FA+
Shop
Where to find me
General | Posted 4 years agoFurry Code
General | Posted 9 years agoToday, I was taught what the furry code was. I wanted to make one, but didn't want to clutter up my profile with it, so here it is here instead:
FDD3afrw A- C+ D++ H+ M? P R T+++ W->+++ Z Sm++ RLCT/S* a24 c++ d? e++ f h i+ j p- sm+
If you don't know what this is, you can run it through here and learn all my dark secrets >:3
FDD3afrw A- C+ D++ H+ M? P R T+++ W->+++ Z Sm++ RLCT/S* a24 c++ d? e++ f h i+ j p- sm+
If you don't know what this is, you can run it through here and learn all my dark secrets >:3
I'm moving! (moving towns, that is)
General | Posted 9 years agoMoving to St. Louis! It was very short notice. Gonna miss Florida. I'll try to come back and visit as much as I can.
I'm getting started on a cool new job, and hopefully with that I'll have the money to end this fur-drought and actually do some more stuff on FA, etc.!
Here's to the future!
I'm getting started on a cool new job, and hopefully with that I'll have the money to end this fur-drought and actually do some more stuff on FA, etc.!
Here's to the future!
Zootopia review part 5: the original plot ideas
General | Posted 9 years agoThis is part 5 of my Zootopia review, which ended up being really long, so I split it up into parts.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
Thanks to the Internet, it's very easy nowadays to find out all kinds of cool trivia about what went into making the movie. My younger sister, who's studying zoology in school, likes it for all the little zoological details that went into it, but I personally like the various plot ideas that got brainstormed before settling on the current one. Take a look over here, for example.
Apparently, the original idea of the plot was a lot darker. It focused on Nick instead of Judy (typically, I suppose, since Disney has a history of fox protagonists in "The Fox and the Hound" and "Robin Hood"), and the story begins with the city already divided between prey and predators, and with the predators by city policy required to wear shock collars to keep their "instinctual drives" in check. The driving teleology of the plot, then, was less of a film noir police case and more of Nick's attempt to try to escape from the city that was treating him so badly. This original plot remained up into the animating stage of the film. Eventually, the team decided that the original plot was too dark, and presented little to no reason to like the city, and changed it by switching the focus from Nick to Judy. What followed from that was the removal of shock collars, and generally a more appealing image of the city, which solved basically all the major problems of the movie.
Apparently, the original working title of the film before it was officially set to Zootopia was "Savage City." All in all, it seems like the original idea was a lot darker than what ultimately made it to the screen.
My opinion about this is rather mixed. Ultimately, I like the fact that Disney made the change and opted for the lighter story with the relatively happier Nick, and I think I would have found it pretty disturbing to have seen all the predators have to put up with something so abusive throughout the whole film. If you look at the older artwork, Nick is all beaten up and mangled, and has a black eye and all these bruises everywhere, and in retrospect I'm pretty glad that his adventure on screen ended up being an emotional one rather than a physical one. That said, the idea in itself of Nick trying to overcome a physical oppression has some interesting artistic potential, and while it would be unbecoming of Disney to make something like that, it could be pretty cool if some independent artist told that story. After all, I do have kind of a (ahem) kink for seeing characters I think are cute overcome physical pain. It has an "aww, poor baby, let me take care of you" effect to it. :333 Just, don't pair it with Disney happy-go-lucky whimsy, make it consistently dark.
With that in mind, I can't help but think it might be an interesting experiment to try to play with the alternative history that Zootopia, instead of being a Disney original story, was an adaptation from some previous thing, in kind of the same way that "Fox and the Hound" was originally a (rather dark) novel. If I have time, I'd like to try to make that and see what comes out.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
Thanks to the Internet, it's very easy nowadays to find out all kinds of cool trivia about what went into making the movie. My younger sister, who's studying zoology in school, likes it for all the little zoological details that went into it, but I personally like the various plot ideas that got brainstormed before settling on the current one. Take a look over here, for example.
Apparently, the original idea of the plot was a lot darker. It focused on Nick instead of Judy (typically, I suppose, since Disney has a history of fox protagonists in "The Fox and the Hound" and "Robin Hood"), and the story begins with the city already divided between prey and predators, and with the predators by city policy required to wear shock collars to keep their "instinctual drives" in check. The driving teleology of the plot, then, was less of a film noir police case and more of Nick's attempt to try to escape from the city that was treating him so badly. This original plot remained up into the animating stage of the film. Eventually, the team decided that the original plot was too dark, and presented little to no reason to like the city, and changed it by switching the focus from Nick to Judy. What followed from that was the removal of shock collars, and generally a more appealing image of the city, which solved basically all the major problems of the movie.
Apparently, the original working title of the film before it was officially set to Zootopia was "Savage City." All in all, it seems like the original idea was a lot darker than what ultimately made it to the screen.
My opinion about this is rather mixed. Ultimately, I like the fact that Disney made the change and opted for the lighter story with the relatively happier Nick, and I think I would have found it pretty disturbing to have seen all the predators have to put up with something so abusive throughout the whole film. If you look at the older artwork, Nick is all beaten up and mangled, and has a black eye and all these bruises everywhere, and in retrospect I'm pretty glad that his adventure on screen ended up being an emotional one rather than a physical one. That said, the idea in itself of Nick trying to overcome a physical oppression has some interesting artistic potential, and while it would be unbecoming of Disney to make something like that, it could be pretty cool if some independent artist told that story. After all, I do have kind of a (ahem) kink for seeing characters I think are cute overcome physical pain. It has an "aww, poor baby, let me take care of you" effect to it. :333 Just, don't pair it with Disney happy-go-lucky whimsy, make it consistently dark.
With that in mind, I can't help but think it might be an interesting experiment to try to play with the alternative history that Zootopia, instead of being a Disney original story, was an adaptation from some previous thing, in kind of the same way that "Fox and the Hound" was originally a (rather dark) novel. If I have time, I'd like to try to make that and see what comes out.
Zootopia review part 4: anti-hype?
General | Posted 9 years agoThis is part 4 of my Zootopia review, which ended up being really long, so I split it up into parts.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
I do have a fear that, given the sheer amount of hype this movie has generated, it'll eventually suffer the same fate as Frozen to where its fandom will go out of control (as is the nature of a fandom), start to annoy everyone else, and ultimately people will start to hate the movie on principle. And the fact that it's a solid movie by itself won't help the hate (c.f. Undertale, a great game nevertheless followed by an occasionally loathesome fanbase, and therefore a notable collection of haters). This could be potentially damaging to the furry fandom, and while we're riding on a high right now, we might be facing something more difficult later on.
Though already, I'm starting to think this prediction might be a little simplistic, since what I'm starting to hear these days now that the movie's been out for some time is that there's a lot of discourse about making a distinction between a "Zootopia fan" and a "furry," due to people who want to like Zootopia without being associated with certain negative traits of furry. Like this one. And in response to that, people are starting to seriously debate the question of what it really means to be a furry, and from this I think we're going to get a lot of positive results. I think people are going to start discovering that the negative traits of furry aren't really definitive of the label, and that it's in every way possible to take on the label without taking on any kind of guilt complex connected to it.
I for one don't buy into the whole "sin and guilt" thing at all, and hopefully after some more serious discussion about what a "furry" actually is, more people are going to realize that the extra "sin/guilt" baggage is not at all necessary to being a fan of animal-people, and in the end maybe it'll help clean up furry's image even more.
So yeah, I have some mixed feelings about the future, but as always we'll just have to see what happens.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
I do have a fear that, given the sheer amount of hype this movie has generated, it'll eventually suffer the same fate as Frozen to where its fandom will go out of control (as is the nature of a fandom), start to annoy everyone else, and ultimately people will start to hate the movie on principle. And the fact that it's a solid movie by itself won't help the hate (c.f. Undertale, a great game nevertheless followed by an occasionally loathesome fanbase, and therefore a notable collection of haters). This could be potentially damaging to the furry fandom, and while we're riding on a high right now, we might be facing something more difficult later on.
Though already, I'm starting to think this prediction might be a little simplistic, since what I'm starting to hear these days now that the movie's been out for some time is that there's a lot of discourse about making a distinction between a "Zootopia fan" and a "furry," due to people who want to like Zootopia without being associated with certain negative traits of furry. Like this one. And in response to that, people are starting to seriously debate the question of what it really means to be a furry, and from this I think we're going to get a lot of positive results. I think people are going to start discovering that the negative traits of furry aren't really definitive of the label, and that it's in every way possible to take on the label without taking on any kind of guilt complex connected to it.
I for one don't buy into the whole "sin and guilt" thing at all, and hopefully after some more serious discussion about what a "furry" actually is, more people are going to realize that the extra "sin/guilt" baggage is not at all necessary to being a fan of animal-people, and in the end maybe it'll help clean up furry's image even more.
So yeah, I have some mixed feelings about the future, but as always we'll just have to see what happens.
Zootopia review part 3: aesthetics
General | Posted 9 years agoThis is part 3 of my Zootopia review, which ended up being really long, so I split it up into parts.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
I have a theory about the aesthetics of the characters of the movie that can be illustrated pretty well by this picture, which had been showing up a lot on the Internet before the movie came out.
Back then, most of the time we talk about that tiger, it's about how much of a nice character he looks. He looks so friendly, kind, approachable, "dateable," etc. etc.
But once we actually see the movie, and we see the context that this picture is in, it ... kind of kills the mood. The point of the scene is not just that he's a friendly-looking tiger. He's a friendly-looking tiger, and despite that, the prey characters around him are slinking away from him out of fear simply because he's a member of a predator species.
The point of the scene is quite obvious once you get the context. It's in the part of the story right after Judy makes the big speech about how predators are going savage due to their biology, and the damage that speech caused to the Zootopia community, in segregating it between prey and predators and making all the prey civilians fearful of the predators. It's showing just how much of a mistake that speech was, and why Judy regrets having made it. The scene itself is part of a "something very wrong is going on" collage of scenes, set to "something very wrong is going on" music. That kind of changes our relationship with the tiger, as viewers. I don't really fan over him as a "datable" character all that much now. Now, I kind of feel sorry for him.
And yet, the negative taint put on this scene by its context in the movie has a way of bringing it back around to a positive. Now that I know what the point of this scene is, and how it's functioning in the overall moral of the story, I've managed to unlock the reason why he's so attractive.
Here's my big point: the reason the theme of "not all predators are vicious" is so in the movie because it's not a moral. It's an aesthetic. There's something very beautiful about the idea of a friendly predator.
Take the image of that tiger for example. Here's how we're processing it, and this is all happening instantaneously, without us needing to overthink anything:
1. First, we're noticing both predatory traits in his anatomy (claws, "danger" colors, large size, etc.) and friendly traits in his body language (happy little smile, relaxed pose, keeping to himself, civilian clothes, etc.). Thus, the details of the image coincide to suggest that the character is (a) anatomically predatory and (b) temperamentally friendly.
2. We recall the traditional associations of biological functions: claws have the function of scratching, teeth have the function of biting, bright colors have the function of warding off danger, size has the function of exerting great strength, etc. What these amount to saying is that this tiger can do these things if he wanted to. He can be very destructive if he wanted to.
3. So now the question becomes: would he want to? The answer, suggested by his "friendly" body language, is no. What it amounts to saying is this character can claw and maim and tear and destroy. But he doesn't want to.
4. We notice a contrast: the character's will contrasts against his potential.
5. Contrast suggests an experience with the new and unfamiliar. Formulaically, it works like this: suppose "A" is traditionally paired with "1," and "B" is traditionally paired with "2." This means "A1" and "B2" are old hat. Now, all of a sudden, you come across "A2." This is new and unfamiliar. And the unfamiliar is exciting. In this case, we have something like "predator" traditionally paired with "danger," and "prey" traditionally paired with "friendliness," and this tiger in particular pairing "predator" with "friendliness." This pair is new, hence it makes him an exciting character.
Hence, this "exciting," "friendly" tiger comes off to us as very much "datable." What kind of things would he like to do? Would they be from his being a predator, or from his being a nice fellow? How exactly do these two traits come together in this character? We have to know. We have to ask him.
And putting him in such a situation that the characters around him react to his "predatory" anatomy only serves to enhance our awareness of his "predatory" traits, and thus the contrast of his will against his potential, and ultimately makes him look all the more exciting.
This is basically the function many of these characters in Zootopia present to viewers. And this is why so many of the characters in the film (at least, the predatory ones, but also, inversely, Bellweather) are so aesthetically strong. There's so much contrast, not only in colors and environments, but also in anatomy vs. temperament, and in potential vs. will, and these examples of contrast are advanced by the theme of "friendly predators," which in turn are encouraged by the morals of "don't discriminate," and "anyone can be anything."
This, I think, is a big reason why predatory animal characters with friendly personalities feature so much in the furry fandom. Because "friendly predator" is such a strong aesthetic. Perhaps we could even say it's the archetype of furry. Those 6 steps work in the experience of the vast majority of furry characters. And even if they don't, some other process of experience is leading to the experience of contrast, which in turn is such a fundamental value in art.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
I have a theory about the aesthetics of the characters of the movie that can be illustrated pretty well by this picture, which had been showing up a lot on the Internet before the movie came out.
Back then, most of the time we talk about that tiger, it's about how much of a nice character he looks. He looks so friendly, kind, approachable, "dateable," etc. etc.
But once we actually see the movie, and we see the context that this picture is in, it ... kind of kills the mood. The point of the scene is not just that he's a friendly-looking tiger. He's a friendly-looking tiger, and despite that, the prey characters around him are slinking away from him out of fear simply because he's a member of a predator species.
The point of the scene is quite obvious once you get the context. It's in the part of the story right after Judy makes the big speech about how predators are going savage due to their biology, and the damage that speech caused to the Zootopia community, in segregating it between prey and predators and making all the prey civilians fearful of the predators. It's showing just how much of a mistake that speech was, and why Judy regrets having made it. The scene itself is part of a "something very wrong is going on" collage of scenes, set to "something very wrong is going on" music. That kind of changes our relationship with the tiger, as viewers. I don't really fan over him as a "datable" character all that much now. Now, I kind of feel sorry for him.
And yet, the negative taint put on this scene by its context in the movie has a way of bringing it back around to a positive. Now that I know what the point of this scene is, and how it's functioning in the overall moral of the story, I've managed to unlock the reason why he's so attractive.
Here's my big point: the reason the theme of "not all predators are vicious" is so in the movie because it's not a moral. It's an aesthetic. There's something very beautiful about the idea of a friendly predator.
Take the image of that tiger for example. Here's how we're processing it, and this is all happening instantaneously, without us needing to overthink anything:
1. First, we're noticing both predatory traits in his anatomy (claws, "danger" colors, large size, etc.) and friendly traits in his body language (happy little smile, relaxed pose, keeping to himself, civilian clothes, etc.). Thus, the details of the image coincide to suggest that the character is (a) anatomically predatory and (b) temperamentally friendly.
2. We recall the traditional associations of biological functions: claws have the function of scratching, teeth have the function of biting, bright colors have the function of warding off danger, size has the function of exerting great strength, etc. What these amount to saying is that this tiger can do these things if he wanted to. He can be very destructive if he wanted to.
3. So now the question becomes: would he want to? The answer, suggested by his "friendly" body language, is no. What it amounts to saying is this character can claw and maim and tear and destroy. But he doesn't want to.
4. We notice a contrast: the character's will contrasts against his potential.
5. Contrast suggests an experience with the new and unfamiliar. Formulaically, it works like this: suppose "A" is traditionally paired with "1," and "B" is traditionally paired with "2." This means "A1" and "B2" are old hat. Now, all of a sudden, you come across "A2." This is new and unfamiliar. And the unfamiliar is exciting. In this case, we have something like "predator" traditionally paired with "danger," and "prey" traditionally paired with "friendliness," and this tiger in particular pairing "predator" with "friendliness." This pair is new, hence it makes him an exciting character.
Hence, this "exciting," "friendly" tiger comes off to us as very much "datable." What kind of things would he like to do? Would they be from his being a predator, or from his being a nice fellow? How exactly do these two traits come together in this character? We have to know. We have to ask him.
And putting him in such a situation that the characters around him react to his "predatory" anatomy only serves to enhance our awareness of his "predatory" traits, and thus the contrast of his will against his potential, and ultimately makes him look all the more exciting.
This is basically the function many of these characters in Zootopia present to viewers. And this is why so many of the characters in the film (at least, the predatory ones, but also, inversely, Bellweather) are so aesthetically strong. There's so much contrast, not only in colors and environments, but also in anatomy vs. temperament, and in potential vs. will, and these examples of contrast are advanced by the theme of "friendly predators," which in turn are encouraged by the morals of "don't discriminate," and "anyone can be anything."
This, I think, is a big reason why predatory animal characters with friendly personalities feature so much in the furry fandom. Because "friendly predator" is such a strong aesthetic. Perhaps we could even say it's the archetype of furry. Those 6 steps work in the experience of the vast majority of furry characters. And even if they don't, some other process of experience is leading to the experience of contrast, which in turn is such a fundamental value in art.
Zootopia review part 2: what about scalies?
General | Posted 9 years agoThis is part 2 of my Zootopia review, which ended up being really long, so I split it up into parts.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
(Also warning: this journal might have ended up being kind of dark, idk)
Now that we've seen the movie, we know for a fact that it features just mammals. So yeah, no reptiles. Like I said in my previous journal, some scalies really hated that.
Funny enough, I actually didn't really care. In fact, I found it rather relieving. I must be one of few scalies who would prefer their species not to appear at all than to be represented negatively or stereotypically. This opinion goes against what seems to be the more popular one: most scalies seem to put more value in whether or not their species appear at all than in what role they carry.
I think what this implies is that different opinions about this topic can be distinguished by different ordering of the same priorities. In the popular case, the evil of omitting reptiles from an animal film outweighs the evil of presenting reptiles negatively. In my case, the latter evil outweighs the former one instead.
I wonder why this is the case. What causes us to value these things differently? They can both manifest as strong enough opinions to be cause for boycotting a film, hence the scalies' journal I posted earlier.
In my case, I've boycotted material like Skyrim before in the past, not on the grounds that dragons were negatively represented wholesale, since that's false (as I understand it Paarthunax is some kind of "philosophical" or "supporting" character), but rather on the grounds that the collective of dragons were as a general rule represented negatively.
This is the same reason why I dropped out of the MLP fandom - its treatment of dragons in the "teen dragons" episode was so insulting that I chose to disown the fandom, and now I perceive its "friendship" message as hollow, superficial, meaningless, and dangerous because of its hollowness, superficiality, and meaninglessness.
I'll admit my opinions have had even stronger manifestations: I generally have an extremely low opinion of just about anything connected to Tolkien, because so far as I've found there is precisely zero redemption in his material for any living thing that has reptilian features. Tracing it farther back, I have low opinions of the Book of Revelations, even as a Christian fur, and I have an extremely low opinion of Germanic mythology, since just about every dragon in Germanic mythology exists for the sole purpose of being killed by some other character.
The hard truth is that I've gone as far as to speculate from having taken Nazi studies as part of my philosophy major that the cruelty of the Nazi party is precisely because they have appropriated the cruelty inherent in Germanic mythology (c.f. Blut und Boden, Volksgemeinschaft, and misappropriations of Nietzsche, who in turn had a rather awful habit of praising mythology for its brutality) - they demonized Jews, Communists, "deviants," etc. on precisely the same principle on which their ancestors (by false tautology) demonized dragons. I've taken that even further, and suggested that first world culture has such a deeply-rooted habit of polluting the environment precisely because they have been taught by their ancestors to do so - because the outside world needs "fixing," and "undesirables" destroyed, according to heritage material like Beowulf.
So now the question becomes, why do I feel this way? Especially since other fans of the same thing - other scalies - have expressed very different opinions, that it doesn't matter to them if they're taking antagonistic roles so long as they "look good," even though it matters so much to me.
This is my best theory as far as I know. My own opinions basically boil down to the fact that I hate seeing a thing I like in pain without just artistic cause. It's one thing for a character to suffer and other characters react, saying "oh god, this character is suffering, we need to help them," which to me can be a very beautiful form of storytelling; it's a different thing entirely for a character to suffer and other characters celebrate, laugh at, or ignore that suffering, which, to me, is painful to experience when I find myself attracted to the character.
Maybe, ultimately, by principle of sympathy, it boils down to the fact that I myself have a low pain tolerance, and would rather not exist than be in pain, and, by principle of sympathy, value the same in characters I find myself attracted to - that if the pain doesn't in some way contribute to their being valued by the characters around them, that it would be better if the character I'm attracted to never existed in the first place, and I'd never got to know about them.
Whereas, for those other scalies with higher pain tolerance levels, they don't register unjust pain quite as strongly, and the pleasure of having this antagonistic character exist at all outweighs the pain of their existential suffering by being confined to the antagonistic role. Thus, inversely, the pain of having such characters not exist in a story outweighs the pleasure of knowing that there won't be any unjust suffering on their part. Then, in the end, differences in pain tolerance levels can be attributed quite simply to biology, and ultimately these differences in opinion can ultimately be traced back to biology (not the kind of "biology" Judy mentioned in the movie of course, but individual biology, which is a very different thing).
If that's the case, then, funnily enough, it's precisely because I'm more sensitive to the feeling of pain than other people that I'm less butthurt about the fact that my favorite kinds of animals don't feature in Zootopia. So be it. c:
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
(Also warning: this journal might have ended up being kind of dark, idk)
Now that we've seen the movie, we know for a fact that it features just mammals. So yeah, no reptiles. Like I said in my previous journal, some scalies really hated that.
Funny enough, I actually didn't really care. In fact, I found it rather relieving. I must be one of few scalies who would prefer their species not to appear at all than to be represented negatively or stereotypically. This opinion goes against what seems to be the more popular one: most scalies seem to put more value in whether or not their species appear at all than in what role they carry.
I think what this implies is that different opinions about this topic can be distinguished by different ordering of the same priorities. In the popular case, the evil of omitting reptiles from an animal film outweighs the evil of presenting reptiles negatively. In my case, the latter evil outweighs the former one instead.
I wonder why this is the case. What causes us to value these things differently? They can both manifest as strong enough opinions to be cause for boycotting a film, hence the scalies' journal I posted earlier.
In my case, I've boycotted material like Skyrim before in the past, not on the grounds that dragons were negatively represented wholesale, since that's false (as I understand it Paarthunax is some kind of "philosophical" or "supporting" character), but rather on the grounds that the collective of dragons were as a general rule represented negatively.
This is the same reason why I dropped out of the MLP fandom - its treatment of dragons in the "teen dragons" episode was so insulting that I chose to disown the fandom, and now I perceive its "friendship" message as hollow, superficial, meaningless, and dangerous because of its hollowness, superficiality, and meaninglessness.
I'll admit my opinions have had even stronger manifestations: I generally have an extremely low opinion of just about anything connected to Tolkien, because so far as I've found there is precisely zero redemption in his material for any living thing that has reptilian features. Tracing it farther back, I have low opinions of the Book of Revelations, even as a Christian fur, and I have an extremely low opinion of Germanic mythology, since just about every dragon in Germanic mythology exists for the sole purpose of being killed by some other character.
The hard truth is that I've gone as far as to speculate from having taken Nazi studies as part of my philosophy major that the cruelty of the Nazi party is precisely because they have appropriated the cruelty inherent in Germanic mythology (c.f. Blut und Boden, Volksgemeinschaft, and misappropriations of Nietzsche, who in turn had a rather awful habit of praising mythology for its brutality) - they demonized Jews, Communists, "deviants," etc. on precisely the same principle on which their ancestors (by false tautology) demonized dragons. I've taken that even further, and suggested that first world culture has such a deeply-rooted habit of polluting the environment precisely because they have been taught by their ancestors to do so - because the outside world needs "fixing," and "undesirables" destroyed, according to heritage material like Beowulf.
So now the question becomes, why do I feel this way? Especially since other fans of the same thing - other scalies - have expressed very different opinions, that it doesn't matter to them if they're taking antagonistic roles so long as they "look good," even though it matters so much to me.
This is my best theory as far as I know. My own opinions basically boil down to the fact that I hate seeing a thing I like in pain without just artistic cause. It's one thing for a character to suffer and other characters react, saying "oh god, this character is suffering, we need to help them," which to me can be a very beautiful form of storytelling; it's a different thing entirely for a character to suffer and other characters celebrate, laugh at, or ignore that suffering, which, to me, is painful to experience when I find myself attracted to the character.
Maybe, ultimately, by principle of sympathy, it boils down to the fact that I myself have a low pain tolerance, and would rather not exist than be in pain, and, by principle of sympathy, value the same in characters I find myself attracted to - that if the pain doesn't in some way contribute to their being valued by the characters around them, that it would be better if the character I'm attracted to never existed in the first place, and I'd never got to know about them.
Whereas, for those other scalies with higher pain tolerance levels, they don't register unjust pain quite as strongly, and the pleasure of having this antagonistic character exist at all outweighs the pain of their existential suffering by being confined to the antagonistic role. Thus, inversely, the pain of having such characters not exist in a story outweighs the pleasure of knowing that there won't be any unjust suffering on their part. Then, in the end, differences in pain tolerance levels can be attributed quite simply to biology, and ultimately these differences in opinion can ultimately be traced back to biology (not the kind of "biology" Judy mentioned in the movie of course, but individual biology, which is a very different thing).
If that's the case, then, funnily enough, it's precisely because I'm more sensitive to the feeling of pain than other people that I'm less butthurt about the fact that my favorite kinds of animals don't feature in Zootopia. So be it. c:
Zootopia review part 1: predictions I got right
General | Posted 9 years agoThis is part 1 of my Zootopia review, which ended up being really long, so I split it up into parts.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
It's nice see just how many of the predictions I made in this journal back in June came true, and just how on point some of them were. I'll go over three main things I predicted:
(1)
One of my favorite aspects of furry fiction has always been picking up on the clever ways that writers marry zoology with anthropology. As much as I like all those scribblings of dog cocks, the main reasons I'm into furries is really just that I think the basic idea of an anthro wolf driving a car or texting on his phone is a pretty cool idea. From the little bit I've been able to gather about this movie, it seems to be advertising this exact thing.
The underlying premise seems to be that it's an alternate timeline where instead of humans evolving, various animal species evolved to develop human-like traits, while retaining their basic traits of their respective species.
This means we're looking at a sci-fi movie.
It seems I got most of this right. Perhaps there wasn't quite as much "anthropology" in the movie as I expected, due to Rule of Funny (more appropriately a more generalized "Rule of Whimsy," I think) relaxing the need for rigorous scientific accuracy. But what does stick out here from the movie is the part where Bellweather mentions that the city's residents are "90% prey." That jargon is demographic jargon, and it's paralleling the way we talk about the statistical presence of this or that race, religion, language, and so forth in a given real-world human community. Not only that, but "prey" isn't even a specific species, but an extremely broad, and quite vague, collection of species. If it wasn't for the fact that Zootopia's concept is already pretty simple, we would find it rather manipulative of Bellweather to fall upon such vague categories as "predator" and "prey" and oversimplify those concepts in order to take advantage of the city. I think this quite cleverly hints at the way politicians in the real world deliberately muddle and vagarize science in order to push an agenda that, in the end, amounts to nothing but gaining more power, influence, and money. Our rich variety of political opinions, for example, is oversimplified into a dualist "conservative" vs. "liberal" system, and this makes it very easy for politicians to glorify their own opinion and demonize that of their opponents, and thereafter win their fame and fortune. Especially since, far too often they care more about manipulating the moral principles of their party for selfish gain than they do about the moral principles themselves.
(2)
This brings me to the next prediction I made:
What does bother me is this: lately, I've heard some wild rumors that reptiles might feature as villains. I would hate that. It would seem backwards of Disney to do something like that, after the recent effort of transitioning away from unethical black-and-white formulas and toward progressive messages like Frozen's "Prince Charming isn't always good," the independent feminist hero, and so forth.
And quite frankly, I don't see Disney being particularly keen on doing something like this, because after all that effort to blend zoology with anthropology, something like a "mammal/reptile" "hero/villain" divide would look suspiciously like it's condoning racism. I would expect Disney to want to cover its tracks of that as much as it can.
Now if they did like an "attacking stereotypes" thing to where they initially portrayed reptiles as evil and then shed light on them as normal creatures like any other, and just different, that would be pretty cool. Except it looks like the story's going to focus on attacking the rivalry between Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps in a situation where they're forced to team up. If they do make a "reptiles aren't so bad" message, it would have to be something pretty quick in the last 30 minutes, or in some little 10-minute episode like the sharks in Finding Nemo.
Someone commented on that, and I responded:
I personally have some pretty high hopes that they'll do the right thing in some way. If you go any farther back than, say, the '80s, there's pretty much nothing to save Disney's face on the topic of stereotyping. Pretty much every animal character in a movie that wasn't exclusively furry was either a marginal character created for the purpose of looking at the hero character(s), or a villain. And pretty much every character in a furry movie had their species chosen largely according to the mythological role that's most closely associated with that species. I think Lion King broke that formula a little bit by diversifying the possible roles a lion character could play, but the early '90s still had a lot of stereotyping, like you noted about Hydra (which couldn't be helped, European mythology is hopelessly stereotypical) and snake Jafar. Even in Lion King, there wasn't much room of diversification for the hyena characters - they were all pretty much just the same role with different caricatures. But a lot of mold was broken after that and into the 2000s, I think, with things like the Pixar movies, Frozen, etc.
I agree, there is something of a split in attitudes toward reptile characters, but I think if you line them up from old to new, there's a pretty nice slope of progress. I'd imagine with this one they would only want to continue that progressive trend.
I think I got the basic idea of the movie dead-on here. Just substitute "predators" for "reptiles."
So back then, I was calling BS on theories that suggested a black-and-white divide between species, because it seemed like something Disney these days would not be inclined to do. I suspect Disney nowadays has something of a guilt complex with respect to their earlier films: not only did they objectify women in this and that way, but their older films were very unkind in the way that they featured certain kinds of animals, and for that reason we're seeing these more unfortunate kinds being given better chances in Disney's Neo-Renaissance. And to me it comes off pretty strongly as a "we're sorry we were mean to you in our older movies" kind of gesture. Disney generally seems to have a pretty good nature about being critical of their older movies, for example, the little "let it go" jab from Chief Bogo making fun of how annoyingly fairy-taleish Frozen was, and I can tell the reason for the jab was because of the anti-hype that resulted from Frozen having been so ridiculously popular. Given that thought, whatever it is Disney makes, what's certain is that they're going to be extremely self-conscious about what political message their movie might end up suggesting, so as to refrain from making the same mistakes that they made in their earlier films, and not only steer clear of any bad messages but also try to promote good ones.
On that line of thought, I suggested that they might try to use Zootopia as a way of attacking stereotypes. I didn't get the particular details right, but it is nice to see that ended up being the main point of the movie. Again, it turned out there were no reptiles, and I'd said before that I was perfectly fine with that, and that I'd rather they not present reptile species at all than present them negatively.
But now, in light of the fact that the move put so much focus on attacking stereotypes, I'm starting to have second thoughts about that opinion. Reptiles could have benefited really well if they were in the movie, under that overarching theme of deconstructing stereotypes. Given how wildly popular this movie was, it's rather inevitable that derivative material is going to come after it, and given the fact that a huge number of fans are asking where the birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. are in the world of Zootopia, Disney is probably going to opt to put those into the derivative materials. My biggest hope, then, is going to be that the "critique stereotypes" message will continue to carry over into the derivative material and help these newer species that get put in, and not get lost due to the cheapening trend of sequels. Again, we'll just have to see.
(3)
In short I think there's a lot of potential in the movie. There's the possibility for it to suck, sure, but at the same time there's the possibility for it to be a groundbreaking film, and could certainly be a huge foot in the door for furries to connect with the mainstream.
I mentioned it as a passing comment, but I never really considered how much impact the movie would end up having in helping furries bridge to the mainstream. We're getting a lot of positive attention now, both from this movie and from the VancouFur Syrian refugees story.
All in all, it's a nice little self-esteem boost to confirm all these predictions, I guess, haha.
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
***SPOILER WARNING - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***
It's nice see just how many of the predictions I made in this journal back in June came true, and just how on point some of them were. I'll go over three main things I predicted:
(1)
One of my favorite aspects of furry fiction has always been picking up on the clever ways that writers marry zoology with anthropology. As much as I like all those scribblings of dog cocks, the main reasons I'm into furries is really just that I think the basic idea of an anthro wolf driving a car or texting on his phone is a pretty cool idea. From the little bit I've been able to gather about this movie, it seems to be advertising this exact thing.
The underlying premise seems to be that it's an alternate timeline where instead of humans evolving, various animal species evolved to develop human-like traits, while retaining their basic traits of their respective species.
This means we're looking at a sci-fi movie.
It seems I got most of this right. Perhaps there wasn't quite as much "anthropology" in the movie as I expected, due to Rule of Funny (more appropriately a more generalized "Rule of Whimsy," I think) relaxing the need for rigorous scientific accuracy. But what does stick out here from the movie is the part where Bellweather mentions that the city's residents are "90% prey." That jargon is demographic jargon, and it's paralleling the way we talk about the statistical presence of this or that race, religion, language, and so forth in a given real-world human community. Not only that, but "prey" isn't even a specific species, but an extremely broad, and quite vague, collection of species. If it wasn't for the fact that Zootopia's concept is already pretty simple, we would find it rather manipulative of Bellweather to fall upon such vague categories as "predator" and "prey" and oversimplify those concepts in order to take advantage of the city. I think this quite cleverly hints at the way politicians in the real world deliberately muddle and vagarize science in order to push an agenda that, in the end, amounts to nothing but gaining more power, influence, and money. Our rich variety of political opinions, for example, is oversimplified into a dualist "conservative" vs. "liberal" system, and this makes it very easy for politicians to glorify their own opinion and demonize that of their opponents, and thereafter win their fame and fortune. Especially since, far too often they care more about manipulating the moral principles of their party for selfish gain than they do about the moral principles themselves.
(2)
This brings me to the next prediction I made:
What does bother me is this: lately, I've heard some wild rumors that reptiles might feature as villains. I would hate that. It would seem backwards of Disney to do something like that, after the recent effort of transitioning away from unethical black-and-white formulas and toward progressive messages like Frozen's "Prince Charming isn't always good," the independent feminist hero, and so forth.
And quite frankly, I don't see Disney being particularly keen on doing something like this, because after all that effort to blend zoology with anthropology, something like a "mammal/reptile" "hero/villain" divide would look suspiciously like it's condoning racism. I would expect Disney to want to cover its tracks of that as much as it can.
Now if they did like an "attacking stereotypes" thing to where they initially portrayed reptiles as evil and then shed light on them as normal creatures like any other, and just different, that would be pretty cool. Except it looks like the story's going to focus on attacking the rivalry between Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps in a situation where they're forced to team up. If they do make a "reptiles aren't so bad" message, it would have to be something pretty quick in the last 30 minutes, or in some little 10-minute episode like the sharks in Finding Nemo.
Someone commented on that, and I responded:
I personally have some pretty high hopes that they'll do the right thing in some way. If you go any farther back than, say, the '80s, there's pretty much nothing to save Disney's face on the topic of stereotyping. Pretty much every animal character in a movie that wasn't exclusively furry was either a marginal character created for the purpose of looking at the hero character(s), or a villain. And pretty much every character in a furry movie had their species chosen largely according to the mythological role that's most closely associated with that species. I think Lion King broke that formula a little bit by diversifying the possible roles a lion character could play, but the early '90s still had a lot of stereotyping, like you noted about Hydra (which couldn't be helped, European mythology is hopelessly stereotypical) and snake Jafar. Even in Lion King, there wasn't much room of diversification for the hyena characters - they were all pretty much just the same role with different caricatures. But a lot of mold was broken after that and into the 2000s, I think, with things like the Pixar movies, Frozen, etc.
I agree, there is something of a split in attitudes toward reptile characters, but I think if you line them up from old to new, there's a pretty nice slope of progress. I'd imagine with this one they would only want to continue that progressive trend.
I think I got the basic idea of the movie dead-on here. Just substitute "predators" for "reptiles."
So back then, I was calling BS on theories that suggested a black-and-white divide between species, because it seemed like something Disney these days would not be inclined to do. I suspect Disney nowadays has something of a guilt complex with respect to their earlier films: not only did they objectify women in this and that way, but their older films were very unkind in the way that they featured certain kinds of animals, and for that reason we're seeing these more unfortunate kinds being given better chances in Disney's Neo-Renaissance. And to me it comes off pretty strongly as a "we're sorry we were mean to you in our older movies" kind of gesture. Disney generally seems to have a pretty good nature about being critical of their older movies, for example, the little "let it go" jab from Chief Bogo making fun of how annoyingly fairy-taleish Frozen was, and I can tell the reason for the jab was because of the anti-hype that resulted from Frozen having been so ridiculously popular. Given that thought, whatever it is Disney makes, what's certain is that they're going to be extremely self-conscious about what political message their movie might end up suggesting, so as to refrain from making the same mistakes that they made in their earlier films, and not only steer clear of any bad messages but also try to promote good ones.
On that line of thought, I suggested that they might try to use Zootopia as a way of attacking stereotypes. I didn't get the particular details right, but it is nice to see that ended up being the main point of the movie. Again, it turned out there were no reptiles, and I'd said before that I was perfectly fine with that, and that I'd rather they not present reptile species at all than present them negatively.
But now, in light of the fact that the move put so much focus on attacking stereotypes, I'm starting to have second thoughts about that opinion. Reptiles could have benefited really well if they were in the movie, under that overarching theme of deconstructing stereotypes. Given how wildly popular this movie was, it's rather inevitable that derivative material is going to come after it, and given the fact that a huge number of fans are asking where the birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. are in the world of Zootopia, Disney is probably going to opt to put those into the derivative materials. My biggest hope, then, is going to be that the "critique stereotypes" message will continue to carry over into the derivative material and help these newer species that get put in, and not get lost due to the cheapening trend of sequels. Again, we'll just have to see.
(3)
In short I think there's a lot of potential in the movie. There's the possibility for it to suck, sure, but at the same time there's the possibility for it to be a groundbreaking film, and could certainly be a huge foot in the door for furries to connect with the mainstream.
I mentioned it as a passing comment, but I never really considered how much impact the movie would end up having in helping furries bridge to the mainstream. We're getting a lot of positive attention now, both from this movie and from the VancouFur Syrian refugees story.
All in all, it's a nice little self-esteem boost to confirm all these predictions, I guess, haha.
Zootopia - review, theories, rants, etc. (*spoilers*)
General | Posted 9 years agoSo yeah, I saw the movie twice last weekend. Was fun :33
I had some interesting thoughts about it, some relating back to my older journal about the movie.
I decided to split this journal up into parts since it ended up being so long. So yeah:
1. Predictions I got right
2. What about scalies?
3. Its aethetics, and why it worked so well (also an attempt to figure out the basic rules of furry art)
4. Anti-hype?
5. The original plot ideas
I had some interesting thoughts about it, some relating back to my older journal about the movie.
I decided to split this journal up into parts since it ended up being so long. So yeah:
1. Predictions I got right
2. What about scalies?
3. Its aethetics, and why it worked so well (also an attempt to figure out the basic rules of furry art)
4. Anti-hype?
5. The original plot ideas
Got my Megaplex room :33
General | Posted 10 years agoAll set for Megaplex ^w^ Got my room early this year.
The room can take up to 6 guests (including me).
hmu if you're local to me and you want in on this.
The room can take up to 6 guests (including me).
hmu if you're local to me and you want in on this.
Year 1 complete! ^w^
General | Posted 10 years agoQuite conveniently, New Years is also the anniversary of my becoming an active furry. And now it's been one full year.
I feel pretty accomplished. :3 Here's the stuff I did over the past year:
- Entered the Express Yourself contest hosted by the
furrymusicians group. Made 2nd place :33333
- Created a furry post-rock / prog rock album, E Reali.
- Made my first furry friend:
ArcTuba
- Met my first irl furry:
aisu10
- Went to Megaplex. :DDDDD
- Connected with the furry community in my hometown.
- Went from 0 to 100 watchers, which is pretty good for someone who neither draws nor owns a fursuit.
- Greatly improved my vocals and guitar skills.
In not-furry news, this was also the year I graduated from college.
I have high hopes for year 2 in 2016. ^w^
I feel pretty accomplished. :3 Here's the stuff I did over the past year:
- Entered the Express Yourself contest hosted by the
furrymusicians group. Made 2nd place :33333- Created a furry post-rock / prog rock album, E Reali.
- Made my first furry friend:
ArcTuba- Met my first irl furry:
aisu10- Went to Megaplex. :DDDDD
- Connected with the furry community in my hometown.
- Went from 0 to 100 watchers, which is pretty good for someone who neither draws nor owns a fursuit.
- Greatly improved my vocals and guitar skills.
In not-furry news, this was also the year I graduated from college.
I have high hopes for year 2 in 2016. ^w^
Adblock update :3
General | Posted 10 years agoFA seems to have added new IMVU ads.
Just wanted to let some folks know that I updated my adblock method at http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6835192/ to keep on top of this! Come check it out if you're seeing IMVU ads again. ^w^
For those who don't know about my adblock method, it lets user ads through and blocks everything else, including IMVU ads in user ad spaces! It's quite nifty!
Just wanted to let some folks know that I updated my adblock method at http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6835192/ to keep on top of this! Come check it out if you're seeing IMVU ads again. ^w^
For those who don't know about my adblock method, it lets user ads through and blocks everything else, including IMVU ads in user ad spaces! It's quite nifty!
A thought about furry
General | Posted 10 years agoWhen I was in college, I was one of two math/philosophy double majors in my entire campus. He and I made friends very quickly, and we talk about basically everything, except furry.
Just the other day, he shared with me an old film from the '80s called My Dinner With Andre, which I'd never seen before. The movie itself is about nothing, but what's said in it is quite powerful.
https://youtu.be/9vGpBYJ5_6E?t=4838
I like to think what he means by New York is the "normative" world that furry had managed to escape from. The stereotypical 9-to-5 go-home-to-a-dinner-cooked-by-your-wife human world setup.
I like to think its message has something of the same spirit that had inspired me to become active as a furry this year. Before this, I'd never done anything in my life that could be called weird or crazy.
I strongly believe that whatever it is furry *is* or *means* is different from person to person. Furry in itself is a sow and reap deal - whatever amount of life that comes out of it depends on how much meaning we're willing to put into it.
Personally, I think there's a lot that can come out of it, if you have the right heart.
^.=.^
(More music to come soon.)
Just the other day, he shared with me an old film from the '80s called My Dinner With Andre, which I'd never seen before. The movie itself is about nothing, but what's said in it is quite powerful.
https://youtu.be/9vGpBYJ5_6E?t=4838
I like to think what he means by New York is the "normative" world that furry had managed to escape from. The stereotypical 9-to-5 go-home-to-a-dinner-cooked-by-your-wife human world setup.
I like to think its message has something of the same spirit that had inspired me to become active as a furry this year. Before this, I'd never done anything in my life that could be called weird or crazy.
I strongly believe that whatever it is furry *is* or *means* is different from person to person. Furry in itself is a sow and reap deal - whatever amount of life that comes out of it depends on how much meaning we're willing to put into it.
Personally, I think there's a lot that can come out of it, if you have the right heart.
^.=.^
(More music to come soon.)
Laptop for sale!!!! Help me build my studio / buy furniture
General | Posted 10 years agoHey guys I'd like to sell my Dell Inspiron 1545 laptop.
It's in good condition. The casing has a slight crack from use, and the ethernet port is somewhat damaged, but the hardware still functions perfectly, and the software is flawless.
It shows no deterioration in performance whatsoever after years of use. It even survived an orange juice spill on the keyboard one summer and worked perfectly fine! It's a nice durable laptop that stood the test of time.
The original Windows Vista operating system has been removed and replaced with a brand new, entirely untouched, Windows 7 Ultimate OS, with Pale Moon as the current internet browser. It's all cleaned up, polished up, and ready to go!
I'll be including a Dell power adapter with the laptop.
Here's what it looks like:
On with current desktop OS
Top view with adapter
Top view with adapter
(Please excuse the crappy quality of my phone camera.)
I thoroughly enjoyed having it, but I really need funds for my music studio and to buy some home furniture. ;w;
Altogether, I'd like to sell it for $250. Send me a comment/note/shout/whatever if you think you or someone you know might be interested. ^w^
It's in good condition. The casing has a slight crack from use, and the ethernet port is somewhat damaged, but the hardware still functions perfectly, and the software is flawless.
It shows no deterioration in performance whatsoever after years of use. It even survived an orange juice spill on the keyboard one summer and worked perfectly fine! It's a nice durable laptop that stood the test of time.
The original Windows Vista operating system has been removed and replaced with a brand new, entirely untouched, Windows 7 Ultimate OS, with Pale Moon as the current internet browser. It's all cleaned up, polished up, and ready to go!
I'll be including a Dell power adapter with the laptop.
Here's what it looks like:
On with current desktop OS
Top view with adapter
Top view with adapter
(Please excuse the crappy quality of my phone camera.)
I thoroughly enjoyed having it, but I really need funds for my music studio and to buy some home furniture. ;w;
Altogether, I'd like to sell it for $250. Send me a comment/note/shout/whatever if you think you or someone you know might be interested. ^w^
MEGAPLEEEEEEEEEEX
General | Posted 10 years agoFor a first ever furry con, first ever con, and first ever opportunity to see a fursuit in real life, it was awesome!!!!
I think my favorite thing about the con was the culture shock of randomly walking down the hotel corridor and suddenly GIANT FURSUIT. :D
Met some awesome people/friends I knew from online!
Found out about some cool artists/suiters!
Made some new friends!
I wanted to try to meet
and 
, but missed out :\ There's always next time ^w^
Clearly I need to do this stuff more often.
I think my favorite thing about the con was the culture shock of randomly walking down the hotel corridor and suddenly GIANT FURSUIT. :D
Met some awesome people/friends I knew from online!
Found out about some cool artists/suiters!
Made some new friends!
I wanted to try to meet
and 
, but missed out :\ There's always next time ^w^Clearly I need to do this stuff more often.
My first full album is done! :D
General | Posted 10 years agoIt's been some months now, but I'm happy to report that my first ever full album "E Reali" is completely finished! ^.=.^
It clocks in at 13 tracks totaling 1 hour and 4 minutes of music. :o
Go check it out yo! https://soundcloud.com/acayl/sets/e-reali
It clocks in at 13 tracks totaling 1 hour and 4 minutes of music. :o
Go check it out yo! https://soundcloud.com/acayl/sets/e-reali
New Pixar movie
General | Posted 10 years agoMight be fun. ^^
Megaplex meme
General | Posted 10 years agoThis'll be my first ever con.
Thought I'd do this just in case. :p
Name: Acayl ("a-KYLE")
Pronouns: he/him
Where are you staying?
con hotel
What day are you getting there?
friday, probably morning/noonish
How are you traveling?
hitching a ride with aisu10
Who will you be rooming with?
aisu10 and her friends 
sky_fursome and ichbineinpelzig
How is the best way to find you?
Ehhhhhh shout me here in advance I guess.
Otherwise, look for a younger 20s pop-punk hippie nerd.
Are there any panels you might be attending?
Likely Khordkitty's skit and some other music ones
Will you be suiting?
I don't have a suit, so no. xD
Do you do free art / trades / badges?
I don't art. So no. xD
How tall are you?
5' 11"
Can I talk to you?
Please do ^w^
Can I touch you?
Be socially appropriate.
Can I visit your room?
Only if my friends are ok with it, but I might be visiting other people's rooms.
Can I buy you drinks?
Yeah sure I guess. No soda, but I can drink alcohol.
Can I give you stuff?
Sure, if you want to
Are you nice?
I like to think so. ^w^
How long are you going?
friday - sunday ^w^
Do you have an artist table?
No.
Will you be going to parties?
Maybe.
Will you be performing?
I've not practiced for anything :p
If I see you, how should I get your attention?
Call my name. You'll probably frighten me at first, but I'll be happy to meet you. ^w^
Where will you be most of the time during the day/s?
I have no clue. Probably the panels, or visiting artist tables, or tagging along with whatever friends I find / find me.
What/where will you be eating?
Might go out to a dinner with some (not furry) college friends for a night, other than that anything goes.
Can I come with you for food/fun/etc?
Sure, go for it.
Can I look/draw in your sketchbook?
No such thing exists. I'd like to see you try. xD
Can I take your picture?
I guess, talk to me first.
What's your goal(s) for the con this year?
* Make fur friends.
* See a suit irl for the first time ever. :D
Thought I'd do this just in case. :p
Name: Acayl ("a-KYLE")
Pronouns: he/him
Where are you staying?
con hotel
What day are you getting there?
friday, probably morning/noonish
How are you traveling?
hitching a ride with
aisu10Who will you be rooming with?
aisu10 and her friends 
sky_fursome and ichbineinpelzigHow is the best way to find you?
Ehhhhhh shout me here in advance I guess.
Otherwise, look for a younger 20s pop-punk hippie nerd.
Are there any panels you might be attending?
Likely
Khordkitty's skit and some other music onesWill you be suiting?
I don't have a suit, so no. xD
Do you do free art / trades / badges?
I don't art. So no. xD
How tall are you?
5' 11"
Can I talk to you?
Please do ^w^
Can I touch you?
Be socially appropriate.
Can I visit your room?
Only if my friends are ok with it, but I might be visiting other people's rooms.
Can I buy you drinks?
Yeah sure I guess. No soda, but I can drink alcohol.
Can I give you stuff?
Sure, if you want to
Are you nice?
I like to think so. ^w^
How long are you going?
friday - sunday ^w^
Do you have an artist table?
No.
Will you be going to parties?
Maybe.
Will you be performing?
I've not practiced for anything :p
If I see you, how should I get your attention?
Call my name. You'll probably frighten me at first, but I'll be happy to meet you. ^w^
Where will you be most of the time during the day/s?
I have no clue. Probably the panels, or visiting artist tables, or tagging along with whatever friends I find / find me.
What/where will you be eating?
Might go out to a dinner with some (not furry) college friends for a night, other than that anything goes.
Can I come with you for food/fun/etc?
Sure, go for it.
Can I look/draw in your sketchbook?
No such thing exists. I'd like to see you try. xD
Can I take your picture?
I guess, talk to me first.
What's your goal(s) for the con this year?
* Make fur friends.
* See a suit irl for the first time ever. :D
I'm on Weasyl and Soundcloud ^.=.^
General | Posted 10 years agohttps://www.weasyl.com/~acayl
https://soundcloud.com/acayl
Note, I'm expanding, not migrating. I'll still be active here. ;3
https://soundcloud.com/acayl
Note, I'm expanding, not migrating. I'll still be active here. ;3
New FA adblock method!!! ^.=.^
General | Posted 10 years agoOk this time I figured out how to block ALL the Google/IMVU ads (including the ones that show up in user ad spaces) and keep ALL the user ads. :D
Again, thanks go to
nelly and 
xarg for doing all the actual hard work on this awesome journal. The work they've accomplished is beyond me, and they deserve the credit.
I don't know if it'll work on mobile, but it should work on PC. :)
Update 9/19/2015:
It seems as though FA had recently updated their user ads and added an extra IMVU ad or two. I did the work to bring this adblock method up to date. For good measure, I also added a block against the Picarto TV ad as well, since that one's also kind of an eyesore.
I also added a "how it works" section, basically just for myself to get a handle on how it works.
1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Click on "Install for Firefox" to install the add-on. If Firefox blocks it, click "Allow".
3. A new window with a prompt will ask you whether or not you want to install ABP. Click "Install Now." You should now have Adblock Plus fully installed.
4. Go to FA. With Adblock Plus enabled, there should be no ads at all.
5. Click on the little "ABP" icon in the top right corner, and click "Filter preferences".
6. Click on the tab that says "Custom filters".
7. At the right edge of the window, there should be a little dotted line. Click that and it'll open a panel.
8. Click "Add filter group". Type "FA User Ads" and hit Enter/Return.
9. Copy the following:
@@||rv.furaffinity.net/www/delivery/*
Click "Add filter". Hit Ctrl+V/⌘V to paste. Hit Enter/Return.
10. Do the same for each line of the following (make sure you do each line separately):
furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif
furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments
11. Refresh the page. All non-IMVU user ads should display, and all Google/IMVU ads should be blocked.
1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Click on "Install for Opera/Chrome", and then click "+ Add to Opera/Chrome" to install the extension. This should happen automatically.
3. Go to FA. With Adblock Plus enabled, there should be no ads at all.
4. Click on the little "ABP" icon in the top right corner. This brings up a dropdown menu. Make sure it says "Enabled on this site". If it says "Disabled" in red, click it, and it will change to "Enabled" in green.
5. At the bottom of the dropdown menu, click on "Options". This opens a new tab.
6. Click on the "Add your own filters" tab and click on "Edit filters as raw text". This opens a new text field.
7. Copy the following text and paste it at the end of the text field.
@@|http://*.furaffinity.net
furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif"]
furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments
8. Click "Apply changes".
9. Close the tab and refresh the FA page. This should block all Google and IMVU ads, including the ones that take up user ad space, and leave the real user ads open.
Note that, when you first download Adblock Plus, by default all the ad spaces on FA are blocked. So first, the following sequence opens back up the user ad spaces (this is the part where I ripped off Nelly and Xarg):
furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
Each one of these gets assigned to one of the user ad spaces. I'm not quite sure exactly how this part works, but it seems to be different for different networks. When I was using the network at the bookstore, "...ad-1" and "...ad-3" seemed to be in control of the two spaces in the header, but at home they seemed to be handled by "...ad-2" and "...ad-4" instead.
In any case, we have to include "furaffinity.net#@#.ads" in order for any of the ad spaces to open up at all.
Chrome and Opera also require us to include "@@|http://*.furaffinity.net" as well, and Firefox requires "@@||rv.furaffinity.net/www/delivery/*" - otherwise we get blank ad spaces without ads.
We leave out the ad spaces assigned to the Google ads of course, so that we can keep those blocked. So what we have open now are precisely the user ad spaces.
But now, the IMVU ads take these spaces alongside the real user ads. So now we have to target each one of the IMVU ads one by one.
That's what this next sequence does:
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1203)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1204)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1205)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1203
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1204
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1205 (was Banner ID 1206)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, banner ID 1206
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, banner ID 1483
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif <-- Picarto ad, large size, banner ID 1434
What each one of these items blocks is the actual image file pointed to by the banner ID, rather than the banner ID itself. This is helpful because later changes FA staff makes to the user ads may reassign different image files to different banner IDs, and we want to make sure each one of the IMVU ads stays blocked regardless of the assigned banner ID.
Finally, for some people, removing an ad doesn't remove the space, so it leaves behind a blank space. Adding "furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments" removes the leftover blank space. Again, I think whether or not this extra step is needed in order to collapse the space depends on the kind of network you're using.
So now, what's left over is precisely the user ads themselves. No annoying irrelevant Google ads. And no ugly catgirl IMVU ads. ^w^
Again, thanks go to
nelly and 
xarg for doing all the actual hard work on this awesome journal. The work they've accomplished is beyond me, and they deserve the credit.I don't know if it'll work on mobile, but it should work on PC. :)
Update 9/19/2015:
It seems as though FA had recently updated their user ads and added an extra IMVU ad or two. I did the work to bring this adblock method up to date. For good measure, I also added a block against the Picarto TV ad as well, since that one's also kind of an eyesore.
I also added a "how it works" section, basically just for myself to get a handle on how it works.
Firefox
(If you already have Adblock Plus, skip to step 4. Otherwise, start at the beginning.)
(If you have Adblock but not Adblock Plus, start at the beginning.)1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Click on "Install for Firefox" to install the add-on. If Firefox blocks it, click "Allow".
3. A new window with a prompt will ask you whether or not you want to install ABP. Click "Install Now." You should now have Adblock Plus fully installed.
4. Go to FA. With Adblock Plus enabled, there should be no ads at all.
5. Click on the little "ABP" icon in the top right corner, and click "Filter preferences".
6. Click on the tab that says "Custom filters".
7. At the right edge of the window, there should be a little dotted line. Click that and it'll open a panel.
8. Click "Add filter group". Type "FA User Ads" and hit Enter/Return.
9. Copy the following:
@@||rv.furaffinity.net/www/delivery/*
Click "Add filter". Hit Ctrl+V/⌘V to paste. Hit Enter/Return.
10. Do the same for each line of the following (make sure you do each line separately):
furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg
||rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif
furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments
11. Refresh the page. All non-IMVU user ads should display, and all Google/IMVU ads should be blocked.
Opera and Google Chrome
(If you already have Adblock Plus, skip to step 3. Otherwise, start at the beginning.)
(If you have Adblock but not Adblock Plus, start at the beginning.)1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Click on "Install for Opera/Chrome", and then click "+ Add to Opera/Chrome" to install the extension. This should happen automatically.
3. Go to FA. With Adblock Plus enabled, there should be no ads at all.
4. Click on the little "ABP" icon in the top right corner. This brings up a dropdown menu. Make sure it says "Enabled on this site". If it says "Disabled" in red, click it, and it will change to "Enabled" in green.
5. At the bottom of the dropdown menu, click on "Options". This opens a new tab.
6. Click on the "Add your own filters" tab and click on "Edit filters as raw text". This opens a new text field.
7. Copy the following text and paste it at the end of the text field.
@@|http://*.furaffinity.net
furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg"]
furaffinity.net##img[src="//rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif"]
furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments
8. Click "Apply changes".
9. Close the tab and refresh the FA page. This should block all Google and IMVU ads, including the ones that take up user ad space, and leave the real user ads open.
Here's how it works! (as I understand it >w<)Note that, when you first download Adblock Plus, by default all the ad spaces on FA are blocked. So first, the following sequence opens back up the user ad spaces (this is the part where I ripped off
Nelly and Xarg):furaffinity.net#@##ad-1
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-3
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@##ad-5
furaffinity.net#@##ad-7
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
Each one of these gets assigned to one of the user ad spaces. I'm not quite sure exactly how this part works, but it seems to be different for different networks. When I was using the network at the bookstore, "...ad-1" and "...ad-3" seemed to be in control of the two spaces in the header, but at home they seemed to be handled by "...ad-2" and "...ad-4" instead.
In any case, we have to include "furaffinity.net#@#.ads" in order for any of the ad spaces to open up at all.
Chrome and Opera also require us to include "@@|http://*.furaffinity.net" as well, and Firefox requires "@@||rv.furaffinity.net/www/delivery/*" - otherwise we get blank ad spaces without ads.
We leave out the ad spaces assigned to the Google ads of course, so that we can keep those blocked. So what we have open now are precisely the user ad spaces.
But now, the IMVU ads take these spaces alongside the real user ads. So now we have to target each one of the IMVU ads one by one.
That's what this next sequence does:
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/bfc036c7a05655f593cacc5516cf5f5d.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1203)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/72e60e7ca1d9b68cae0eb7e72f9e2829.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1204)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c5b213ec2132a9e9d3c26186aa675ad9.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, not currently in circulation (was Banner ID 1205)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/6a15eda7e0de62e2462258805d1795bd.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1203
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/2cf25ded5c1de7aa9bd6e96ecc5af8f4.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1204
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ead2d411bce19dfb7a26477d1fe321c6.jpg <-- IMVU ad, standard size, banner ID 1205 (was Banner ID 1206)
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/c3ae66c7b529e75538f16d72be39a160.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, banner ID 1206
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/ad651c5b2a3267bda50c82684f424357.jpg <-- IMVU ad, large size, banner ID 1483
rv.furaffinity.net/www/images/1e18235c180895bf07439e34d72c3e91.gif <-- Picarto ad, large size, banner ID 1434
What each one of these items blocks is the actual image file pointed to by the banner ID, rather than the banner ID itself. This is helpful because later changes FA staff makes to the user ads may reassign different image files to different banner IDs, and we want to make sure each one of the IMVU ads stays blocked regardless of the assigned banner ID.
Finally, for some people, removing an ad doesn't remove the space, so it leaves behind a blank space. Adding "furaffinity.net###ad-extra-comments" removes the leftover blank space. Again, I think whether or not this extra step is needed in order to collapse the space depends on the kind of network you're using.
So now, what's left over is precisely the user ads themselves. No annoying irrelevant Google ads. And no ugly catgirl IMVU ads. ^w^
Tell all your friends, and help save the user ads! ^w^How to disable FA's third-party ads and keep user ads
General | Posted 10 years agoGot this from the brilliant journal post by nelly, and the long convo in the comments between nelly and xarg.
I use Google Chrome. Not sure about the other browsers, but you can try. Also this won't work for mobile, I don't think.
There's a couple methods. The first one uses only Adblock Plus, which people already have. The second one installs a new extension.
First method:
1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Install Adblock Plus as an extension.
(* There's a distinction between Adblock Plus and Adblock. You want Adblock Plus.)
3. Click on the "ABP" icon and go to "Options". This opens a new tab.
4. Go to the "Add your own filters" tab and click on "Edit filters as raw text". This opens a new text field.
5. Copy the following text
@@|http://*.furaffinity.net
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
and paste it on a new line at the end of the text field.
6. Click "Apply changes".
Second method:
1. Go to https://userstyles.org/styles/11313.....rty-ad-blocker (this is Nelly's custom configuration for the Stylish extension).
2. Click on "install Stylish" in the blue field. It will be added to the Chrome extensions.
3. Once Sylish is installed, the blue field turns into a button to add the custom style. Click to install the style.
IMVU still shows up occasionally in user spaces, but this way the site is mostly inhabitable while still promoting user services.
nelly, and the long convo in the comments between nelly and xarg.I use Google Chrome. Not sure about the other browsers, but you can try. Also this won't work for mobile, I don't think.
There's a couple methods. The first one uses only Adblock Plus, which people already have. The second one installs a new extension.
First method:
1. Go to https://adblockplus.org/
2. Install Adblock Plus as an extension.
(* There's a distinction between Adblock Plus and Adblock. You want Adblock Plus.)
3. Click on the "ABP" icon and go to "Options". This opens a new tab.
4. Go to the "Add your own filters" tab and click on "Edit filters as raw text". This opens a new text field.
5. Copy the following text
@@|http://*.furaffinity.net
furaffinity.net#@##ad-2
furaffinity.net#@##ad-4
furaffinity.net#@#.ads
and paste it on a new line at the end of the text field.
6. Click "Apply changes".
Second method:
1. Go to https://userstyles.org/styles/11313.....rty-ad-blocker (this is Nelly's custom configuration for the Stylish extension).
2. Click on "install Stylish" in the blue field. It will be added to the Chrome extensions.
3. Once Sylish is installed, the blue field turns into a button to add the custom style. Click to install the style.
IMVU still shows up occasionally in user spaces, but this way the site is mostly inhabitable while still promoting user services.
Zootopia - theories
General | Posted 10 years ago(Yeah yeah tl;dr, shut up.)
Either you know what I'm talking about or you're living under a rock. For you rock-dwellers, check out the new trailer.
So now that it's been a full day since the trailer, and I've seen it, the blogs, the hype, the fanart, the '34, the objections against the '34, the speculations, the arguments, the anti-furry comments, the defense-of-furry countercomments, and a wide spectrum of attitudes directed at Disney on the topic of this movie, I feel ready to theorize all over it just like the FNAF kids.
One of my favorite aspects of furry fiction has always been picking up on the clever ways that writers marry zoology with anthropology. As much as I like all those scribblings of dog cocks, the main reasons I'm into furries is really just that I think the basic idea of an anthro wolf driving a car or texting on his phone is a pretty cool idea. From the little bit I've been able to gather about this movie, it seems to be advertising this exact thing.
The underlying premise seems to be that it's an alternate timeline where instead of humans evolving, various animal species evolved to develop human-like traits, while retaining their basic traits of their respective species.
This means we're looking at a sci-fi movie.
I suspect this is why they're making the claim that it's nothing ever seen "be-fur" (despite the fact that Disney has made countless furry movies in the past), since the point is to emphasize zoology. Seeing as it's caught the attention of a zoologist or two, they must have done the zoology part right, more or less. That's pretty cool, I think.
At the same time, there seems to be a strong anthropological element too. If this is anything to go by, the city's residential districts are divided into "habitat" neighborhoods, natural enemies make for social prejudices, and the city's "melting pot" of species "from all over the world" equate cosmopolitanism with the species diversity of the "zoo" (hence the "zoo" in "Zootopia").
From stuff like this, there's a lot of potential for some really cool, sophisticated ways to blend zoology and anthropology. In that respect, I'm more than stoked to see this.
I do have a concern or two, though. I'm a scalie before I'm a furry, yet on multiple instances the movie is suggested to be a "mammal-only" movie. Some scalie artists have objected to this. Honestly, that doesn't bother me too much - I wouldn't mind a nice fun little break from reptiling to see a mammal movie.
What does bother me is this: lately, I've heard some wild rumors that reptiles might feature as villains. I would hate that. It would seem backwards of Disney to do something like that, after the recent effort of transitioning away from unethical black-and-white formulas and toward progressive messages like Frozen's "Prince Charming isn't always good," the independent feminist hero, and so forth.
And quite frankly, I don't see Disney being particularly keen on doing something like this, because after all that effort to blend zoology with anthropology, something like a "mammal/reptile" "hero/villain" divide would look suspiciously like it's condoning racism. I would expect Disney to want to cover its tracks of that as much as it can.
Now if they did like an "attacking stereotypes" thing to where they initially portrayed reptiles as evil and then shed light on them as normal creatures like any other, and just different, that would be pretty cool. Except it looks like the story's going to focus on attacking the rivalry between Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps in a situation where they're forced to team up. If they do make a "reptiles aren't so bad" message, it would have to be something pretty quick in the last 30 minutes, or in some little 10-minute episode like the sharks in Finding Nemo.
We'll just have to wait and see. In any case, I'm definitely looking forward to it. ^.=.^
Either you know what I'm talking about or you're living under a rock. For you rock-dwellers, check out the new trailer.
So now that it's been a full day since the trailer, and I've seen it, the blogs, the hype, the fanart, the '34, the objections against the '34, the speculations, the arguments, the anti-furry comments, the defense-of-furry countercomments, and a wide spectrum of attitudes directed at Disney on the topic of this movie, I feel ready to theorize all over it just like the FNAF kids.
One of my favorite aspects of furry fiction has always been picking up on the clever ways that writers marry zoology with anthropology. As much as I like all those scribblings of dog cocks, the main reasons I'm into furries is really just that I think the basic idea of an anthro wolf driving a car or texting on his phone is a pretty cool idea. From the little bit I've been able to gather about this movie, it seems to be advertising this exact thing.
The underlying premise seems to be that it's an alternate timeline where instead of humans evolving, various animal species evolved to develop human-like traits, while retaining their basic traits of their respective species.
This means we're looking at a sci-fi movie.
I suspect this is why they're making the claim that it's nothing ever seen "be-fur" (despite the fact that Disney has made countless furry movies in the past), since the point is to emphasize zoology. Seeing as it's caught the attention of a zoologist or two, they must have done the zoology part right, more or less. That's pretty cool, I think.
At the same time, there seems to be a strong anthropological element too. If this is anything to go by, the city's residential districts are divided into "habitat" neighborhoods, natural enemies make for social prejudices, and the city's "melting pot" of species "from all over the world" equate cosmopolitanism with the species diversity of the "zoo" (hence the "zoo" in "Zootopia").
From stuff like this, there's a lot of potential for some really cool, sophisticated ways to blend zoology and anthropology. In that respect, I'm more than stoked to see this.
I do have a concern or two, though. I'm a scalie before I'm a furry, yet on multiple instances the movie is suggested to be a "mammal-only" movie. Some scalie artists have objected to this. Honestly, that doesn't bother me too much - I wouldn't mind a nice fun little break from reptiling to see a mammal movie.
What does bother me is this: lately, I've heard some wild rumors that reptiles might feature as villains. I would hate that. It would seem backwards of Disney to do something like that, after the recent effort of transitioning away from unethical black-and-white formulas and toward progressive messages like Frozen's "Prince Charming isn't always good," the independent feminist hero, and so forth.
And quite frankly, I don't see Disney being particularly keen on doing something like this, because after all that effort to blend zoology with anthropology, something like a "mammal/reptile" "hero/villain" divide would look suspiciously like it's condoning racism. I would expect Disney to want to cover its tracks of that as much as it can.
Now if they did like an "attacking stereotypes" thing to where they initially portrayed reptiles as evil and then shed light on them as normal creatures like any other, and just different, that would be pretty cool. Except it looks like the story's going to focus on attacking the rivalry between Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps in a situation where they're forced to team up. If they do make a "reptiles aren't so bad" message, it would have to be something pretty quick in the last 30 minutes, or in some little 10-minute episode like the sharks in Finding Nemo.
We'll just have to wait and see. In any case, I'm definitely looking forward to it. ^.=.^
My music gear
General | Posted 10 years agoFigured I'd put this info in a journal to clear up my profile page. It doesn't need to be cluttering up my FA face.
My current gear:
* Dell Studio with Windows 7 Ultimate
* Sennheiser HD 280 pro headphones
* FL Studio 11 Producer Edition with Fruity and Edison plugins
* Yamaha Audiogram 3 USB Audio Interface
* Boss DS1
* Line 6 DL4
* sE X1 Vocal Pack
* CAD U1 mic (I don't use this one.)
* Cheap-ass Austin guitar and 15W amp
* Cheap-ass mock Fender bass
* 3 1/4-inch cables
Wish list:
* A proper mic for recording instruments
* Some kind of good pair of amps for guitar and bass, preferably stronger than 15W
* Boss RV3
* ZVex Fuzz Factory
* Boss PS5
* Cubase for recording
* Wavepad for track editing
My current gear:
* Dell Studio with Windows 7 Ultimate
* Sennheiser HD 280 pro headphones
* FL Studio 11 Producer Edition with Fruity and Edison plugins
* Yamaha Audiogram 3 USB Audio Interface
* Boss DS1
* Line 6 DL4
* sE X1 Vocal Pack
* CAD U1 mic (I don't use this one.)
* Cheap-ass Austin guitar and 15W amp
* Cheap-ass mock Fender bass
* 3 1/4-inch cables
Wish list:
* A proper mic for recording instruments
* Some kind of good pair of amps for guitar and bass, preferably stronger than 15W
* Boss RV3
* ZVex Fuzz Factory
* Boss PS5
* Cubase for recording
* Wavepad for track editing
Megaplex update - Anyone need a room?
General | Posted 10 years agoI now have my own room for the con at the con's hotel. I have it from July 31 - August 2, which are the exact days of the con.
Currently, there's no one else with me, so if anyone out there still needs a room send me a note or shout and we can talk about splitting funds. It'll probably be cheaper than paying for yourself anyway, I think.
The hotel's filling up really quickly now so it might be hard to get a room - I had to fight for mine.
So yeah throwing that out there just in case.
Currently, there's no one else with me, so if anyone out there still needs a room send me a note or shout and we can talk about splitting funds. It'll probably be cheaper than paying for yourself anyway, I think.
The hotel's filling up really quickly now so it might be hard to get a room - I had to fight for mine.
So yeah throwing that out there just in case.
I got memed (:
General | Posted 10 years agoI got this from my sister and she nominated me so why not.
WHATS YOURS?
Age: 23
Birthday: April 11
Relationship status: furry
Biggest fear: cockroaches/spiders in my living space
Dream Job: alt rock star, aw yea
Dream Car: something mundane looking so I can break traffic laws and not get caught, haha
Dream House: apartment suite with a separate studio room and no clutter (:
FAVORITE?
Artist:
Tsaiwolf's art is usually very nice I think
Movie: uhh, I guess Cloud Atlas
Song: This was pretty great, haha
TV series: Markiplier (that counts, right? :D)
Animal: dragons and wolves, but really I like anything drawn well
Book: In furry, Thousand Leaves by
Rikoshi was really good. Out of furry, I guess Critique of Judgment by Kant (still working on that one)
Color: anything between deep green and deep blue is nice
THIS OR THAT?
Twitter or facebook: facebook though I've never tried twitter
Snapchat or Instagram: I've never used either :/
Pandora or Youtube: Youtube though I've never tried pandora
Coke or Pepsi: they're kind of the same to me
Tea or Coffee: coffee before noon, tea after (:
Tacos or Pizza: tacos, but I like both
Winter or summer: summer for sure
WOULD YOU EVER?
Get married: no.
Have Kids: no.
Swim with sharks: I like friendly sharks :3
Daredevil Stunts: depends on the stunt, and my mood at the time
Jump out of a Heilcopter: if it's on the ground then sure :p
I Nominate: uhh, whoever else wants to do it I guess, haha
WHATS YOURS?
Age: 23
Birthday: April 11
Relationship status: furry
Biggest fear: cockroaches/spiders in my living space
Dream Job: alt rock star, aw yea
Dream Car: something mundane looking so I can break traffic laws and not get caught, haha
Dream House: apartment suite with a separate studio room and no clutter (:
FAVORITE?
Artist:
Tsaiwolf's art is usually very nice I thinkMovie: uhh, I guess Cloud Atlas
Song: This was pretty great, haha
TV series: Markiplier (that counts, right? :D)
Animal: dragons and wolves, but really I like anything drawn well
Book: In furry, Thousand Leaves by
Rikoshi was really good. Out of furry, I guess Critique of Judgment by Kant (still working on that one)Color: anything between deep green and deep blue is nice
THIS OR THAT?
Twitter or facebook: facebook though I've never tried twitter
Snapchat or Instagram: I've never used either :/
Pandora or Youtube: Youtube though I've never tried pandora
Coke or Pepsi: they're kind of the same to me
Tea or Coffee: coffee before noon, tea after (:
Tacos or Pizza: tacos, but I like both
Winter or summer: summer for sure
WOULD YOU EVER?
Get married: no.
Have Kids: no.
Swim with sharks: I like friendly sharks :3
Daredevil Stunts: depends on the stunt, and my mood at the time
Jump out of a Heilcopter: if it's on the ground then sure :p
I Nominate: uhh, whoever else wants to do it I guess, haha
