That's ridiculous, are you sure the staff on FA allows Racism and stuff like that?

The words of the ticket response:

"I have reviewed your ticket and determined that the reported content does not violate our rules at this time.

Fur Affinity provides a platform for our users to exchange ideas and works of art that include a variety of different themes. We understand that some users may create content that is political, religious, or use themes that may be perceived as offensive. However, artistic expression that may be offensive to some users does not necessarily mean the content violates the rules as we differentiate fictional expression from the committing of real life acts.

In the future, if you find content that you do not believe is not intended to be fictional and grossly promotes hate and violence against a group of people, we encourage you to open a new ticket and report it. Thank you for your report and working with us to keep our community safe.
"

Safe my foot.

I wonder how many other immoral and shameful things are floating around this site that don't have a rule. Really makes you wonder eh?

Yeah, I still know Dragoneer is the one to blame.

There's a reasonable principal to letting people express themselves, but if you're going to have rules about what lines you can and can't cross, I'd like to hear the justification against one thing and the lack of prohibition against another.

Why shouldn't that remain a flag that you shouldn't interact with them, I don't agree with the idea of the character and fetishization of it but I do not condone the removal of it because you disagree with the content. You think you will do good by removing the content forcibly but it always expands into removing more innocuous content because someone will always exploit such a system and their response of it was correct and actually good of them. Just ignore it.

Dude if you can't draw the line at drawing black women as slaves, I don't know how to tell you you're just abdicating any right to comment on the interaction of morality and freedom of speech.

And here you are calling for someone else's right to expression to be removed because you're offended. Rich.

You're welcome to continue defending the moral low ground of "African slavery fetish is morally defensible art" all you want.

You're welcome to see when cancel culture will be used against you.

I make a pretty strong effort to not do anything awful. But I can be sure I'll never stoop to African slavery as a fetish, or defending it.

Freedom of speech just means the government can't come after you for something you said if it didn't hurt anyone. It isn't the right to have a platform for that speech. It doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to shut you up.

Alright then, let me know when your calls of censorship ends up being used against you. Oh wait, you'll cry about it occurring to you and have no self awareness in the process.

Somehow I don't think I'm going to be censored. If African slavery fetish art gets a pass it sounds like I can do pretty much anything with no consequences around here.

I'd be far more worried about the fact that I had so little self-awareness to not realize that what I was saying made me look like an absolute asshole to people.

Amen

I nornally don't paertake in these debates, but I wish to understand something here. It sounds like (and I may have failed to understand your full messege in your journal and I am taking cues from the topic of the comments and your answers) you are saying that "african slavery fetishization is bad, but only african slavery"? As in, had the picture featured european slavery, it would've been fine?

I am not trying to start hate here (everyone from where I live, including me and my family, has anceastors who were slaves), but merely want to know if this is the stance you are taking, or if anything fetishizes slavery (regardless of race) should have rules against them?

Or am I just being a dum dum and missing the point entirely?

no sorry I should have clarified, the pics I was reporting were of an african slave bimbo character, drawn as fetish art as a zootopia OC, for some reason. I don't want to take away anybody's right to have fun and express themselves and play with taboos and walk lines but surely there has to be some consideration for something as obviously immoral as african slavery being a fetish?

I just think we as a community should be at a point where we can tell the difference between sexual consenting adult slavery as a kink for safe exploration, and depictions of abject human chattel slavery coupled with racist caricatures all to depict a black slave character for the sole purpose of fetish entertainment.

There HAS to be a line between these two extremes. No reasonable person should be making excuses for "slave chan" and her self-described half-white owner.

*edit, I forget how stupid FA is with fucking replying, so here is the messege twice, but this time actually in response to your reply:

I see. I can understand where you are comming from, with a community should be aware of where to step, but I can also understand the oppesite side of the argument here, artistic freedom, and by extension, freedom of speech.

We can both agree that saying racist things, and justifying any form of slavery of any human/race is bad, but we cannot go and say it's illigal to speak that way. People have the right to say what they want, even if we do not support it. Supporting the oppesite, is quite francly the first irriversible step towards eventual tyrany and back to times when people were punished by whip and staked for speaking anything people disagreed with (went from a 0 to a 100 real fucking fast, but this is where it always ends up if not stopped and undone fully with no exceptions). We should never take that first step. Same goes for art, as it's a different form of communication. (In all fairness, that is one of the things that I always liked about FA; that you could post some real horribly shit and not get flag for it.)

It may be that I am less affected, or less sensitive, but I can understand that this have caused you to act this way, to give us a messege that you want us to hear. And in a way, I do agree that something should be done, but not through cencure. Instead, maybe a more managable way should be implemented here.

I find that a middle road of filters, and required tags and warnings, that can be used to seperate, or warn, people of art of this nature should be implemented and the art monitored. Kinda like InkBunny, but more.

For sure, "out of sight and out of mind" is not a solution to anything. But it is the focus of monitoring, what sort of attention these arts gather, and if groups starts to form that will help find a more suitable solutiuon. FA should deal with this, yes, but only if they start causing issues that are detrimental for the greater community. We as a community should stand up for things. Never by cencoring, but by delivering a messege

So maybe not a line needs to be drawn, but more like a "warning, you are now entering a very gray area that is being monitored" needs to be established. If it happens that it becomes a problem with art gathering unwanted attention, then it should be debated on what to do and how to draw that line.

That is at least how I feel about it. I do get you when you say it is not right, but I also will never compromise on freedom of speech, even if the topics hurts me deeply.

What is the point of having acceptable upload policies if they don't have anything to say about black slavery fetishization as being immoral? Why not just have no rules if they're going to be so selective about what immoral things have rules and which ones don't?

I get where you're coming from, wanting to protect free expression, but we as a society have TONNES of rules about what is acceptable to publish. Not just on FA, but everwhere.

Just here, you can't post a picture of your character violently raping and murdering someone else's character without that person's permission, and if the victim complains you can be sure the art would be taken down.

You can't post a journal to call out an artist who has stolen money from dozens of commissioners.

You can't post cub or underage art because they have decided that child abuse is a subject they won't tolerate as fit for free expression.

But somehow, they can't make a moral case against the evil of dehumanizing chattel slavery, and just fall back on established rules. I think this is disgraceful. It should be so easy to say "You know, we don't have a rule against that but this is really unethical and really immoral and really bigoted so I'm going to do something about it."

I'm 100% with you. There's nothing else to say in this matter.

Hopefully there will be q change, for change brings progress

Thank you ❤

I do not think it is much as a point for FA about morality, but more about them not wanting to comply with more than just necessary and to avoid association.

The first two examples you mention is more about art affacting indevidual people directly (with FA also at risk), as well as property, and therefore it is taken seriously. In contrast to that, slavery is a topic/theme/act/history, with no individual or group being able to claim ownership/trademark of it. It happened (and still is happening) to everyone and was done by everyone. Just at different times. The black slavetrade wasn't even the worst one, but the one people favor talking about because it is well documented and still in relative recent minds.

The latter about cub/underage art is more of an appropriate comparrison, but the way I saw this it was more to combatting FA owns version of child pornography, as it is illigal in the real world. I also felt that a added layer to that was FA not wanting furries to be associated with pedophiles, which was a movement gaining popularity around that time (The LGBTQP movement, with P standing for pedosexuals=pedophiles).

It fucking sucks, and it is also where i find that FA sucks awfully.

FA can make whatever rules they want, it just means they're now in the position of defending any artist's right to draw unlimited of pictures of African slavery fetish art and post them to this site.

I'm not going to get into comparing slavery to other evils Because your response makes me think you're a little a uninformed and I didn't make this journal to argue.

The bottom line is it's immoral, unethical, and FA is now a place to find it.

I believe that I may not know enough about this subject to give a valid opinion, but you seem very adamant about your statement of improper behavior on FA's part. And I do believe you have a point, but I do not think a guideline specifically saying "art that features non-consentual, fetishanization (instert other descrptions here) and dehuminzation of african people should be deleted or (instert other action here)" would even be handled properly by people. It would be abused by many to get rid or anything that they disagree with. Anyone can be convinced by even the vaguest of arguments. So there is also the issue of how to handle that rule.

Agree that we do not agree on how FA should handle this, but agree that we are both displeased with FA not doing anything at all?

It wouldn't be hard to write a rule that states "depictions of human being as chattel slaves, racist caricatures of human beings, and dehumanizing depictions of people of any race, ethnic group, religion or other forms of discrimination and dehumanization are unethical and prohibited subject matter for this site."

It would not be hard writing it, but it is hard handling it.

I've seen it first hand. People think it's simple, but because the rule is still fundamentally weak by how people perceive the topics, it is so easy to abuse the fuck out of.

Maybe not immidietly, but it will happen.

Even the "underage/cub" rule is abuse-able. I've witnissed artists who has OC that are small for various reason )like suffering from dwarfism, or they are just menat to be cute looking), but thier pictures got, and keeps getting, flagged because people think said OC's are children. And obviously someone in the staff agrees, otherwise things wouldn't have gotten further than some rejected complaints.

I do hope something is gonna be done tho.

Anyway, I think that this talk have gone on for long enough. I need to go to bed. I wish you a nice day.

I mean, they HAVE rules I just don't think they have enough of them. The Trouble Ticket worked fine, I reported something awful and got a response, it was just a really unfortunate response.

Good point, well made. Let's hope we can get that changed