Playing both sides of the field
It can be argued that a large amount of the fursecution is due to members of the furry fandom reacting in ways that show oversensitivity. Encyclopædia Dramatica, which pokes fun at various internet phenomena, especially furries, says, "Furries suffer from an acute victim complex. This makes them very easy to torment."
- Of course, it's not entirely fair to accuse people of oversensitivity here as you're making fun of them over at ED. If you want to criticize, you need to have respect (and preferably an independent viewpoint), and that isn't the way to get it. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but Encyclopedia Dramatica characterizes any reaction, regardless of how well-reasoned or calmly stated, as an "overreaction." Since people on Encyclopedia Dramatica are unable to argue their way out of a wet paper bag, one wonders why WikiFur bothers to give them any credibility at all? —220.127.116.11 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Could fursecution qualify as a hate crime? Although many hate crimes are because of race (like being black) what people are born with, or they are because of homosexuality (which has disputed causes), it can only be hating to Jewish people or other religions, which is clearly a choice and a choice is what many people consider furry fandom to be. Tretonin 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia article:
- Hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society, such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism. If systematic, rather than spontaneous, instigators of such crimes are sometimes organized into hate groups.
- Has there been a single verifiable incident of physical assault made against a fur specifically because they were a fur? Not that I know of.
- I don't see how we can say "hate crime" when no laws are being broken. --Douglas Muth 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- We need a pin or a bumper sticker that says that. Fursecution is not a hate crime. It's just stupidity.
- Or maybe: Fursecution says more about them than it does you. --Douglas Muth 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would you cite Wikipedia to define what a hate crime is under Federal, state, or local law? That's not a good legal reference. Even just digging up a statute doesn't enable you to understand how to apply it and the accompanying case law unless you're an experienced criminal or civil rights lawyer or a judge. In my opinion it's ridiculous for you to be wringing your hands about accusing people of hate crimes that haven't even happened yet. If you're worried about being assaulted while walking around in a fursuit, the obvious solution is not to walk around in a fursuit. You'd have a better chance of using the Americans with Disabilities Act which protects the mentally ill. Anyone who is serious about calling himself a furry is obviously at least slightly mentally ill, probably delusional, OCD, or paraphilia-NOS. Of course, the only protection that may provide you is one last chance from your employer when you are caught chatting with other furries online on work time and get you a few counseling sessions. Funny, you said people who write for ED could argue. I used to write for ED. In case you didn't get my point, it's probable that you as furries are not a protected group of any kind under hate crime laws. 18.104.22.168 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I later thought about the no violence thing. Hate speech is protected by the first ammendment. As for wikipedia's definition, I kind of prefer the dictionary to wikipedia for accuracy. Wikipedia says things like George Washington never owned slaves and the African elephant population has been increasing. "hate speech or vandalism" is included and I don't think hate speech counts because of the first ammendment and vandalism happens all the time. The dictionary  says the action is a crime, which is vague in one definition. In the other, it says it must be a "a crime that violates the victim's civil rights." Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are those. The later is so broad that wiki vandalism could count as a hate crime if done for reasons of fursecution. Tretonin 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I found a real hate crime. A furry was constantly harassed in real life. Screenshot of their livejournal entry that they made friends only: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Image:IrlFurryPwn.jpg Tretonin 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- While a pretty horrible thing, it does not seem to involve "outside elements".
- Also, I find it curious at the name of the accused is not mentioned. --Douglas Muth 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be considered a real hate crime, because being a furry is a choice. It's not a religion, and it's not a genetic thing like race. Comparing furries to groups with real problems on their hands, like blacks or Jews, is pretty silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
- Religion is a choice. Tretonin 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I emailed Spirou about this as I don't quite know how to fix it. No reply has been sent.
The article states:
"it is the oversensitive reaction (or overreaction) to such attacks that some people would claim qualifies as "Fursecution.""
This does not make sense:
Fursecution = the oversensitive reaction (or overreaction) to such attacks [attack against furries]
Tretonin 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- So...what's the typo exactly? I'm sorry, I can't figure out what you're trying to fix. Spaz Kitty 20:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- You fail to understand how wikis work; you see something that needs to be changed, you change it yourself. If someone disagrees, they discuss it here on the talk page. Evidently, there is not a lot of disagreement with your statement, so have fun editing! ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I could not tell at the time what he was talking about. Tretonin 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)