Read on Twitter
So uhm. I don’t wanna soapbox about something I have no say in, but I’m seeing that a LOT of extremely high-caliber, long-standing artists are being targeted/directly impacted by this particular thing lately. So if I may, I want to draw a comparison of sorts. Thread: https://twitter.com/danzadragon/status/1300322589248806912">https://twitter.com/danzadrag...
First off; moral standards are important. It’s a feature of civilisation to have a relatively standardised code of moral conduct that differentiates right from wrong based on harm, potential for harm, or widely held cultural beliefs. Moral standards protect the vulnerable.
Common belief is what gave us the moral codes embedded in religious doctrine, and extrapolated over centuries into what we now recognise as common law, evolving with the times as it went. This is, for the most part, a good thing.
What’s been happening of late in fandom circles, specifically targeting the artists and creators that form the backbone, heart and soul of those very fandoms, is a torches-and-pitchforks bastardisation of commonly-held moral standards.
I’m sure everyone has heard of this poem by Martin Niemöller. It’s a description of the march of authoritarianism, culminating in the eradication of ‘undesirable’ people from society often based on something as basic as religion, skin colour or association.
That, as far as I can see, is what’s starting to happen here. There’s a very vocal, very moralistic, very judgemental minority of individuals who’ve entered fandom spaces in which they *knew* things existed that were against their personal values. Instead of creating their own—
—space where they could curate their own experiences, these people have embarked on a moral crusade. Some very high-profile individuals within the furry fandom in particular have aligned themselves with this crusade, which has given it further impetus.
First, they went for the super niche fetish creators. No one really noticed because those people have always been on the fringe of the subculture anyway; mostly through awareness that their content has always been niche-interest.
One or two high-profile artists have been absolutely nuked out of the fandom through mindless hate and harassment for incredibly innocuous things; Anyone remember Tacklebox? Tackle made astonishing, often emotionally-laden art, and was cancelled over ONE drawing that someone—
—interpreted as being ‘cub.’ It wasn’t pornographic, wasn’t ‘obviously’ cub, wasn’t even publicly posted anywhere that I’m aware of.
What justifies that? We lost a wonderful creator, an artist whose skills contributed significantly to the fandom. Why?
What justifies that? We lost a wonderful creator, an artist whose skills contributed significantly to the fandom. Why?
Any number of other artists have been attacked, doxed, harassed, mobbed, smeared, and bullied out of this ‘inclusive’ space.
And now that the focus of the moral crusade has switched to “zoophilia” (code for ‘any character which displays animal characteristics’) suddenly the—
And now that the focus of the moral crusade has switched to “zoophilia” (code for ‘any character which displays animal characteristics’) suddenly the—
—crusade is having an impact. Because animals with humanoid bodies and sentience are the cornerstone of the furry fandom.
Now, I could go off on a huge tangent about the subjectivity of drawing such moral lines within an artistic fandom, and at some point I will. The point—
Now, I could go off on a huge tangent about the subjectivity of drawing such moral lines within an artistic fandom, and at some point I will. The point—
—of this thread, though, is to compare this creeping moralistic crusade to the Niemöller poem.
First they went for the niche fetish artists, and I said nothing because I am not a consumer of niche fetish art.
Then they went for the sentient-feral artists, and I said nothing—
First they went for the niche fetish artists, and I said nothing because I am not a consumer of niche fetish art.
Then they went for the sentient-feral artists, and I said nothing—
—because I am not a consumer of sentient-feral art.
Where does this go next?
For many, the reality of being on the receiving end of a targeted harassment campaign is a new experience. The fandom has always been known as a welcoming space for diverse interests and—
Where does this go next?
For many, the reality of being on the receiving end of a targeted harassment campaign is a new experience. The fandom has always been known as a welcoming space for diverse interests and—
—fictional, artistic expression.
I’m not entirely sure how to conclude this, so I’ll just end with saying that furry art is by its very nature an expression of fiction. It’s a highly sexualised, kink-friendly, adult-oriented space.
I’m not entirely sure how to conclude this, so I’ll just end with saying that furry art is by its very nature an expression of fiction. It’s a highly sexualised, kink-friendly, adult-oriented space.
It is nobody’s job, duty or right to gatekeep, police or project subjectivities onto anyone else’s creation. Left unchecked, “cancel culture” or whatever it is, will gut the fandom. We must do more, I believe, to protect freedom of expression.
If someone engages in conduct which is illegal - which in artistic expression is extremely rare - it’s the job of law enforcement to pursue them. Nobody else’s.
If someone is creating content you don’t personally approve of or like, you have no right to attack them for it.
End.
If someone is creating content you don’t personally approve of or like, you have no right to attack them for it.
End.
