FA+
Shop
What's with the puritanical conservative censorship on FA...
2 years ago
Whelp... Here we go again.
More censorship on an ART site.
Seeing a bunch of journals from a lot of the more TOONY artists saying that FA is coming after smaller characters, or chibi, or young "looking" characters, or zootopia sized (like Finnik), or any "young looking" characters, even TWINKS, because of some stupid new rule change.
They already got rid of cub shit, now they are coming after the toony and twink stuff?
What the actual hell?
Good grief, these are FANTASY CHARACTERS!
THEY DON'T EXIST!
What, you wanna check their fantasy driver's licenses and fantasy I.D. to see what their fantasy age is?
*****May I remind people that FA still hosts things such as: RAPE, GORE, VORE, SCAT, BESTIALITY, MURDER PORN, BABY DIAPER FETISH ART INCLUDING TODDLER CHARACTERS IN SAID DIAPERS, SNUFF, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE... Just to name a few.*****
But oh no! An imaginary character is too twinkish or chibi or toony, therefore it must be a real-life human child or some shit, BANNED!!!!!!
Hey, how about instead of constantly banning and censoring fantasy art, you institute a community tagging system like, oh, almost every other art site out there?
That way if people are so offended by smaller, toony, chibi, or freaking pokemon, that they just have to clutch their pearls, they can block anything they don't want to see.
Or, FA should just put in a checkbox for ALL submissions that says: "Is this imaginary non-existant fantasy character over 18 years old? Y/N" and if you click "N" then it doesn't allow it to be posted. Done! Bases covered.
I'd really like to know the REAL reasoning behind this asinine decision.
Is it some advertiser bullshit?
Is NINTENDO coming after you for Pokemon porn?
Have the conservatives finally gotten to furry art?
Is this forced by some stupid law in the place FA has servers that doesn't differentiate between fantasy animal creatures and real-life humans?
Is it a payment processor dictating what is or isn't "art"?
I never expected this kind of puritanical conservative bullshit from a furry porn art site.
As mentioned in the last journal I made, THIS EXACT REASON is why you shouldn't have all your art in only one place. Your entire internet presence and gallery could be destroyed with a single policy change, this includes places like TWITTER as well.
More censorship on an ART site.
Seeing a bunch of journals from a lot of the more TOONY artists saying that FA is coming after smaller characters, or chibi, or young "looking" characters, or zootopia sized (like Finnik), or any "young looking" characters, even TWINKS, because of some stupid new rule change.
They already got rid of cub shit, now they are coming after the toony and twink stuff?
What the actual hell?
Good grief, these are FANTASY CHARACTERS!
THEY DON'T EXIST!
What, you wanna check their fantasy driver's licenses and fantasy I.D. to see what their fantasy age is?
*****May I remind people that FA still hosts things such as: RAPE, GORE, VORE, SCAT, BESTIALITY, MURDER PORN, BABY DIAPER FETISH ART INCLUDING TODDLER CHARACTERS IN SAID DIAPERS, SNUFF, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE... Just to name a few.*****
But oh no! An imaginary character is too twinkish or chibi or toony, therefore it must be a real-life human child or some shit, BANNED!!!!!!
Hey, how about instead of constantly banning and censoring fantasy art, you institute a community tagging system like, oh, almost every other art site out there?
That way if people are so offended by smaller, toony, chibi, or freaking pokemon, that they just have to clutch their pearls, they can block anything they don't want to see.
Or, FA should just put in a checkbox for ALL submissions that says: "Is this imaginary non-existant fantasy character over 18 years old? Y/N" and if you click "N" then it doesn't allow it to be posted. Done! Bases covered.
I'd really like to know the REAL reasoning behind this asinine decision.
Is it some advertiser bullshit?
Is NINTENDO coming after you for Pokemon porn?
Have the conservatives finally gotten to furry art?
Is this forced by some stupid law in the place FA has servers that doesn't differentiate between fantasy animal creatures and real-life humans?
Is it a payment processor dictating what is or isn't "art"?
I never expected this kind of puritanical conservative bullshit from a furry porn art site.
As mentioned in the last journal I made, THIS EXACT REASON is why you shouldn't have all your art in only one place. Your entire internet presence and gallery could be destroyed with a single policy change, this includes places like TWITTER as well.
I guess nothing will ever be enough for some people…
Everyone has their own squicks that they'd rather not see, and after all are satisfied in their puritanical whims there is nothing left uncensored.
Even what you personally find entirely innocuous will offend the absolute shit outta some nutjob out there, so there is absolutely no content which is safe from the censor.
Next, it will be sentient ferals and anything that could be "considered" an "animal".
Oh, sorry, You drew a super-buff dog-dude, we have to remove him because he has an "animal-like" cock and we cannot confirm his real life SSN and Driver's license number.
At least then it would be more understandable.
Though Inkbunny is a lot more liberal in their "what is allowed" policies other than banning sexual human stuff. Suffice to say I have a lot of blacklisted tags on inkbunny lol.
As a digress, it's funny how those who claim to be "tolerant" apparently do that so that others reveal their oddities, only to mock and degrade them behind their back (or not so secretly).
with all the extremely "left biased" furry site administrations taking an extremely conservative stance on it
The thing to remember is that political parties calling themselves 'liberal' 'conservative' 'progressive' 'social' or whatever is entirely meaningless, just the same as when peoples' names occasionally have meaning this meaning is generally without meaning.
All individuals are conservative and progressive at times depending on what issue they're discussing, same with everyone being liberal and authoritarian on different issues.
Most people are actually moderates, but it seems to be the overly loud extremists on the left and right that are trying to steer things their way.
Especially when they co-opt a word that they don't even fit into the definition of.
Like you cannot be "liberal" and at the same time a far right or far left authoritarian/totalitarian as those things are the opposite of each other.
I had someone get butthurt and ban me from a supposedly liberal forum I was on for years just because I pointed out that the democrats of now are more like the Republicans from the late 1990s and early 2000s as they have gone full pro-war, pro-censorship, pro-cancel culture, anti-free speech, pro-big-government, and pro-corporate. They have basically become the corporate big business authoritarians/totalitarians they supposedly hated 10-20 years ago, and a lot of them were still in power then!
Hell, people forget Biden is responsible in part for the "racist" crime bills of the 1990s, and one of the main reasons people can't discharge their student loans in bankruptcy, but they act like he isn't because they are too brainwashed to even look into it.
Now I am somehow labeled an "evil right winger" by these people for being anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-cancel culture, and pro-free speech.
The tribalism on both sides is so freaking idiotic.
I got all excited in '16 through '18 or thereabouts, when questioning authority was finally again in vogue but all of that turned out to be trite 'you will hate what we tell you' groupthink rather than anyone realizing that the game's been rigged from the start.
It all goes in a cyclic manner, someone makes a suggestion for a change and others dial it back to something which will be adopted by the populace. The one floating the bill is definitionally progressive, and the ones shaping it into something that will pass are definitionally conservatives. All that recent abortion shit is a wonderful example of the 'right' being progressives and the 'left' being conservatives. They play up how they're in argument with each other, but they share more agreement than disagreement...
All of that is how it continues moving along rather than sitting in gridlock, the particular direction of movement is set by another happenstance; everyone in power has been through an extremely harsh pruning process (elections) which selects for authoritarians. Nobody but the power-seeking would put themselves through that process, so we end up with an authoritarian taint to the pool of thought. This is what makes every move taken one away from individual liberty and toward collective bondage.
It all depends on who you ask these days. The far left will call anyone that has an opinion slightly to the right of the left a "conservative" or "nazi" or whatever other terms they love to use even when the person is still what would be considered a "left leaning" moderate... The same as the far right will call anyone slightly to the left of the right a liberal in the derogatory sense or "commie" or "socialist" or whatever terms they want to use for people that might still be "right leaning" moderate.
I'd likely fit into libertarian or "classical liberal" categories as those are really the only political movements I agree with more than I disagree with.
The major 2 parties in the US seem to constantly be changing, and the whole "Overton Window" shifting as time goes on.