FA+
Shop
Double-Standards on FA
8 years ago
There is a journal here on FA, one titled something like "How gullible are Christians?". I will not post the exact name, or a link to it, as the user has me blocked. However, the name and content of the journal give the clear implication that Christians are gullible, easily taken in, will believe anything, etc - clearly a disparaging remark to an entire religious group. And that violates section 1.8;
Do not engage in malicious speech.
This includes bigotry and disparaging remarks or content about anyone's race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. This does not apply to fictional works.
Now, some of you may remember I've had had my own run-ins with the moderators, and may recall an incident where I used the word 'Tranny*' in reference to Trans people - not in a malicious way, mind, just as an identifier. I had said,
"Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent [TRANS PERSON] progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not [TRANS PEOPLE] in general."
And that's it. There was no implication of hatred there, there was no disparagement or bigotry; shoot, many trans people are perfectly fine being called by that identifier, so long as it's not being used as an epithet - ie, 'Fucking [TRANS PERSON], gtfo'. In short, taking offense at the word and feeling that one's identity group is maligned or disparaged is the choice of the listener, as they must attach all sorts of meanings that the user has not conveyed. It's micro-aggression culture at its finest.
So, in one case we have a clear disparagement of people of a religious group, and the moderators say "Eh, no issue". On the other case, we have someone use a common identifier phrase in a non-malicious manner, but because some people find the word offensive, ALL must find the word offensive - and therefore it's somehow bigoted or maligning towards that group, and must go down the memory hole.
Welcome to Furry Tumblr; your speech stops where other's feelings begin.
*note: this is not a case of me using that word in reference to trans people, but in reference to the word itself. It's therefore just as permitted as saying 'tranny' to refer to a 'transmission', or a 'transformer', etc.
Do not engage in malicious speech.
This includes bigotry and disparaging remarks or content about anyone's race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. This does not apply to fictional works.
Now, some of you may remember I've had had my own run-ins with the moderators, and may recall an incident where I used the word 'Tranny*' in reference to Trans people - not in a malicious way, mind, just as an identifier. I had said,
"Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent [TRANS PERSON] progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not [TRANS PEOPLE] in general."
And that's it. There was no implication of hatred there, there was no disparagement or bigotry; shoot, many trans people are perfectly fine being called by that identifier, so long as it's not being used as an epithet - ie, 'Fucking [TRANS PERSON], gtfo'. In short, taking offense at the word and feeling that one's identity group is maligned or disparaged is the choice of the listener, as they must attach all sorts of meanings that the user has not conveyed. It's micro-aggression culture at its finest.
So, in one case we have a clear disparagement of people of a religious group, and the moderators say "Eh, no issue". On the other case, we have someone use a common identifier phrase in a non-malicious manner, but because some people find the word offensive, ALL must find the word offensive - and therefore it's somehow bigoted or maligning towards that group, and must go down the memory hole.
Welcome to Furry Tumblr; your speech stops where other's feelings begin.
*note: this is not a case of me using that word in reference to trans people, but in reference to the word itself. It's therefore just as permitted as saying 'tranny' to refer to a 'transmission', or a 'transformer', etc.
As for the other bullshit...
Just do what other artists like roareyraccoon are doing and make your journals into actual pictures/art/comics.
Basically have a fictional character saying what you want them to say and it falls into their "This does not apply to fictional works." rule.
Personally I think writing and typing is just as much of an art as actual drawn/rendered art is and should be treated with just as much respect.
*cough*
*cough*
Indeed!
1. Removing the CoC 1.8 rule;
2. Modify CoC 1.6 to remove the "calling out, flaming, airing, bullying" section, and simply relegate it to 'block evasion'. We should be able to talk about other members, even if they have us blocked.
3. Only allow blocks to work on your own pages. Other people's pages are not yours, and you do not get to decide who can come to another person's party.
4. Enforce the rules equally, dammit. Too many cases of Conservatives and Libertarians finding themselves caught on strict technicalities, while Leftists get a free pass.
And just a pet peeve of mine, these snowflake types are "fake-liberals" they use the term to push a leftist agenda and hope people don't question it, a REAL "Classical liberal", is closer to a centrist or libertarian or even "constitutional conservative". These people calling themselves "liberals and progressives" are actually leftist and social Marxists, NOT liberal in any way.
An "actual liberal" would be an "egalitarian", a person that believes in equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.
on the subject of the political art pieces I've seen a few purely political art pieces in my little corner of the furry internet