...I'm personally curious as to why Lillie asked you to post this here. It feels like there is an ulterior motive at work.

This was the best and most well reasoned response I could find to my article. The majority of respondents opted for ad-hominem attacks, which I didn't find useful or convincing. But Darkend directly addressed the ideas presented.

I think engagement of this nature is vastly more helpful, so I wanted to draw attention to it. I also wanted people to have access to his thoughts in a more permanent format, since Twitter feeds are so ephemeral.

I think there are points I agree and disagree on. If I can formulate my thoughts adequately, I may pen a reply journal, in the hopes of continuing to build healthy discussion and clarify where parties may differ.

I hope this answers your question, and thank you for reading Darkend's journal. 8 )

I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced to try to reason with people who are, at a basic level, saying I'm either not allowed to live in 'their' country or not allowed to be alive. That is the core of the argument of these alt-right, alt-furry people. I, as a non-white, non-straight individual, do not conform to their vision of America, and therefore I'm not allowed. I cannot countenance that as a platform, and I will be speaking vociferously against giving a platform to anybody in that position.

Well, good for both of us then that I'm not saying any of that, and you can reason with me. E )

It may sometimes be considerate to check whether an individual believes something before refusing to reason with them due to what you think they believe. What if you're wrong about that person?

I actually was not referring to you when I made that post, I was referring to giving a platform to alt-right/alt-furry folks. This, at present, does not seem to include you. Though like Dark End, I don't buy your argument that deplatforming Nazis makes them the paragons of free speech.

There absolutely should be consequences to espousing the ideals of the alt-right/Nazis (note how I'm using these terms interchangably. I don't mean 'people I disagree with politically' I mean 'people who espouse ideas similar to to the German Nazi Party around WWII). These folks are advocating for exterminating people who are not like them, they're just covering it up in bullshit and hoping people don't notice until they're nodding along. Deplatforming Nazis denies them the thing that they want: attention and the audience of whatever platform they're trying to hijack.

For that matter, I do not need to listen to Nazi arguments. We, as a world, collectively heard these ideas already, and we, as a world, collectively decided that we do not want to hear more. These same arguments have just been repackaged into shinier boxes, but it's still the same bullshit. The 'marketplace of ideas' has spoken, already, and we do not need to rehash it.

Aye matey, but what about arguments from people who aren't nazis? There's loads of people who've been banned and the like, people tossing the term nazi at them, but they're non-racist pro-immigration lgbt+ individuals. If you don't listen to someone because other people call them a nazi, then you're letting other people think for you- you need to hear what they say, first.

Remember, in a court system, the execution goes AFTER the trial. That's to prevent slipups where we kill the wrong people on accident. ;)



..... granted, even then it doesn't always work. : x

Just listen to a fellow before you decide they're a nazi is all i'm sayin.

1. Where did you even come from?
2. FA's ban is imperfect. People were probably swept up who weren't supposed to be. Fine. They can and should apply to be reinstated. I have no problem with that at all. I am absolutely pro FA trying to ban the alt-right/alt-furry, tho.
3. I'm sorry, what? You seem to be assuming that I haven't heard what these people are saying? I've heard what 2 is saying, I've heard what some of these other alt-furry types are saying. And honestly, if one is saying that one IS alt-furry, then no, I don't need to hear anything else. That should be a giant red flag of itself.

1: I come from the internet.

2: Agreed! Problem is that they also sent out some mass denials of eligibility to appeal. I don't think that's the way it should be handled.

3: No, not assuming you haven't heard what the founders / leaders of the group have said. Assumed that you think nobody in the group harshly disagrees with them. If you don't think that, I apologize- it's a fairly common viewpoint at the moment.

I've been busy at work for the past six months. When I got back, there was a lot of drama regarding the group called alt-furry. So I did some research. Here's my findings.

A: Alt-furry was originally named after the alt right as the alt right furry. This was stated by len in an audioclip. Len also said he named it after the alt right when they were different, but I don't know when the hell the alt right was ever different.

B: I talked to members of the group and asked them things- viewpoints on racism, function of the state, morality of lgbt, etc. There were certainly people who were anti-semite and anti-left political viewpoint. But in the chats, there were also people who attacked others for saying things like that. I talked to those people because they were the ones that interested me. It seemed weird for a non-anti-semite or a non-racist to be in a group that was affiliated with the alt right.

C: While talking to the members that gave the leadership shit for doing shitty things, I learned that they thought alt-furry meant 'alternative furry,' not 'alt-right furry.' They said that because they were tired of the constant political drama associated with other furry groups, wherein some furries advocate the removal of any X-wing demographic, and so they joined alt furry so they wouldn't have to deal with political witch-hunts. As far as I can tell, they legitimately didn't think it was a reference to the alt right. I found logs of leadership repeating this claim in text format, so it makes sense that they might think that if they're not fully aware of the group's history.

D: When I asked individuals what their beliefs were, about.... half? A lot of them were lgbt. They don't kick people out for kinks they find weird, either- there are diaper furs and elsewise in the group.

E: On their forums, I asked them what the premises were behind the idea of race realism. I explained that the reason I was asking was because it looked like a central premise of the alt-furry movement, because it was an alt-right ideology. One individual said he thought it was a 'solution to all the uncomfortable questions about differences in races.' I should mention that in the question I asked, I stated that I thought race-based ideology was inherently flawed because genetic similarity between different ethnicities is such that there is a 20% chance you're genetically more similar to someone outside your ethnicity than inside it. Also linked the study that showed it. Seems like that'd put the nail in that coffin, but not for them.

F: One more thing I observed. On the raiders forum, someone made a post saying they can't be nazis and they shouldn't tolerate that kind of thinking. About a page and a half post. An admin of the site agreed with it.

Anyway, I hope that if nothing else, this shows you that I am being sincere when I say that I don't think they're all terrible people, and I think the solution for some of them is to help them, not block them. I feel like making them feel excluded is going to do nothing but grow alt-furry's numbers- in fact, i'm pretty sure it's being held together solely by external pressure right now. When that external pressure is gone, I do not expect them to be able to stick together.

No, they're not all terrible people. It honestly makes sense to me that you ventured into there and found a bunch of people that are LGBT+ and/or diaperfurs and or whatever. There are probably a bunch of people that got lured in. These folks, the guys who don't actually think that Jews run the world or whatever, they're the face of alt-furry. They're the folks the leaders present to people wondering about all this alt-furry thing as what alt-furry actually is, when it's not.

So yeah, I bet the people you talked to aren't actually deep, and are just folks who are 'sick of politics' and 'just want to be furry' or what have you. Also, those folks are deeply naive, because politics affect everything and the only way to divorce yourself from politics is to be the majority and not care about anybody else. Politics is in everything, people's beliefs are in every statement, and to be willfully blind to that is to probably miss the point of a lot of statements made and media consumed. In this, 'sick of politics' can be more accurately read as 'sick of challenging statements.'

"So yeah, I bet the people you talked to aren't actually deep, and are just folks who are 'sick of politics' and 'just want to be furry' or what have you."
>Their words exactly.

"Politics is in everything, people's beliefs are in every statement, and to be willfully blind to that is to probably miss the point of a lot of statements made and media consumed. In this, 'sick of politics' can be more accurately read as 'sick of challenging statements.' "
>Maybe. I don't think everything is so political that it needs to be the central theme of our conversations regarding it, though. Does bugs bunny have political things in it? Absolutely, everything in the fifties was propaganda of some kind or another. But it's still funny by itself. The anime Hellsing is one of my favorite ones- not because you get to see nazis killed, but because you get to see nazi vampires destroyed en masse. It's bloody and brilliant. My brother, father and I disagree on politics, but we still enjoy much of the same media. That's because we don't make politics central to our conversations. We disagree on politics, we know we disagree, and none of us think the other one's ideas are going to change because we all think according to our personal experiences. So we don't even bring it up. I'm able to be on good terms with my family because we want to be. All of us have friends of many different types.

I guess thom jeff put it best. ""I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." The people who take politics and put it on such a high pedestal that they're willing to cut ties with friends or not be someone's friend because of that difference is someone who won't be a happy person. I certainly see a lot of furries fall into that trap.

I guess thom jeff put it best. ""I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
As much as I might love to be there with you, you lost me with this. Certain political opinions are rather fatal to folks like me, and therefore if I found out that people are espousing those opinions, I'm going to have to take a good, long, hard look at my relationship with them to see whether or not it's worth it to continue.

There's not talking politics because you don't want to upset a family gathering with differences of opinion, and there's folks who willingly advocate genocide and forced removal. No fucking thanks.

That's strange. I known a lot of right leaning and straight people. And they are always nice. Heck I am living in one of those red states and never had a problem. I never once met a person that you described. Do you meet many people like that? Are you in a red state? Or do you just assume they are all mean? Because the way you talk, it just seems you assume everyone is evil. And that is really the only reason that they would not like you.

I found that if I don't bug them, they don't bug me. We can live together peacefully.

"It doesn't happen to me, so I don't see what the problem is" is a very stupid argument. Get some empathy and try again.

Well this is certainly a mean-spirited post. : <

I think you have a valid point regarding the limitations of personal experience- it's more technically referred to as ah... i forget the word, damn... the word means a personally witnessed story, and is used to describe the type of data that is not relevant to scientific process.... starts with an A? crap, I forgot the word!

Point is, that A word is limited. (this is going to bug me.) So we have to look at bigger pictures, more witness accounts, that kind of thing. Most right wingers ARE nice- as long as politics aren't being discussed. Same with left-wingers, really. People get really testy when it comes to discussing how they view the world and what they think needs to be done to fix it. Right wingers tend to think the government should tell people what to do less often, except sometimes, and left wingers tend to think the government should tell people what to do less often, except sometimes. They come to those conclusions based on personal experience. You can't just shit down their throats and and say their personal experience is invalid just because it's not all-comprehensive. It's an important part of the larger picture. And so are they. You won't get more people to see the larger picture by saying their experiences are invalid.

I think you're a good person who wants to see fewer people suffering, and I like that about you. But you should explain to people why you disagree with them in a way that doesn't sound like you hate them personally. Because if we don't make that effort, we don't reach people. And if we're not reaching people, we've already lost.

Hope you have a good day.

The word you're looking for is 'anecdotal (evidence)' or 'anecdote'.

I disagree with conservative types, probably vociferously, but still can have a reasonable discussion argument with them. However, I cannot, cannot tolerate the alt-right. These are the dudes that are way off into Nazi land and are usually completely disingenuous with their arguments. They don't want to actually have a discussion, they wanna troll. They're not talking at you, they're talking past you at your audience, to see if there's anybody they can convert.

Point is, you don't talk to the alt-right, you shut them down, you shoo them off, you talk to people that actually want to have a conversation.

Also, what Diz said sounded similar to how I summed up his argument: "It doesn't happen to me, so there's no problem." People actually make this argument. This is a stupid argument, because it completely lacks in empathy. I'm talking about an honest-to-god LIFE OR DEATH situation. If he's gonna come back at me with "Well, I live in a red state and the people I talk to are nice!" then I have very little to say to him.

Anecdotal, thank you!!

But yeah, I don't think Diz meant to insult you or question the validity of your experiences, either. And I can understand why you can't tolerate the alt-right. Kinda hard to tolerate someone who advocates forcing people to move to continents of ancestry and refer to such concepts as 'peaceful genocide.' The organizers of the group know what they're doing, you're right.

There are people who joined alt fur because they felt like people here weren't willing to have an actual conversation. To me, that looks like a self-perpetuating cycle. I don't want to be the one who left them there.

And yeah, I can get that. Diz could have worded what he was asking better. I think it's important to remember that communication through text can sometimes lose its intended meaning, so it's usually better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and ask them if they meant something in particular, even if it doesn't seem like it could mean anything else. Most people aren't out to offend, but they can wind up doing so anyway.

At least one person knows I mean well. Thanks :D

I know places can be different. I just find it hard to think that in the same country, people of color can have a hard and dangerous time. while I myself am living a peaceful prosperous life. On top of that, conservatives are blamed for the hard times, but I live in a conservative area. So it don't add up. So I ask, what gives? What kind of stuff is going on, and where? But anytime I ask, people just get pissy.

I have to be honest though. It makes me think that people are lying. Maybe they are not. But from the world I can observe, and how people act when I ask about things.

Basically, the alt-right is racist according to themselves. It is the central theme of their politics. For example, many of them support what is known as a 'peaceful genocide,' wherein people would be encouraged to move to continents of their ancestry. Why? Because Alt Right believes that racial integration is unnatural and that people of different ethnicities should not be of the same society. They believe gender roles should be lawfully enforced. In this regard, the name is misleading. They're not right wing, they're authoritarian racists. They call themselves the alt-right because they supported a right wing candidate. My father is very right wing. He is very much NOT alt-right.

That makes more sense. Everyone has just been calling everyone Alt-right all over the place. So I been rather confused with what they are talking about.

WildWiredWeasel

Yeah, I'm starting to doubt that. He apparently can't believe anything not put in front of his face in the most inoffensive way possible. And many people who are out to offend often ask questions similar to how Diz was.

If you are not up to conversation that's fine. All I wanted to do was find out about this Alt-Right group. but so far no one can show me anything real. They just seem like rumors. And I don't like blindly acting on rumors like an easily lead sheep.

And to me you kinda act the way you describe the Alt-right. Maybe your not always like that, I don't know. I think you just want to run around blindly and see enemys everywhere. Maybe your a better person to talk to at a later time when your not all flustered.

Just because someplace is nice, does not mean everyplace in the world is nice. It just means that one person has no idea how bad another place is. And the only way for them to know, is to ask.

Diz
Holy shit. You don't know what the alt-right is? I... okay, I have no idea if you're being serious or not.

For the moment, I'm going to assume you're being serious (which confuses the hell out of me) and answer your question: the alt-right are neo-nazis. They are extremist conservatives who want to build a white 'ethnostate' out of America, which, again, necessitates that non-white people and people who are 'degenerates' in their eyes leave the United States, either 'voluntarily' or in a body bag. You know the dudes who protested in Charlottesville over Confederate statues? The folks carrying tiki torches and chanting Nazi slogans like "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil"? The people the dubiously-elected President of the United States called "Very fine people"? Those folks.

Alt-furry are alt-right wannabes hiding behind a shield of naive folks that 'want politics out of furry'.

Also, maybe people get pissed anytime you ask is because all this information is readily available to anybody that really, truly wants to know, instead of ask folks that are tired of having to answer the same questions from folks with much less pure intentions than you ascribe to yourself.

Yeah I really had no idea what its about, because everyone is calling everybody an Alt Right. And they call anyone that's a conservative racist and sexist. And that is all rather strange because this large conservative organization I know about. It's president is a woman born from another country. http://www.actforamerica.org/aboutbrigitte And she is the one that organized it and started it. She is the top dog.

People told me that Alt-furry are a diverse group of people of all kinds of political minds. Trying to find a safe place from the Alt Left. I never dived into that group myself, but seeing how people these days like to label people. Eh.

If you truly believe that the Alt-Left is a thing, than I don't know if there's much hope for you.

Well you have people that think all whites should die. All men are evil and need to be put down. Antifa, burning towns and killing people. I seen far more people open about that. What would you call them? They dwell on the Left. And moderate left don't like them. They are just like the description of the Alt Right. So I just called them the Alt Left. And you don't think they exist? Don't think people like this are real? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdNrzfzstQ

So if Alt Left is not a thing. Are leftest just horrible people from the start? I know that's not true. So their are different kinds of Left sects.

Stop trying to make the alt-left happen.

I don't have to, they do it on their own. We just don't call them by a name, other than A holes.

Sure, Jan.

A rather odd response. What I said was not an argument in the first place. It was a statement. I did not experience something, thus asked for your experience with it. Perhaps you need some empathy yourself.

When I asked if you had experienced with such things, that is my attempt of getting empathy. But you just shut me down.
If you want me to have empathy, why not share your woes?

Dude, you conflated 'alt-right' with 'conservative'. I didn't do that.

I've experienced the alt-right. I've heard their arguments. They say they want an enthnostate. They call themselves white supremacists in cutesy terms. Their vision of America necessitates that I, as a non-white, non-straight individual, do not live there.

Or to put it another way, if they rule the United States, then I, and anybody like me, will be thrown out.

I was short with you, because you were asking me to restate my argument.

I don't understand why people are trying to tweak what free speech means or how little or how much we can have. I mean their are many countries in the world. If you prefer to not have free speech and arrest people for saying something, you can go live in a country that already does it. You don't have to dictate the whole world. Just let the USA have its freedom. The people that want more government control can go live in a place that already does it. This should be a world of diversity were we can have a place for everyone.

But if a platform like FA wants to ban or silence you, well it is their platform. It's just like someones house. It's their house and if they want you out, it's their right.

But I think Darkend is a bit confused to the difference between speech and action. Although I could agree that some speech can lead to people getting killed. Like when people keep telling black kids that their worthless and all the cops are out to kill them. Then they are without hope and when a cop is around, the black kid starts shooting because he thinks he is going to die no matter what. So then the cops have to shoot back. So Yeah, speech can be dangerous. But apparently speech that leads to that is completely fine.

You gotta remember man, not everybody who disagrees with dave here is trying to warp free speech- sometimes, the people they are reacting to are the ones who have changed the meaning of free speech. I'll give you a simple example. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because people are going to get hurt trying to get out. So obviously that doesn't fall under free speech, right? The reasoning here is very simple- your words directly cause unnecessary harm, and that goes against people's right to life. So what if your words don't cause direct harm, but only tell people to harm others, and they won't necessarily do it unless they agree to it? Some people are saying that should be covered under the freedom of speech, but that the people who commit the actual violence should be the ones arrested. Well, it's actually not covered by the freedom of speech, and for basically the same reason as the fire. Now the question comes, well, what about people who are discussing, civilly, enacting legislation that would bring it about as an ends? They're not TELLING anyone to. They're discussing it and saying they support it. The only way it could ever result in someone being harmed is if the country adopts its ideas as laws. So of course it can't be illegal, since the only way it would hurt people is if it became legal, right?

It's twisty little fucks like that that've inserted themselves into the gears of logic that are causing the problems here. I know you're not one of them, but all of this does bring up an important distinction I think all too many people forget. There is a difference between legality and morality. What Harriet Tubman did was illegal, and it caused some ethical problems in regards to police who were legally required to try and arrest her, but I'll fight someone who says what she did was immoral.

Interesting. You have a good point. But to stop a political discussion due to harm of certain people is also something the Nazis did. If you say something they did not like, you disappear.

Now if you say that a person says something, and another person does evil with that. The person that said something should be jailed? By that logic people that work on movies should be arrested. People on the news should be arrested. Because some people are inspired to do evil from what they said. There is something called personal responsibility.

Now if there is a person that is gathering troops and actively telling them to do things, that is a different story. However hundreds of people are accused of doing this when they did not do it. The Alt Left falsely accuse people all the time. They even call left people Alt Right. I would not want to give those kinds of people the power to tell other people what they can say.

Besides the example what you are bringing up is not even the type of speech they are even talking about. All they are wanting is the freedom to say what is true. Or the freedom to say, "Hey, I think your changing pronouns, that even you can't keep track of is dumb. I don't like it when your forcing it on me." That is not going to get anyone killed. Or the freedom to say you don't like Hillary's policies.

"Interesting. You have a good point. But to stop a political discussion due to harm of certain people is also something the Nazis did. If you say something they did not like, you disappear."
>I.... don't think that's true, actually. Could you give me an example of what you're talking about?

"Now if you say that a person says something, and another person does evil with that. The person that said something should be jailed? By that logic people that work on movies should be arrested. People on the news should be arrested. Because some people are inspired to do evil from what they said. There is something called personal responsibility."
>Nobody's denying personal responsibility is important, but one of those responsibilities is knowing not to order people to kill someone. Taking out a contract on someone's life is illegal (and immoral), even if you're not the one pulling the trigger. Why? Because you're providing incentive for someone to murder someone. Telling people who love you to murder someone is providing an incentive for them to murder someone. The simplest example I can point you to is Charles Manson. If you're not familiar with his history, I recommend reading about it on wikipedia. It was the case of the decade, because he hadn't actually lifted a finger and was still found guilty of murder.

"Now if there is a person that is gathering troops and actively telling them to do things, that is a different story. However hundreds of people are accused of doing this when they did not do it. The Alt Left falsely accuse people all the time. They even call left people Alt Right. I would not want to give those kinds of people the power to tell other people what they can say."
>Hrm. That's kinda the problem, though. They're actively trying to do exactly that, but within the legal framework. The alt-right is an inherently racist movement, I'm afraid. Though the anti-establishment republican feelings were very strong at the beginning of the election cycle, the group it produced has officially stated as such. Among other pursuits, they seek a 'peaceful genocide,' wherein people of foreign descent would have incentives to move to their continent of ancestry. They believe integration is harmful to society on a fundamental level, and they seek political ends to achieve that goal. But I do think it is important to show people why ideas are bad, and I don't think you can do that if you're not listening to them.

"Besides the example what you are bringing up is not even the type of speech they are even talking about. All they are wanting is the freedom to say what is true. Or the freedom to say, "Hey, I think your changing pronouns, that even you can't keep track of is dumb. I don't like it when your forcing it on me." That is not going to get anyone killed. Or the freedom to say you don't like Hillary's policies. "
>It's not the kind SOME of them are talking about. : P And I think it's better to say, 'All they are wanting is the freedom to say what they think is true.' And I understand the necessity of a society where people are free to do that, because we need a disagreement arbitration mechanic that leaves society in tact rather than in fractured pieces. That said, this is a private website, and they do have the right to say 'no nazis.' I can also understand the sentiment of this one in particular- nazi ideology is inherently violent against people who are non-nazis. So it stands to reason that people who don't advocate it are not actually nazis, even if they think they are, right? It's a tricky issue. While I know what I would personally do, I can also understand why other people would come to different conclusions on the appropriate response.


RE new pronouns and such- yeah, I never understood the arguments regarding gender and pronouns, tbh. None of the premises themselves are problematic, and I'd happily espouse them, except the premises break each other.
1: If genders are social constructs, then how is it that some people have genders that do not have social roles? Counterwise, if it's because gender is something expressed from within, then in what way is it a social construct?

2: I've never really associated pronouns with gender, but rather sex. For example, if I see a female dog, I will refer to the female dog as She. The dog is not a woman, so the pronoun is obviously not referring to the dog's gender. When I see worker ants, I know they are females (Because of how ant colonies operate), so if I refer to one, I'll refer to her as a she. Same for queen ants. It isn't that these things have human genders for which pronouns exist, it's that I call female things she and male things he.

3: I understand gender dysphoria, and I'll call someone what they want to be called, but expecting people to start out every convo with 'what are your pronouns' is a bit odd to me. If I see a dude dressing up like a woman and he looks like he's trying to pass as one, I'll call him a she. It's basic courtesy, yanno? But saying there's.... many, many genders that all need their own pronouns? I think I'd rather just use they, sorry. It's not an effort to be rude, but if there's infinite genders, then there's infinite pronouns for genders, and that just defeats the purpose of pronouns.


EDIT- A final caveat on all of this. I firmly believe the reason so many racists are willing to be publicly racist is that the term has been so overused that nobody takes the accusation seriously anymore. People are doing the same thing with the word nazi. It is not a good thing.

Well I know a person made fun of Hitlers Mustache, then they got arrested. Look it up.

The only people I hear talking about the right to say things that get people killed are the ultra left. And I never seen an Alt Right or any actual Nazis. I never met a person that thinks all blacks should die. And I live in one of the most right leaning states around. You would think you find something like that here if it was true. But its not. The type of misuse of speech you are talking about is just fear mongering rumors from the far left. The best way to try to beat an enemy is to dehumanize them.

And that's why centrists people are on the right, and even some on the left are so mad and rising up. Because the ultra left keep telling lies.

Now maybe there are some actual racists around. Maybe a few Nazis. but there not many of them. And if you let the Left keep calling everyone Nazis and blowing things out of proportion, then we are not going to see the real Nazis.

Well with the transgender or what ever. I just stay clear from them. I don't want to chance triggering them just from saying hello. and lose my job or my life in general.

"Well I know a person made fun of Hitlers Mustache, then they got arrested. Look it up. "
>Looked it up, found nothing.

Well that's just it. The right to say things that get people killed isn't a right at all. I have seen alt right and nazis. The types of misuse of speech I'm talking about are types I have witnessed, not some boogeyman reported to me by cable news networks. : P

This is a common trend I'm seeing. While I normally keep out of things like this, I have been pushed forward into this conversation by a few others. First and formost, I personally don't have an opinion on this matter. All I see are people in both this journal and in the links attempting to push their own agenda. Before you start throwing things around as if they are fact, always fact check them

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Have strong credible sources: http://www.pewresearch.org/

Those that are making claims that they are going to lose a country to live in, is often grossly misrepresenting the current political climate and are often simply buying into media without fact checking it. Remember that news companies are not fact checking many statements anymore, lets use fox news as an example: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ As you can see, majority of their statements fall either into half truths or less(mostly untrue/pants on fire untrue)

I strongly, STRONGLY recommend that more people in the furry community actually start researching and fact checking statements before they have knee-jerk reactions. Knee-jerk reactions is how majority of the conflict here seems to start.