. I am not a huge fan of Trump.

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Slight difference between fantasizing about having sex with children and disagreeing with someone as to whether taxes should be raised or lowered...

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

True, but are examples of things that set people off when brought up online. I believe just about any topic will go wrong when handled poorly. But it seems I went off topic. What exactly were we talking about to begin with? Something about furries and their tolerance?

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

You expressed surprise at the fact that furries were intolerant of others then admitted you run into it all the time due to you being a cub fan.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

It appears to be an even split with cub, one half despises it, the other embraces it. I don’t see hating cub as a proper example of intolerance because I can understand how people may conflate it with some very real and very horrible phenomenon: actual child abuse.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t people in general intolerant of political views to theirs? Not just furries?

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

You are correct in your assessment of folks with cub so good empathy on your part there.

As for politics, no actually as most non-liberals are pretty reasonable due to politics lacking the personal, emotional element which it possesses for liberals.

That's because non-liberals have empathy and can therefore see where other people are coming from and understand that just because you disagree with them on a particular political issue that this doesn't mean that you're a Nazi.

There are exceptions on both sides of course, but as a general rule if someone is being intolerant towards your political views, assuming you didn't start the discussion with "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, more often than not it'll be a liberal demanding all or nothing and refusing to accept the concept of meeting in the middle.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Okay, my first impression of right wing conservatives was pretty bad. Some guy online who also claimed to be Christian had this tendency to frequently fly off the handle sometimes with obvious reason and sometimes without. Why didn’t I ignore this person? He has several excellent webcomics but visiting his site meant carefully steering away from politics and religion. Another web artist, this time a liberal actually came across as far less unpleasant.

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

As noted, there are exceptions on the right but that are intolerant and exceptions on the left who are tolerant.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

I guess the bad ones stand out the most and give their political leaning a bad name...

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Speak about censored;
Early this week, a gentleman and I were having a conversation during breakfast at a restaurant about illegal immigration.
The gentleman I was talking to mentioned how he believes the policies of this new administration will bring back tuberculosis, polio and malaria back into the country that had been at one time eradicated from the U.S.
I agreed with him saying, "When my family immigrated to this country in 1960, we had to be checked for various diseases".

Two days later when I went back to that same restaurant for breakfast, the owner of the restaurant met me outside the front door and told me, "You can't come back in here any more. One of my customers was offended by things said in a conversation between you and another guy".

Being fed up with all this belligerent shit going on lately, I promptly spit in that restaurant owner's face (some of it being nasal flehm), then I told him, "Fuck you", and walked away.
That pussy ass punk didn't do shit but call me a "faggot" (though I'm not gay). Then when he found out that didn't get a response out of me, he called me "nigger".
I simply flipped that racist clownbag the middle finger as I was walking away. Then I got in my car and drove off.
I actually did...I actually spit square in the face of that simple minded clown. I bet that lard ass white boy never had a biracial person spit nasal flehm in his face before...until then.
I never heard anything from the law about it. I do know there were no witnesses to the incident.

If all this stupid ass leftist shit hadn't been going crazy against our freedom and liberty now days, I'm sure my being kicked out of that restaurant would never have been that last straw that prompted me to spit in the face of that goopy stoopy.

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Tchah! It's all going to end in tears.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

When the owner takes the side of a customer who is eavesdropping on someone else's conversation, he DESERVES to be spit at.

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link

And I have been noticing there are a lot of nosy eavesdroppers around lately in restaurants and other places.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

I don't mind eavesdroppers, but when they think they have the right to curb my speech...

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

That's how I feel about it also.

It seems like one of their favorite lines is to butt in and say, "How 'bout you guys don't talk politics. Let's talk about football or the weather instead".

GreenReaper

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Reasoned criticism of the actions taken by elected and appointed officials is one thing. We drew the line at "skin them alive and then spritz them with acid while setting them on fire and slowly feeding them feet first through a plastic shredder" - one of many gems that "defames or vilifies any person or group".

Inkbunny is a furry art community. We're here to help people share and enjoy furry art and stories, not spread hatred and disinformation. If members want to amuse themselves by acting as a shock-jock, they can do that elsewhere - and if they can't resist the temptation, having been warned, we will enforce that.

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Your playground, your rules. I opt not to participate further.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

You know, it would be really helpful if IB had a block ability, so I don't have to hear their vitriol.

Oh, you have one? Then encourage users to make use of it, rather than MAKING THE DECISION YOURSELF!!

GreenReaper

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Journals can't really be blocked like that - though journal notifications can be stopped by watchers, and a ban will stop @-mention notifications.

That misses the point, though: it's not that it's content members dislike (though surely some do); it's content we don't allow as part of our terms and policies.

When content is posted in violation of these terms - often meaning it violates our hosts' terms, putting the site as a whole at risk - we may first remove the content in question from view and talk with the member concerned. If that doesn't prevent future violations, we eventually have to remove the relevant privilege so they can't post such content.

Such limits are rare for submissions (87 members), twice as rare for comment/PM (45), and twice again for journals (20), over eleven years of operation. The alternative is banning people entirely, which is what many other sites do.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Then your HOST is being hypocritical, allowing cub porn while banning speech.

It's wrong, and you know it.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

First of all, I DEFY you to find that quote about skinning anyone alone in anything Cigarskunk said.

Secondly, I find it the epitome of hypocrisy that IB allows cub porn that is ILLEGAL in many countries, but censors speech which would have been allowed in most.

UTTERLY hypocritical.

GreenReaper

3 years, 2 months ago

link

I used that quote because (aside from a typo) it was part of a journal that was posted. I can forgive you for not reading every part of every journal, because there were over four thousand of them - most entirely unrelated to furry fandom.

Animals, including anthropomorphic animals, are not recognized as people in the legal sense of the word. This is made explicit in U.S. law, which restricts protection to homo sapiens, and is implied elsewhere. Otherwise, zoos would be illegal. We're aware of exceptions for nekomimi and the like in some jurisdictions, and our policies are designed to accommodate those.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Is there a clause in the AUP that says all journals must be furry related? I SERIOUSLY doubt this.

Secondly, I CAN'T read the journals now, because you deleted them. I can only go by what you say it contained. Excuse me if I don't trust your word.

Thirdly, the excuse of US Law works fine in the US. Is access to IB limited only to the US? It is still hypocritical to allow cub porn which is banned in many countries while banning speech which is allowed.

GreenReaper

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

One part of what the terms say is this:

"	you represent and warrant that... your content does not contain material that defames or vilifies any person or group of people and is not harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive or inflammatory

This does not relate specifically to furry fandom. However, it does mention people. Because furry characters are not people, and do not have privacy or publicity rights, discussing them is less likely to lead us to conclude that this term has been broken.

I gave an example of U.S. law because I thought you might find it easier to relate to, and it's one of the few which clearly lays out the distinction - most simply take it for granted that people are human, having separate law to protect against animal abuse and the like (let alone bestiality - another reason we limit human content). Many jurisdictions use the term "natural person", which historically didn't include all humans. (That article links another example of how animals are treated differently in law.)

The most stringent law that we seek to comply with in that area is the UK's prohibited images law. On the face of it, it could be a problem. However, section 65 says a child is "a person under the age of 18". That's because the law's intended to protect people, i.e. humans. Furries - non-human animals - are not legal people, regardless of much furry fans might imagine or wish that they are.

Parliamentary discussion at the time indicated that the text following that extended the definition to covers humans with the addition of "ears or antennae", and Australian case law includes depictions of characters like the Simpsons who have only four fingers; so both such classes of characters are included in our policy.

The only jurisdiction which ever saw fit to take action against Inkbunny's content is Russia, where law prohibits positive depictions of homosexuals as "gay propaganda". We don't feel that bothered about being accessible there. Conversely we have a system to check files against known illegal content in one of our hosts' jurisdictions. This was a requirement for user-content sites there, but one we're OK with, as it involves photos and videos of actual humans that are already forbidden in several ways under our policies.

I left trust for last. The simple answer is that you don't have to trust me, in this instance; for now, you can look at Google, which temporarily cached the content in question. Decide for yourself whether it meets the definition of vilification, but it was enough for us - amid a pattern of glorification of violence against people holding opinions or taking decisions that they disagreed with.

That said, you may have expected us not to act. As noted above, we don't do it very often. We are more permissive than many other furry platforms, especially for furry content - in part because we're adults-only; but also because we have the features you alluded to, and most controversial content posted is in the form of art and stories about fictional characters. (This is also the case for other furry sites I lead, particularly Flayrah and - to an extent - WikiFur.)

But that permissiveness is not limitless, and as another staff member put it "Inkbunny is not a free-speech zone". We're a furry art site - and ultimately, we're not on board with justification or glorification of real-life political violence, such as that which led to the murder of an elected representative in my own country. If that's your thing, you need to go somewhere else for it.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Tell me: has this clause EVER been used on people supporting Antifa and BLM who have both shown their violent side?

I somehow doubt it.

GreenReaper

3 years, 2 months ago

link

I think we got to warning a few people with related journals, but that's probably as far as it went, because they realized "hey, this is a furry site, not a political discussion group". You wrote about this yourself - as far as I can see, it's the only journal you posted on politics in years. Most people do so only from time to time.

What I know has happened (at least for "antifa" discussions) is that we temporarily restricted comments by one or more members. Almost always, though, the vilification has involved sniping at other members. We give those posting top-level content a lot of latitude to police their own space, but at times it's spiralled out of control and we've had to step in.

More commonly (but still rare), account restrictions are used on a longer-term basis to deal with personal vendettas, unrequited artistic or romantic obsessions, fetishes people hate, or outright mental illness. In general, people unwilling or unable to control themselves from lashing out at others. The goal is to let them otherwise enjoy the site, and limit the impact on others.

The actual issue is less important than the resulting behaviour: for example, we've had a fair few rage about the presence of cub; but we've also limited members harassing artists who dislike it. Any position can be problematic when it leads to (for lack of a better term) dehumanizing of "the other", which is subsequently used to justify bad behaviour towards them.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

My behavior can be explained by the liberal use of the block ability.

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

TL;DR. It's been my experience that when people try to defend their position with pages of text, their arguments are generally spurious and not worthy of consideration. Brevity is the soul of wit; try it sometime. :D

Kadm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

@ marmelmm

If someone can't learn after a clear warning, then they're either malicious, or incapable. Either warrants restrictions.

Choosing not to learn because it takes too much effort is willful ignorance. We don't ban the willfully ignorant as a matter of course, but they do often find ways to see themselves out.

Someday, I'd love if someone would explain to me why so many people seem to think Inkbunny is some absolute speech haven, where you can say anything you like. People get super upset when they find out that it's not, but no one has ever told me why people hold this belief in the first place.

I hope those were succinct enough for you.

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

@ Kadm

"	Kadm wrote:
	Someday, I'd love if someone would explain to me why so many people seem to think Inkbunny is some absolute speech haven, where you can say anything you like. People get super upset when they find out that it's not, but no one has ever told me why people hold this belief in the first place.

I dunno. Must be the cub porn. :D

Kadm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

@ marmelmm

So it's entirely a baseless assumption on your part? Gotcha.

Cubs are entirely fictional. They cannot and do not exist in reality. Harm to them isn't real.

Advocating for harm against real people is a world away from anything directed at a completely fictional character that does not and cannot exist.

marmelmm

3 years, 2 months ago

link

@ Kadm

Robin Williams said, "Let the asshole have the last word."

Over to you.

Cigarskunk

3 years, 2 months ago

link

That's actually not accurate nor honest as I did not advocate doing those things, instead, I stated that those punishments were insufficient for the crimes which had been outlined.

I'm afraid you're spreading disinformation here.

FoxyIbLover

3 years, 2 months ago

link

What happened?

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

IB has been gagging accounts whose views they disagree with.

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Kind of like Twitter and Youtube has been for a while?

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Yes, but nobody expected it here.

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 2 months ago by Owner

Nor did I.

And it's now gotten among some of the more extreme leftists that it's not enough to simply be politically correct...The wording of everything said about even a leftist political view has to conform to set NPC narratives and slogans that are commonly used by everyone else. Nothing original.

Example being:
Suppose Tony, a Democrat, runs a T-shirt printing shop.
Then Bob walks in and says, "Hey, Tony. I want to order a printed shirt that says, 'When God issued brains, Trump thought God said trains. And he said no thanks, my brother has plenty of them' ".
The shop owner replies, "Sorry, Bob. I can't do that".
Bob says, "Gee, Tony. Why not?. I know you're not a Trump supporter".
Tony says, "I'm not. And I do like that saying you came up with. But it doesn't follow a commonly used narrative".
Bob then says, "So then..."
Tony then tells Bob, "I can print up a shirt for you that says, 'Orange Man Bad'. Everybody says that. But I won't print up anything original or outside the box. It wouldn't fit the common narrative".
So Bob settles for a T-shirt that says, "Orange Man Bad".

The leftists who are that extreme are into, You don't create something on your own...You simply choose from a preset list of slogans.

MaxDeGroot

3 years, 2 months ago

link

You forgot to enclose the preset list of responses to your post. How can I know how to respond without a preset list of responses?

moyomongoose

3 years, 2 months ago

link