5 ms·

>What is driving the need to include this in everything? This is just an armchair psychology theory, but I feel like it is just the need for social validation

>What is driving the need to include this in everything? This is just an armchair psychology theory, but I feel like it is just the need for social validation in the absence of it, as well as an attempt to prove that their interests/passions that are considered to be for "weird" or childish people can belong to "normal" adult people too. Hence why they never forget to remind people at any point in a regular discussion about that interest, as if it is a regular everyday thing that a lot of people are into. And in the meantime, it is also sort of an interest/passion that isn't about an activity (very unlike most other interests/passions), but rather about being a different entity as a person, which makes it more difficult to detach yourself from that interest, as it literally is solely about being another form of yourself. Overall, I agree with your sentiment however. Having furry content in a technical blog post would essentially prevent me from sharing it with my teammates, no matter how good the actual technical content of that post is.

some_furry 6y ago
> Having furry content in a technical blog post would essentially prevent me from sharing it with my teammates, no matter how good the actual technical content of that post is. I don't disbelieve you, but I do have a question! Why? Why is furry/anime/whatever inherently disqualifying, regardless of the quality of the technical content? (n.b. None of the art is adult-oriented, if that's what you're worried about. I made an editorial decision on day one to keep the artwork featured on my blog 100% worksafe, even if the discussions aren't always.) Is it a fear that "Nobody will take me seriously"? This didn't stop the EFF. https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1307037184780832769 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1307037184780832769
- jbob2000 6y ago
  It’s disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. Much of the furry community sees fursonas as a sexual choice. If you included pictures of scantily clad people in all of your posts, I would also hesitate to send it to my manager. Anime has a huge sexual following as well. There’s an entire industry around printing anime girls onto body pillows for these fans to sleep with, for example.
  - some_furry 6y ago
    > It's disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. I don't know where you heard that, but it's incorrect. There's a documentary that delves into the history of the furry fandom: https://youtu.be/c2N1sFWRRf8 https://youtu.be/c2N1sFWRRf8 > Much of the furry community sees fursonas as a sexual choice. No, this is a myth that a lot of people outside our community believe. If you have a fursona, that's supposed to be a representation of you. Fursonas are about identity. It can also be about one's queerness (which is probably fair to say in general, considering 80% of the fandom is LGBTQIA+), but being queer doesn't mean "being sexual". https://furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-pornography/5-1-orientation/ https://furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-p... https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/feb/04/furry-fandom-subculture-animal-costumes https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/feb/04/furry-fandom... (Yes, there is a side to most fandoms that focused on adult entertainment, but that's not all of it.)
    - filoleg 6y ago
      >> It's disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. >I don't know where you heard that, but it's incorrect. Maybe that's technically incorrect, but you should check out how the early coverage of furry culture was presenting it as[0]. Here is an interesting excerpt: "Early portrayal of the furries in magazines such as Wired, Loaded, Vanity Fair, and the syndicated sex column "Savage Love" focused mainly on the sexual aspect of furry fandom." 0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Public_perception_and_media_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Public_perception...
  - jbob2000 6y ago
    I think your documentary is biased, as it’s been made and hosted by a furry themselves. On the Wikipedia page about furry fandom, it says: > The furry fandom has its roots in the underground comix movement of the 1970s, a genre of comic books that depicts explicit content.[5] In 1976, a pair of cartoonists created the amateur press association Vootie, which was dedicated to animal-focused art. Many of its featured works contained adult themes, such as "Omaha" the Cat Dancer, which contained explicit sex. As well, it even has a section dedicated to sexuality, where it states: > In a different online survey, 33% of furry respondents answered that they have a "significant sexual interest in furry", another 46% stated they have a "minor sexual interest in furry", and the remaining 21% stated they have a "non-sexual interest in furry". Although you may not engage with it sexually, it very much has a sexual following. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
- filoleg 6y ago
  > Why is furry/anime/whatever inherently disqualifying, regardless of the quality of the technical content? It isn't inherently disqualifying, unless it is plastered everywhere where it doesn't belong, like in the middle of a lot of unrelated conversations or in the middle of a professional technical blog post. For example, if you just have a furry image in your website header, but the content of your technical post itself is on-point and doesn't have a bunch of unrelated furry stuff, most people will have no issues sharing your content and recommending it to others. For a good example of that, take a look at the website of the guy who did a lot of impressive work and research and became famous for the YOLO image classifier[0]. His website features my little pony characters. He is very openly into it. His MLP-themed resume made as a halfway joke is extremely infamous on the internet. And then take a look at his technical blog posts. He writes really well and doesn't let his interests detract him from quality writing. And no one who is interested in reading about the technical topics he covers seems to have any issues with the content of his posts at all. 0. https://pjreddie.com/ https://pjreddie.com/
- stonogo 6y ago
  I wouldn't share a link with my colleagues that contained any cartoon emoting at all, because they would find it (and by association me) infantile and cloying, and I would expect that assessment, in a professional setting. The species or art style is not, for me, the heart of the issue; it's just that people in my line of work are generally not receptive to this method of communication. This same sector of the world would also not respond well to, say, shorts and t-shirts in the office, for almost exactly the same reasons. There is no way in hell I will ever be able to change this, but I would be able to effectively destroy my own credibility by posting links to cartoon-annotated technical articles. My online sphere of interactions includes both furries and otherkin and we generally get along fine. I don't like that this sort of boundary matters, but it does, and I'm not in a position to do anything about it.

some_furry 6y ago

> Having furry content in a technical blog post would essentially prevent me from sharing it with my teammates, no matter how good the actual technical content of that post is. I don't disbelieve you, but I do have a question! Why? Why is furry/anime/whatever inherently disqualifying, regardless of the quality of the technical content? (n.b. None of the art is adult-oriented, if that's what you're worried about. I made an editorial decision on day one to keep the artwork featured on my blog 100% worksafe, even if the discussions aren't always.) Is it a fear that "Nobody will take me seriously"? This didn't stop the EFF. https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1307037184780832769 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1307037184780832769

jbob2000 6y ago
It’s disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. Much of the furry community sees fursonas as a sexual choice. If you included pictures of scantily clad people in all of your posts, I would also hesitate to send it to my manager. Anime has a huge sexual following as well. There’s an entire industry around printing anime girls onto body pillows for these fans to sleep with, for example.
- some_furry 6y ago
  > It's disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. I don't know where you heard that, but it's incorrect. There's a documentary that delves into the history of the furry fandom: https://youtu.be/c2N1sFWRRf8 https://youtu.be/c2N1sFWRRf8 > Much of the furry community sees fursonas as a sexual choice. No, this is a myth that a lot of people outside our community believe. If you have a fursona, that's supposed to be a representation of you. Fursonas are about identity. It can also be about one's queerness (which is probably fair to say in general, considering 80% of the fandom is LGBTQIA+), but being queer doesn't mean "being sexual". https://furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-pornography/5-1-orientation/ https://furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-p... https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/feb/04/furry-fandom-subculture-animal-costumes https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/feb/04/furry-fandom... (Yes, there is a side to most fandoms that focused on adult entertainment, but that's not all of it.)
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >> It's disqualifying because, in the case of furries, it started as a sexual fantasy. >I don't know where you heard that, but it's incorrect. Maybe that's technically incorrect, but you should check out how the early coverage of furry culture was presenting it as[0]. Here is an interesting excerpt: "Early portrayal of the furries in magazines such as Wired, Loaded, Vanity Fair, and the syndicated sex column "Savage Love" focused mainly on the sexual aspect of furry fandom." 0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Public_perception_and_media_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Public_perception...
- jbob2000 6y ago
  I think your documentary is biased, as it’s been made and hosted by a furry themselves. On the Wikipedia page about furry fandom, it says: > The furry fandom has its roots in the underground comix movement of the 1970s, a genre of comic books that depicts explicit content.[5] In 1976, a pair of cartoonists created the amateur press association Vootie, which was dedicated to animal-focused art. Many of its featured works contained adult themes, such as "Omaha" the Cat Dancer, which contained explicit sex. As well, it even has a section dedicated to sexuality, where it states: > In a different online survey, 33% of furry respondents answered that they have a "significant sexual interest in furry", another 46% stated they have a "minor sexual interest in furry", and the remaining 21% stated they have a "non-sexual interest in furry". Although you may not engage with it sexually, it very much has a sexual following. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
filoleg 6y ago
> Why is furry/anime/whatever inherently disqualifying, regardless of the quality of the technical content? It isn't inherently disqualifying, unless it is plastered everywhere where it doesn't belong, like in the middle of a lot of unrelated conversations or in the middle of a professional technical blog post. For example, if you just have a furry image in your website header, but the content of your technical post itself is on-point and doesn't have a bunch of unrelated furry stuff, most people will have no issues sharing your content and recommending it to others. For a good example of that, take a look at the website of the guy who did a lot of impressive work and research and became famous for the YOLO image classifier[0]. His website features my little pony characters. He is very openly into it. His MLP-themed resume made as a halfway joke is extremely infamous on the internet. And then take a look at his technical blog posts. He writes really well and doesn't let his interests detract him from quality writing. And no one who is interested in reading about the technical topics he covers seems to have any issues with the content of his posts at all. 0. https://pjreddie.com/ https://pjreddie.com/
stonogo 6y ago
I wouldn't share a link with my colleagues that contained any cartoon emoting at all, because they would find it (and by association me) infantile and cloying, and I would expect that assessment, in a professional setting. The species or art style is not, for me, the heart of the issue; it's just that people in my line of work are generally not receptive to this method of communication. This same sector of the world would also not respond well to, say, shorts and t-shirts in the office, for almost exactly the same reasons. There is no way in hell I will ever be able to change this, but I would be able to effectively destroy my own credibility by posting links to cartoon-annotated technical articles. My online sphere of interactions includes both furries and otherkin and we generally get along fine. I don't like that this sort of boundary matters, but it does, and I'm not in a position to do anything about it.