I continue to re-iterate that Furries are the "canary in the coal-mine" of a free society. If they are either hunted or uplifted by the state; it is an admission that the government has failed in it's responsibility to focus on real problems and core issues; and has justified a revolution against itself.
I can see it. The whole LGB+ thing is skirting dangerously close, isn't it? I think "two spirits" is accepted in it already, so all it really needs is zoophilia to combine into furry. Or would you maintain that the label and specific group itself must be acknowledged?
I don't think that's what I'm going for. Here's my comment from Reddit, to explain:
I've actually maintained that furries are a measurable unit for the need of revolution.
Furries are, by definition, both taboo and comical. First, their sexuality is at best "deviant" in the most tolerant and open of societies. This means that under every and all circumstances they will perpetually remain on the fringes of sexuality if at all, unable to be fully integrated into the rest of society. Even in a tolerant society would never seek to institutionally promote them, as they can never form the bedrock of a major social structure that serves a major economic benefit. In general, they must be taboo in most normal societies that are incentivizing any sort of gender roles, sexuality, or family structure. In addition to that, by being perpetually taboo, furries inevitably involve themselves in other taboos which means that even in the event that they were to become tolerable, they could never become fully accepted for all the other taboos they will drag with them.
Second, furries can never pose an actual threat to society. They are, institutionally, harmless and irrelevant. They are taboo in a way that is not reserved for cannibalism, but taboo in a way that we look at wearing dildos on your head. Ridiculous nearly to the point of being offensive, but the damage is not to the society, but mostly to the individual engaging in the conduct. Furries are a giant "self-own". People are never going to be terrified of the 'threat' of furries, instead they would only end up laughing uncontrollably at the wildly silly bullshit they are witnessing before them. They can never be taken seriously, and anyone who does engage in such activity, will always end up with awkward discussions with people snickering at them behind their back.
Wherefore, we can actually tell how repressive a society is by it's desire to repress furries. They are the "dude-in-a-canary-fursuit" in a coal mine, if you will.
Should furries inhabit an open, free, and tolerant society, the result is simple: they will be ignored for the most part, laughed at for the next, and seen as utterly irrelevant and probably harmless.
Any authoritarian screaming about the threat that furries pose to society, will always be seen a raving mad man. Furries can not be a threat to society. This is the face of a furry being serious, sfw. It is impossible to take that seriously. If the government were to actively start repressing furries through arrests, intimidation, and violence, it would be a gigantic point to the society that the government is not capable of being run by intelligent people. Furries are not only never a threat to society, nor the state, but they are always going to be a waste of time. No government resources need to be expended on preventing the expansion of furries. Furries are a self-defeating fandom. As long as they aren't bothering anyone else, no state action is ever needed. If a government declares that this, sfw is a threat to it, then the people have an obligation to replace the government with a stronger government that isn't so pathologically weak and fragile.
On the other hand, if a government or institution were so fundamentally misguided to promote furries as moral good for society, encouraging and incentivizing people to become furries, even socially engineering them to do it; it would be met by still more open derision and mockery. Any propaganda efforts would be automatically rejected by a population that has lost all tolerance for such a bizzare effort. The government would have to be taken even less seriously than the furries themselves. Other forces would legitimately claim that the government or institutions are being run by the most bizzare, deluded, (and likely socially deviant) types of people who would find no welcome among the general population. As such, the government & it's institutions must be replaced.
No matter what, furries act as a giant warning to the rest of society when things have gotten so extreme that the government must be replaced by something more sensible.
Like the animals they seek to mimic, their bright colors are nature's warning sign to others.
encouraging and incentivizing people to become furries
Here's my major point. Politically, we do have some incentives given to degenerates. While I think we can agree that it has not reached an alarming level demanding revolution, I do think it's worth being troubled over.
Of course, the topic was specifically furries, but I think it's okay to spread it out to all fringe degenerates. I can tolerate homo pride parades (since I never see them), but a parade for furry, zoo, cannabilism, etc would be quite alarming. It's kind of a stretch, but I could blame part of the whole tranny thing on the political priviledges enjoyed by females (even a little is too much). The government likely didn't intend that result, at least. Positive reinforcement is effective, so I don't like seeing it generated by policy so easily - it's bad enough we have to deal with problems at a cultural level, we don't need help making it worse.
I thought about it a little more and am now speculating that grifters (all exploitable communities get grifters occasionally) from these fringe "communities" are the primary drivers of getting the fringe to become normalized. If I were a guy scamming furries, I might have an enjoyable amount of power/money, but if furry suddenly became mainstream then my power would increase. Luckily, most of these fringe grifters don't have the smarts or connections to pull this off; they're probably grifting in the fringe because they couldn't cut it elsewhere. However, all it really takes is a couple of high-power retards to agree with the grifter and give birth to new political incentives.
I do disagree with some of the minor points in your argument, as I have had some really positive experiences with furries, but I won't actually argue any of it because it's in my best interest for furries to be undesirable. If they weren't so openly ridiculous, I'd have to see more grifters messing with them, and I don't want that even though the majority of them deserve it (they even contain a disturbing amount of middle managers and other do-nothing-for-big-bucks vocations). I want to mention it at least, because I think it's psychologically fascinating for a person to fabricate a persona based on what they wish they were like. The ones that choose bright colors and other attention-grabbing details are plainly desiring attention, which can lead to an unpleasant personality, so I can validate you there, at least.
Your hypothesis about grifting has merit, but I don't know how I could prove it.
If they weren't so openly ridiculous, I'd have to see more grifters messing with them, and I don't want that even though the majority of them deserve it (they even contain a disturbing amount of middle managers and other do-nothing-for-big-bucks vocations).
I don't want that either, because that's the least degenerate thing about them. Sad, more than anything else, because they want to be beautiful and attractive, but don't have it. Instead of doing the work to overcome that, they move towards playing dress-up which is more expensive, but less personally intensive.
I continue to re-iterate that Furries are the "canary in the coal-mine" of a free society. If they are either hunted or uplifted by the state; it is an admission that the government has failed in it's responsibility to focus on real problems and core issues; and has justified a revolution against itself.
I can see it. The whole LGB+ thing is skirting dangerously close, isn't it? I think "two spirits" is accepted in it already, so all it really needs is zoophilia to combine into furry. Or would you maintain that the label and specific group itself must be acknowledged?
I don't think that's what I'm going for. Here's my comment from Reddit, to explain:
I've actually maintained that furries are a measurable unit for the need of revolution.
Furries are, by definition, both taboo and comical. First, their sexuality is at best "deviant" in the most tolerant and open of societies. This means that under every and all circumstances they will perpetually remain on the fringes of sexuality if at all, unable to be fully integrated into the rest of society. Even in a tolerant society would never seek to institutionally promote them, as they can never form the bedrock of a major social structure that serves a major economic benefit. In general, they must be taboo in most normal societies that are incentivizing any sort of gender roles, sexuality, or family structure. In addition to that, by being perpetually taboo, furries inevitably involve themselves in other taboos which means that even in the event that they were to become tolerable, they could never become fully accepted for all the other taboos they will drag with them.
Second, furries can never pose an actual threat to society. They are, institutionally, harmless and irrelevant. They are taboo in a way that is not reserved for cannibalism, but taboo in a way that we look at wearing dildos on your head. Ridiculous nearly to the point of being offensive, but the damage is not to the society, but mostly to the individual engaging in the conduct. Furries are a giant "self-own". People are never going to be terrified of the 'threat' of furries, instead they would only end up laughing uncontrollably at the wildly silly bullshit they are witnessing before them. They can never be taken seriously, and anyone who does engage in such activity, will always end up with awkward discussions with people snickering at them behind their back.
Wherefore, we can actually tell how repressive a society is by it's desire to repress furries. They are the "dude-in-a-canary-fursuit" in a coal mine, if you will.
Should furries inhabit an open, free, and tolerant society, the result is simple: they will be ignored for the most part, laughed at for the next, and seen as utterly irrelevant and probably harmless.
Any authoritarian screaming about the threat that furries pose to society, will always be seen a raving mad man. Furries can not be a threat to society. This is the face of a furry being serious, sfw. It is impossible to take that seriously. If the government were to actively start repressing furries through arrests, intimidation, and violence, it would be a gigantic point to the society that the government is not capable of being run by intelligent people. Furries are not only never a threat to society, nor the state, but they are always going to be a waste of time. No government resources need to be expended on preventing the expansion of furries. Furries are a self-defeating fandom. As long as they aren't bothering anyone else, no state action is ever needed. If a government declares that this, sfw is a threat to it, then the people have an obligation to replace the government with a stronger government that isn't so pathologically weak and fragile.
On the other hand, if a government or institution were so fundamentally misguided to promote furries as moral good for society, encouraging and incentivizing people to become furries, even socially engineering them to do it; it would be met by still more open derision and mockery. Any propaganda efforts would be automatically rejected by a population that has lost all tolerance for such a bizzare effort. The government would have to be taken even less seriously than the furries themselves. Other forces would legitimately claim that the government or institutions are being run by the most bizzare, deluded, (and likely socially deviant) types of people who would find no welcome among the general population. As such, the government & it's institutions must be replaced.
No matter what, furries act as a giant warning to the rest of society when things have gotten so extreme that the government must be replaced by something more sensible.
Like the animals they seek to mimic, their bright colors are nature's warning sign to others.
Here's my major point. Politically, we do have some incentives given to degenerates. While I think we can agree that it has not reached an alarming level demanding revolution, I do think it's worth being troubled over.
Of course, the topic was specifically furries, but I think it's okay to spread it out to all fringe degenerates. I can tolerate homo pride parades (since I never see them), but a parade for furry, zoo, cannabilism, etc would be quite alarming. It's kind of a stretch, but I could blame part of the whole tranny thing on the political priviledges enjoyed by females (even a little is too much). The government likely didn't intend that result, at least. Positive reinforcement is effective, so I don't like seeing it generated by policy so easily - it's bad enough we have to deal with problems at a cultural level, we don't need help making it worse.
I thought about it a little more and am now speculating that grifters (all exploitable communities get grifters occasionally) from these fringe "communities" are the primary drivers of getting the fringe to become normalized. If I were a guy scamming furries, I might have an enjoyable amount of power/money, but if furry suddenly became mainstream then my power would increase. Luckily, most of these fringe grifters don't have the smarts or connections to pull this off; they're probably grifting in the fringe because they couldn't cut it elsewhere. However, all it really takes is a couple of high-power retards to agree with the grifter and give birth to new political incentives.
I do disagree with some of the minor points in your argument, as I have had some really positive experiences with furries, but I won't actually argue any of it because it's in my best interest for furries to be undesirable. If they weren't so openly ridiculous, I'd have to see more grifters messing with them, and I don't want that even though the majority of them deserve it (they even contain a disturbing amount of middle managers and other do-nothing-for-big-bucks vocations). I want to mention it at least, because I think it's psychologically fascinating for a person to fabricate a persona based on what they wish they were like. The ones that choose bright colors and other attention-grabbing details are plainly desiring attention, which can lead to an unpleasant personality, so I can validate you there, at least.
Your hypothesis about grifting has merit, but I don't know how I could prove it.
I don't want that either, because that's the least degenerate thing about them. Sad, more than anything else, because they want to be beautiful and attractive, but don't have it. Instead of doing the work to overcome that, they move towards playing dress-up which is more expensive, but less personally intensive.