3 ms·

oopsie woopsie! https://twitter.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594 https://twitter.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594 edit: I always thought this

oopsie woopsie! https://twitter.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594 https://twitter.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594 edit: I always thought this tweet was hilarious. I'm definitely not a furry though, looking through OP's tweets now that I've linked one of theirs...

lmm 4y ago
If you feel the need to tell everyone about how non-furry you are just because you linked someone's tweet, you're probably not as secure in your non-furriness as you want to claim.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  Hmm. When the thread knows literally one fact about you, and it's that you had a link to a furry art twitter account at the ready, you can be forgiven for doing a little brand management.
- xxxxyxxyxxyxyx 4y ago
  Are there studies that link announcement of not being X, with actually being X? I always thought that line of reasoning is ridiculous. It also uses X as being a 'gotcha', which seems similar to using X as an insult. I mean you don't 'get people' with things they are fine with admitting. Maybe not an insult exactly but it definitely feels like an attack. I'm sure there are people who, being ashamed of being something, do go out of their way to say that they aren't. However I don't think seeing someone saying it once mean they "probably" are that thing. You can be annoyed/embarrassed at the thought of being seen as something you aren't. I don't know the type of people who follow NSFW furry artists on twitter, but I imagine a lot of them are furries themselves. If the OP doesn't want to be associated with them then I think it's reasonable to state he isn't one.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    > "If the OP doesn't want to be associated with them then I think it's reasonable to state he isn't one." Imagine linking a tweet about a software error message and then making a followup comment "that account posts a lot of baking content. I'm not a baker btw.". Who would think you are a baker just because you linked a tweet posted by a baker? And why would you care if anyone accidentally thinks you're a baker? You wouldn't because there's nothing embarassing for you if people think you're a baker. So the disclaimer "I'm not a furry" implicitly contains the message "being considered a furry would be embarassing because being a furry is bad". You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad ("that account posts a lot of murder content, I'm not a murderer btw"). You may disclaim things which feel risky if misunderstood ("they Tweet medical advice, I'm not a doctor") but mostly the disclaimers are for tribal declarations of things you would feel embarassed to be associated with ("I'm not a flat-earther like they are"). People who think those things are fine push back "Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind". It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back. If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue.
    - xxxxyxxyxxyxyx 4y ago
      If someone links to an account which is prolifically an X and tweets about X, I would assume that you might be an X. Which is to say I wouldn't treat it as a fact. It might trigger the question, "Are you an X?", simply out of interest, whereas previously I wouldn't have any reason to ask that. That's just me, I'm sure there's people who would just assume that they are an X. >You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad Whether you think people need to or not is irrelevant. We know that people do it, so people obviously feel they need to do so. I've seen people play devils advocate, or joke themselves as an X, and be mistaken for one before. so perhaps you do need to make a disclaimer in order to fully avoid confusion. >"Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind". Or maybe it's on the top of their mind because they unwittingly linked an account associated with X. The whole "if you don't like X you're actually X" is bizarre. >It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back. Sure, that might be true, but it's still true the other side is using it as an insult. It's just odd since they're insulting OP as an X, whilst acting as if they're in the position of defending Xism... >If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue. It's ridiculous for you to realise it's possible for people to make this assumption and also complain that someone made a disclaimer to avoid the extra discussion you mentioned. Perhaps these types of disclaimers might not matter much if you anonymously posting on this site, we don't know if OP is or not though.
- strken 4y ago
  I think the intent of the edit is to warn anyone who clicks the link that they're one more click away from furry porn, possibly on their work computer.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    You'd accomplish that by appending "(NSFW)". Anything more complicated than that signals insecurity.
  - bunbunbun 4y ago
    Then they could added a warning that commented on the nsfw aspect and not on their own non-furriness.

lmm 4y ago

If you feel the need to tell everyone about how non-furry you are just because you linked someone's tweet, you're probably not as secure in your non-furriness as you want to claim.

mpalmer 4y ago
Hmm. When the thread knows literally one fact about you, and it's that you had a link to a furry art twitter account at the ready, you can be forgiven for doing a little brand management.
xxxxyxxyxxyxyx 4y ago
Are there studies that link announcement of not being X, with actually being X? I always thought that line of reasoning is ridiculous. It also uses X as being a 'gotcha', which seems similar to using X as an insult. I mean you don't 'get people' with things they are fine with admitting. Maybe not an insult exactly but it definitely feels like an attack. I'm sure there are people who, being ashamed of being something, do go out of their way to say that they aren't. However I don't think seeing someone saying it once mean they "probably" are that thing. You can be annoyed/embarrassed at the thought of being seen as something you aren't. I don't know the type of people who follow NSFW furry artists on twitter, but I imagine a lot of them are furries themselves. If the OP doesn't want to be associated with them then I think it's reasonable to state he isn't one.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  > "If the OP doesn't want to be associated with them then I think it's reasonable to state he isn't one." Imagine linking a tweet about a software error message and then making a followup comment "that account posts a lot of baking content. I'm not a baker btw.". Who would think you are a baker just because you linked a tweet posted by a baker? And why would you care if anyone accidentally thinks you're a baker? You wouldn't because there's nothing embarassing for you if people think you're a baker. So the disclaimer "I'm not a furry" implicitly contains the message "being considered a furry would be embarassing because being a furry is bad". You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad ("that account posts a lot of murder content, I'm not a murderer btw"). You may disclaim things which feel risky if misunderstood ("they Tweet medical advice, I'm not a doctor") but mostly the disclaimers are for tribal declarations of things you would feel embarassed to be associated with ("I'm not a flat-earther like they are"). People who think those things are fine push back "Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind". It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back. If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue.
  - xxxxyxxyxxyxyx 4y ago
    If someone links to an account which is prolifically an X and tweets about X, I would assume that you might be an X. Which is to say I wouldn't treat it as a fact. It might trigger the question, "Are you an X?", simply out of interest, whereas previously I wouldn't have any reason to ask that. That's just me, I'm sure there's people who would just assume that they are an X. >You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad Whether you think people need to or not is irrelevant. We know that people do it, so people obviously feel they need to do so. I've seen people play devils advocate, or joke themselves as an X, and be mistaken for one before. so perhaps you do need to make a disclaimer in order to fully avoid confusion. >"Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind". Or maybe it's on the top of their mind because they unwittingly linked an account associated with X. The whole "if you don't like X you're actually X" is bizarre. >It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back. Sure, that might be true, but it's still true the other side is using it as an insult. It's just odd since they're insulting OP as an X, whilst acting as if they're in the position of defending Xism... >If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue. It's ridiculous for you to realise it's possible for people to make this assumption and also complain that someone made a disclaimer to avoid the extra discussion you mentioned. Perhaps these types of disclaimers might not matter much if you anonymously posting on this site, we don't know if OP is or not though.
strken 4y ago
I think the intent of the edit is to warn anyone who clicks the link that they're one more click away from furry porn, possibly on their work computer.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  You'd accomplish that by appending "(NSFW)". Anything more complicated than that signals insecurity.
- bunbunbun 4y ago
  Then they could added a warning that commented on the nsfw aspect and not on their own non-furriness.