FA+
Shop
Dr. Phil II, more questions
12 years ago
There was some confusion on the first journal. Before I get started with the questions submitted I wanted to clarify a few things.
First thing is first. Let me be perfectly clear, I am not going to be selected for the show. It is not going to happen. A few people have asked something along the lines of "that does not make any sense, if you are not going to get picked, why bother to try?"
I think what happened is people mistook my confidence for egocentricity. I am not infallible, I am following a logical precedence to a near certainty. Allow me to describe the terms I set that will disqualify me as a guest on the Dr. Phil show.
- 87 nude Photos of Oprah (80's preferable)
- 104 minutes of un-interrupted air time
- Unquestioned access to both 220, and 110 volt AC outlets
- No eye contact form the audience
- Minimal exposure to the color yellow, it is obtrusive
- "Ice Station Zebra" playing on loop in the green room.
So, as you can see, any rejection of these time tested rules for debate would be a rejection of rational discussion of an issue. (I actually pulled this list from the Harvard School of law's basic debate rules)
All joking aside, I set some fairly easy ground rules that would have to be observed for me to agree to go on. I asked for a set amount of time for rebuttal in answer to any question. I also would require the ability to record the show, unedited. So... not going to be an issue. The reason I am so confident about this, is that there is a demonstrable lack of these two aspects in every talk show I had ever seen. To suddenly allow for guests to set terms for a discussion would be without precedent. It's logical to conclude I am not an exception to this tacit rule. Thus, by way of asking for these terms I am disqualified.
Seriously
Statistic likelihood of bat shit crazy things not ever happening; in order from least likely.
1. Zombie Reagan non-consecutive 3rd term in office
2. 4th Brady Bunch movie sequel
3. Media being on Dr. Phil
4. Human enslavement under the watchful eye of evil robot overlords (RAM farming)
Second, I saw a few people say, "you are not going to help the fandom".. I have to admit, this was annoying for a few reasons. The first reason would be that I am just not going to be on the show.
The other reason may surprise you........... I don't care how I represent the fandom. I care how I represent myself.
I will not be an apologist for an undefinable, shapeless, vague concept of a social structure. The fandom does not need my definition, nor my help. The fandom is made up by thousands of individuals that often can only be defined by loose intent, and geographical location when describing them as a whole. That would be like attempting to describe the intentions of an unruly mob. The fandom, of course, having less arson, and the likelihood of flipped cars is also less substantial.
I think when you try to defend "the fandom" you are doing yourself, and the fandom a disservice. When you defend the collective, you must answer for the behavior of your peers. If you lie, that is immoral, and you have further ruined the reputation of what you attempted to defend. If you attempt to justify immoral behavior you are sanctioning immoral behavior by way of justifying a specific amount... also not helping. If you accept that you are an individual, and that you can only answer for your actions, you have no need to justify the behavior of others. What defines "fandom" is the individuals who make it, "fandom" should never define the individual.
If I went on the Dr. Phil show, I would go for myself. I think I would be doing the fandom a much bigger favor by not speaking for anyone but myself. If you think this is wrong, let me ask you a question. In all of the previous interviews where the interviewed furry defended the fandom, how many of them spoke for you perfectly? How many of them "helped" the fandom?
Frankly, I find it insulting that anyone speaks for me. I would be hypocritical to expect that you would want me to speak for you.
Ah, yes... the questions.
My good friend Quincy
qdog had this to say,
Q: "Hypothetical Dr. Phil: I understand that there is a significant amount of pornographic furry art produced daily, and that furries sometimes have sex in costume. As a furry how do you fit in with such a sexually charged group of people?"
A: I would like to clarify that given the vague definition of what a "furry" is, I cannot say that a "furry" would necessarily have to fit in with a sexually charged group of people to comply with the definition. That being said, speaking only for myself, if the topic is tolerance of a sexually charged group, I fit in quite well. If the topic is my sexual activity within that group, then I would fit as well as a square peg in a round hole.
ghostwulf had this to say.
Q: So, tell me, what happened first. Did you like to dress up as an animal first, or did you decide to make costumes first?
A: This question assumes I liked to dress up as an animal. That was not actually true for a long time. I had worked at a Chic-fil-a as a teenager, and often had to dress as a cow, and wave to people in the Florida sun for hours. One too many letter openers to the belly put a bad taste in my mouth. Fursuits are not just animal costumes. I do not mean this in a mystical sense. This is purely ascetic. they are better built, better looking, and more comfortable than mascot cows. If I am being honest, I was paid to attempt my first costume. Only after I completed my first commission did I make a suit for myself. I go back and forth on how much I enjoy it.
As always, feel free to submit your talk show questions. I would be happy to answer them.
Have a great weekend!
First thing is first. Let me be perfectly clear, I am not going to be selected for the show. It is not going to happen. A few people have asked something along the lines of "that does not make any sense, if you are not going to get picked, why bother to try?"
I think what happened is people mistook my confidence for egocentricity. I am not infallible, I am following a logical precedence to a near certainty. Allow me to describe the terms I set that will disqualify me as a guest on the Dr. Phil show.
- 87 nude Photos of Oprah (80's preferable)
- 104 minutes of un-interrupted air time
- Unquestioned access to both 220, and 110 volt AC outlets
- No eye contact form the audience
- Minimal exposure to the color yellow, it is obtrusive
- "Ice Station Zebra" playing on loop in the green room.
So, as you can see, any rejection of these time tested rules for debate would be a rejection of rational discussion of an issue. (I actually pulled this list from the Harvard School of law's basic debate rules)
All joking aside, I set some fairly easy ground rules that would have to be observed for me to agree to go on. I asked for a set amount of time for rebuttal in answer to any question. I also would require the ability to record the show, unedited. So... not going to be an issue. The reason I am so confident about this, is that there is a demonstrable lack of these two aspects in every talk show I had ever seen. To suddenly allow for guests to set terms for a discussion would be without precedent. It's logical to conclude I am not an exception to this tacit rule. Thus, by way of asking for these terms I am disqualified.
Seriously
Statistic likelihood of bat shit crazy things not ever happening; in order from least likely.
1. Zombie Reagan non-consecutive 3rd term in office
2. 4th Brady Bunch movie sequel
3. Media being on Dr. Phil
4. Human enslavement under the watchful eye of evil robot overlords (RAM farming)
Second, I saw a few people say, "you are not going to help the fandom".. I have to admit, this was annoying for a few reasons. The first reason would be that I am just not going to be on the show.
The other reason may surprise you........... I don't care how I represent the fandom. I care how I represent myself.
I will not be an apologist for an undefinable, shapeless, vague concept of a social structure. The fandom does not need my definition, nor my help. The fandom is made up by thousands of individuals that often can only be defined by loose intent, and geographical location when describing them as a whole. That would be like attempting to describe the intentions of an unruly mob. The fandom, of course, having less arson, and the likelihood of flipped cars is also less substantial.
I think when you try to defend "the fandom" you are doing yourself, and the fandom a disservice. When you defend the collective, you must answer for the behavior of your peers. If you lie, that is immoral, and you have further ruined the reputation of what you attempted to defend. If you attempt to justify immoral behavior you are sanctioning immoral behavior by way of justifying a specific amount... also not helping. If you accept that you are an individual, and that you can only answer for your actions, you have no need to justify the behavior of others. What defines "fandom" is the individuals who make it, "fandom" should never define the individual.
If I went on the Dr. Phil show, I would go for myself. I think I would be doing the fandom a much bigger favor by not speaking for anyone but myself. If you think this is wrong, let me ask you a question. In all of the previous interviews where the interviewed furry defended the fandom, how many of them spoke for you perfectly? How many of them "helped" the fandom?
Frankly, I find it insulting that anyone speaks for me. I would be hypocritical to expect that you would want me to speak for you.
Ah, yes... the questions.
My good friend Quincy
qdog had this to say,Q: "Hypothetical Dr. Phil: I understand that there is a significant amount of pornographic furry art produced daily, and that furries sometimes have sex in costume. As a furry how do you fit in with such a sexually charged group of people?"
A: I would like to clarify that given the vague definition of what a "furry" is, I cannot say that a "furry" would necessarily have to fit in with a sexually charged group of people to comply with the definition. That being said, speaking only for myself, if the topic is tolerance of a sexually charged group, I fit in quite well. If the topic is my sexual activity within that group, then I would fit as well as a square peg in a round hole.
ghostwulf had this to say. Q: So, tell me, what happened first. Did you like to dress up as an animal first, or did you decide to make costumes first?
A: This question assumes I liked to dress up as an animal. That was not actually true for a long time. I had worked at a Chic-fil-a as a teenager, and often had to dress as a cow, and wave to people in the Florida sun for hours. One too many letter openers to the belly put a bad taste in my mouth. Fursuits are not just animal costumes. I do not mean this in a mystical sense. This is purely ascetic. they are better built, better looking, and more comfortable than mascot cows. If I am being honest, I was paid to attempt my first costume. Only after I completed my first commission did I make a suit for myself. I go back and forth on how much I enjoy it.
As always, feel free to submit your talk show questions. I would be happy to answer them.
Have a great weekend!
Mainly because I kinda hate the guy but my mom loves the show and I want to portray the real furry fandom.. Not the sexual/yiffy part..
I really want to go but I don't want to be shunned and scorned...
~ Obviously sex sells but the fandom wasn't founded on it.
I acknowledge this.. Just because I do doesn't mean I like it...
Isn't a furry just someone who fancies anthromorphic art? Or anthro characters? EX; Tigger, Bugs, Tony, or Robin hood?..
Yeah you don't have to be a furry because you like the art but the fandom is not all about the porn...
Yeah, that's what I was told at first...but the longer I've been steeped in the fandom, the more I've seen what else comes along with that.
Can you be more specific with your second question?
Being part of it, and not knowing also shows that your second question is based on a faulty premise. You have to first prove the assertion the precluded it is correct. If you are asking me to validate your assumption, I do not have the evidence to do so.
Let Dr.Phil do his show, shrug and move on. He's going to one way or another.
Just my two cents anyways. Very well said Media.
Good point on representing only yourself I didn't even think to mention in my journal. All too often I saw someone claim they wanted to represent the fandom and they're absolutely nothing like me or my friends and how could they be? The diversity of the fandom is so massive it's a complete fool's errand to attempt that. It's completely fair to share your experiences and perspectives but by no means can you claim that represents someone else since it's your perspective, not theirs.
Well, yes and no.
It's true that you can't honestly speak for everyone, unless you acknowledge that you're making generalizations that may not be accurate in every individual case.
But, it's an unfortunate fact of life that people are heuristic-formers and pattern-finders, and that they make judgments and generalizations about groups of people, based on the behavior of individuals.
It usually takes a pretty large sample size of people for a person to fully let go of their stereotypes of a particular group.
So, what you say and what you do when others perceive as a representative member of a particular group (whether rightly or wrongly) DOES matter. It does NOT fly to just say, "Well, I'm just an individual, and people SHOULD see that I don't represent X group, and it's not my job to represent everybody, anyway." Because of human nature, if you're the one "X" they know, you're often going to be seen as a representative of X group, whether you like it or not.
So, in my book, if you care about your group, you'll do your best to not just throw them under the bus when you sense that you're in a setting where others see you as a representative of the group.
In cases where you're only speaking or acting for yourself, you have to make that very, very, very clear--and even then, people still may not "hear" you, and may still want to use use as a guide to your group.
So, it's complicated.
I agree with everything you said, but your post didn't directly really address this, and it's a good thing to note.