FA+
Shop
On the subject of a certain fursuit...
10 years ago
General
While at Midwest Furfest, a small amount of drama occurred over a particular fursuit. The fursuit in question prominently displayed the Confederate flag on it. I actually saw it a couple times during the convention, the most visible time being when I was marching in the fursuit parade and the other fursuiter was leaving the building from a side door. Additional drama came about when people were tweeting and posting that if they saw that fursuiter that they would then actively destroy or do damage to the fursuit.
So, here's what I have to say on the whole matter:
1. I don't like the Confederate flag. It symbolizes oppression and racism. Even a professor at West Point, Col. Seidule, confirms that slavery was in fact the primary motivator for the Civil War, and therefore the Confederate flag is a symbol of that.
2. Pride in one's heritage is important to some, but to use a symbol of oppression and racism for that is wrong.
3. A threat to destroy someone else's property, no matter the noble intention behind it, is wrong.
4. Civility is key. Having a debate or discussion on the issue is fine, but you cross a line when you threaten violence or destruction of another's property. When you do that, you become as bad as that symbol.
You may comment on this, but only in a civil manner. I will begin removing comments that deviate from rational discussion and if it becomes to hard to moderate, I will disable comments completely.
So, here's what I have to say on the whole matter:
1. I don't like the Confederate flag. It symbolizes oppression and racism. Even a professor at West Point, Col. Seidule, confirms that slavery was in fact the primary motivator for the Civil War, and therefore the Confederate flag is a symbol of that.
2. Pride in one's heritage is important to some, but to use a symbol of oppression and racism for that is wrong.
3. A threat to destroy someone else's property, no matter the noble intention behind it, is wrong.
4. Civility is key. Having a debate or discussion on the issue is fine, but you cross a line when you threaten violence or destruction of another's property. When you do that, you become as bad as that symbol.
You may comment on this, but only in a civil manner. I will begin removing comments that deviate from rational discussion and if it becomes to hard to moderate, I will disable comments completely.
If a person wants to present the Confederate flag,I feel that the only way that it could truly work is only in a historical context, like a Civil War reenactment. It is a tricky road we walk today, but I am sure there is some sort of middle ground that can be reached. I do just wish that those with Southern pride would find a different symbol for that pride.
But I also agree that pouring soda on the fursuit and threatening the suiter is wrong. If those people who had done those stupid things had instead tried to talk to the person about why they put the flag on their suit and try to get context, then that would be better and the preferred result over what we did get. I still don't condone what was done, and I applaud the people who said they would repair the fursuit at no cost, but let's hope that we can try to keep talking about this civilly and not get into hysterics like most social media.
Pouring soda on him was bad form, but if I were a vendor I certainly wouldn't sell anything to him. If i were con staff, I'd probably have asked him to leave. He put the con in a very awkward position, which IMO is the ultimate dick move to the convention and fellow con-goers, and shows disrespect to the group trying to run a rather popular convention.
Sadly, there's no civility to be had there. Said person was actively sporting hate speech. He's welcome to do so, and he's also welcome to be ridiculed and asked to leave because of it. That's the beauty of free speech - you can say whatever you want, as long as you're willing to own the responses afterward.
On the topic of free speech, I do think that hate speech should not be covered under that, but at that point I also understand that I would then be stifling speech. It's a double-edged sword: let everyone say what they want even if it is hate-filled bile, or not cover speech that denigrates as it goes against the idea of all men (and women) are equal and possibly stifle a freedom (that we also take for granted a lot).
In this case, there's a ton of hearsay and not a lot of actual stuff going on. And since I wasn't there in the first place, it's all speculation and such to me. Interesting thought exercises, but the real test would be if one of us actually ran into the person and had to interact with them.