Corrected to account for Burned Fur's non-status as an "anti-furry" group. They do not in fact meet any of the given criteria by which a group is in fact considered "anti-furry". In point of fact, Burned Furs constantly related serious concerns with the status of Furry Fandom's image, both in their individual correspondence and public statements. There exists no evidence to date to suggest that Burned Fur wanted to ban pornography from the fandom or take any steps to harm the fandom itself.
Burned Furs did not have a problem with the fandom, but instead with the public sexual conduct of a small minority of furry fans who nonetheless managed to obtain the majority of media coverage concerning the fandom as a whole. Many furry fans living alternative lifestyles interpreted the "Burned Fur Manifesto" to be an attack on their sexual preferences, and responded with accusations that the Burned Furs were everything from homophobes to neo-Nazis. The end result amounted to several years of vicious and ultimately pointless flamewars mounted on the newsgroup alt.fan.furry by proponents of both sides. --Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005
- Reverted to the prior edit, as you are describing the initial intended idea of the formation of the group, not the quickly, disintegrating claustrof#@*! it finally ended being. And having being there during their time period, being friends with such members as MMM, almost incited by its initial goals, a frequent user of both their IRC channel plus message board, I can at-testify that, by the end of the experiment, they had, unfortunately, well earned their "anti-furry" wings. And no amount of rewrite will ever change that. Blame the people inside it that made this possible, they were in control of the wheel. As, now ironically, Michael “Gothtiger, MikeC” Campbell best put it: "What you connect yourself and your activities to can come back to haunt you" .Spirou 05:58, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
See for yourself
If you would ever take 5 minutes to actually read through CrushYiffDestroy, you dorks would learn that these people are indeed NOT anti-furry, as over 80% of the members ARE furries. Harsh criticism and poking fun at the fandom does not equal hating it.
- So the mocking and insults aren't meant to hurt anyone? Disrespecting a person's deeply thought and honestly held beliefs is just good, clean fun? Violating someone's privacy is a kindness? Hating furries is what gets you put on the list. It doesn't matter what you are, but only what you do. -- Siege 14:10, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- So if I like Hostess brand fruit pies, but I make fun of all other brands of fruit pies for being of an inferior quality in my opinion, does that mean I hate ALL fruit pies regardless? Also, news flash: CYD gleans all of their "gossip" from publicly available websites and/or forums/communities. Posting private information to the intarweb does not make it private anymore, does it?
- No, it's more like demanding that all the thousands of beers in the world be just like Bud Lite. I personally dislike a number of beers (and a handful of furries), but I don't go around bashing them just because they aren't to my taste. And in the particular instance to which I refer, CYD's "gossip" happened to revolve around a photograph which was not to be posted unaltered, and which was replaced with an altered version on the original site when the subjects of that photo discovered it a few hours after its original posting. Private citizens have a general expectation of remaining private in the US, and a photograph posted without the permission of the subjects can be considered a violation of that premise. -- Siege 23:44, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Someone else said: Posting private information to the intarweb does not make it private anymore, does it?
- I think the unnamed person who posted that does have a point. If someone posts on their website or LJ that they like humping watermelons (for example), they should not be surprised if people on other websites make fun of them for it. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And, AFAIK, the CrushYiffDestroy people keep their stuff to their *own* website. If they were going out and invading other forums that would be entirely different.
- As for whether CYD should be listed on here, from reading the article, I guess the question is, do they find furry and/or any sexuality related to furry to be "repulsive"? --Dmuth 00:45, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Certain aspects are repulsive to certain members. Beastiality is a pretty touchy subject for maybe half the forum, and a few seem honestly squicked by babyfurs. In general members just giggle madly at the absolute absurdity of the fandom - given the choice, most CYD members would keep the furry fandom just as it is today. If the fandom cleaned up, where would the lulz be? So no, they find furry and/or any sexuality related to furry to be "hilarious". Oh, there's more than a few practicing furries and artists among their number... perhaps you've heard of MicahFennec, fiancee of The New Meat?
- Go ahead and keep it in the anti-furry category. Furries would probably prefer to keep all their critics in one box. --the Shrike 02:32, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Reversion of edits by 126.96.36.199
Reverted edit due to change of wording influencing percepted intent of anti-furs (bias was against). -- DeVandalizer 09:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Question about definition
Also I want to ask on Furs Against Furs and Burned Furs one was anti-furry and the other not, I asked and Spirou just labelled the other anti-fur. So I'm confused. Well in anti-furry it's vague on if it's a furry group that doesn't like furries or not. The two groups are there now recently because he added them, but I'm wondering about the term anti-furry. Maybe this, "furries that practice regularly include the removal of furry media references (MTV, CSI, Drew Carey, Vanity Fair, and ER), the discrediting of relations of sexuality to the fandom, and/or the practicing the philosophies of Burned Furs and Furs Against Furs. Like terms have been used to cite prevalence of these types of furries on places--most commonly wikipedia's furry categories, whereas they are not as common elsewhere. For example, such editors on wikipedia never would allow mention of Taurin and the Yiffing Machine." kind of behavior in the quote a type of anti-furry? Maybe not? And would anti-furry be someone opposed to certain aspects of the fandom? SleepAtWork 08:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No legitimate criticism of Furry?
I notice that the words "critic" and "critical" are absent from this entry. Can one be critical of Furry, yet not be anti-Furry. This smacks of "my country, wrong or right". 733 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, it's not about not liking furries
The reason sites like SA and ED pick on furries is because they make fun of everybody... And there are about as many surface reasons to pick on furries as there are cross dressers. Cross dressers have deep phychological reasons, but holy crap they are an easy target.
I think this article is rather unfair to non-furries
I will admit right now that I could be classed as "anti-furry". I find the pursuit somewhat odd, that's all. However your article implies that people who don't like furry automatically hate furries and want to start some sort of vendetta against furries, which isn't true. Can't something be done about this? 188.8.131.52 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- After a rereading of the article I don't really get where it implies that anyone who doesn't like furries is anti-furry. Certainly there are different types and degrees of "anti-furry" attitude and behavior. The term "furry" itself has different meanings to different people, who often have their own ideas about whether they consider themselves or certain other individuals or groups to be furries; no doubt the same is true of anti-furries. The opening sentence states that anti-furries are those who find furry fandom to be repulsive, whereas you yourself only stated that you find it to be somewhat odd. I might not consider that sentence from the article to be all-inclusive of anti-furries (and the rest of the article goes into some of this) but I think it's safe to say that those who find furries to be simply odd, different, or weird are not anti-furries per se. --mwalimu 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I've said before, people that make fun of other people simply because they choose to do something that is out of the "Norm" are truely sad. It shows that they are insecure of them selves and that they need to take that insecurity out on others, IE Furries, Homosexuals, Blacks. Throughout history its been shown that those people have extream issues with them selves. I'm not tell those to got get help or anything but what I am saying is that harassing or making fun of someone is childish for people who are "Adults" to be doing that shows a huge immature level in todays socicity. Stryker 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Stryker FrostpawStryker 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As a phobia
Is there a name for the fear or furries? So far I came up with Fursophobia since originally Fursona is portmanteau of the terms furry and persona, Persona being latin for Mask. Another is Zooanthrothropy (Greek zωο, Zōo – "animal", ἄνθρωπος, ánthropos - "man" and φόβος, phóbos - "fear"). these are fictional latin portmanteau's I made up but closest I believe to Anti-furists are Xenophobics however that term can mean racism as well. Any correct word for it?--Mystic Monkey 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)