Talk:Furry stereotype

Sources? Proof? How about some of that?

Sources/proof of what, exactly? This article encompasses a lot. Spaz Kitty 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Furry Stereotypes
one can agree to that stereotypes or not, we should try to find a consent however.

I think maybe we should update the species with some cats (lion, tiger, house cat, leopard)--Yamavu 07:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a Furry?
I was directed here by a co-worker. The article is informative, but only if you already know what a furry is. I would like to suggest adding some descriptions or links to describe what a furry is. What is it that defines and draws together the community? I couldn't find such a link from the front page, either, btw. 206.210.89.21 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem like some people have nothing good to say, based on this article. Especially when it came to the species stereotypes. It seemed as though they were all based upon existing pathological stereotypes. I find it hard to believe that there are no positive, generally accepted connotations for any of these or other popular species. --User:Tuyuq

Emo?
Hello, fist off, kudos on making a neutral article on such an easily-biased topic! Second, I've been having some issues with another fur that it is a stereotype among non-furs that furries are all emo, but I've never heard of such a thing, and can't seem to find it on this article, either. I've come to believe that this fur is pulling things out of their arse, for reasons I won't get into here, but has anyone else heard this stereotype? Equivamp 14:07, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

"Vandalism"
While I appreciate that this edit could not stand as-is, I feel there is some value which could be extracted from it. For example, people do often pick exotic felids in preference to cats. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (EDT)


 * Adding a bit of common information/knowledge gets kind of obliterated by the the contributor other "offered" contributions:
 * "Also fucking bronies."
 * "Also sometimes fucking bronies."
 * "Also still goddamned bronies!."
 * "Also ranting unfunny douchebags with obnoxious voices."
 * "It's because you don't see as many of these as you think. Or they must all be hiding." (this is data?. Supposition?.)
 * "Do not feed them Vigorosol." (Indeed valuable furry lore data.)
 * "Even if their definition of 'misunderstood' often means 'People won't put up with my bullshit and inconsiderate behaviour."
 * "The choice for those people who want to just be their own unique precious snowflake." (Should snowflake be Wikipedia linked so people can understand the etymology in the inference?.)
 * "Bears - See the gay stereotype for gay men of the same name." (In all the years of the existence of both terms, mainstream/furry], never a constant concrete stereotype use of this "allegation".)
 * "And the world COULD use a little more free-love hippie types... Seriously is anyone else tired by now of all the self-centered douchebags from the MeMeMe buy-cool-clothes era started in the eighties? Fuck that shit." (...)
 * "Say what you want about furries, they know THAT difference!..."


 * A reasonable hope of 'extraction' kind of died around the second, third or fourth Fucking and/or Douchebag. This is, not our first, L33t "I'm not a furry!" troll furry, hiding (with way too much time), disruptive data inside an article under the guise of "good faith" edit.


 * The type of troll that an one day, week, month, or 3 months ban is really not going to convince him of the inanity of the deed. But,... =/ - Spirou 18:31, 4 August 2013 (EDT)


 * I'm not sure a ban of any length is appropriate in such circumstances; bans should be preventative, not punitive, and unlike spammers, it's hard to see what damage is being prevented by a one-off edit like this. If the tone of the contribution is incorrect, it can be reverted (partially or in whole) and the user can be instructed and given the opportunity to contribute again. Yes, many will ultimately not contribute productively, but some will; I would accept a one in ten chance of it, because a meaningful contributor to non-personal topics is relatively rare.
 * For this particular edit, I agree there's a lot of cruft. There are also nuggets of truth mixed in there. It would be nice to be able to extract them. And hey, without the Vigorosol comment, I'd never have seen this! (It's spelt "Vigorsol", though.) Alas, Special snowflake was deleted; I'd link Urban Dictionary instead. I admit, I've not asked Nuka what the stats were on bears; maybe Grubbs Grizzly would be an example? --GreenReaper(talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (EDT)


 * "Bans should be preventative, not punitive". Yes, asnd we have let some vandalism go by without applying a ban (just a quick revert), because it is minor, weak, just a quick "Burn H*ll..." quip, or an editor/colleague doesn't want to bother with. Other times we have given 1, 2 3, up to 24 hours bans for almost the same reasons. More annoying (read:repetitive) ones get longer time periods, up to the colleague,...


 * Then you have the chaps like this one. How do they phrase it on that other site?: "Everybody does blatant vandalism on WikiFur, but nobody does sneaky'. You start reading their edits (here it starts heavy on the history and differences on the types of Dragons, more appropriate for the Dragon article, seems that the edits needs to be steered more towards the Stereotype regarding the species,... then you start to get the "griefer senses" going when words like Mary-Sue-esque and awesome-sauce-inest fursona' start to appear, and you know the Good Ship "Good Faith Edit" is starting taking on water.


 * By the third "fucking bronies", the hull has been breached by crashing into Island Lulz, and by the time he/she gets into an argument about the selfish commercialism of Douchebags that started in the 1980s, the ship has burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.


 * "There are also nuggets of truth mixed in there. It would be nice to be able to extract them". The Infinite monkey theorem?. Yes, there's probably something that could be extracted from these,... if you can remove the NPOV angle, personal opinions/musings, non-related data, demeaning terms, etc,...


 * Grubbs?, truly, I don't know what angle/theory/specialty/team he is pitching for, so I don't know what he could bring up on that subject. Knowing people in both groups, it's not something it has come up as a "Stereotype" (change "Bears" to "Muscle Furs and Mundane Bodybuilders", then ugly stereotypes do start to show up. A stereotype that some straight Muscle Fur artists are not happy about). =P - Spirou 22:29, 4 August 2013 (EDT)

what is this? the 1800s?
why is "lgbt" under "medical disorders". as a transgender person and a lesbian i found this just absurd. though i dont beleive being transgender to be a medical condition, if you ARE going to include it here, at least call it its actual official name its been given to try to make the idea less offensive (Gender Dysphoria). this article is bad in general as it puts being lgbt in a bad light and has a very "not ALL of us are FREAKS!" tone to it. no one appreciates that. on a related side note: no one "suffers" from aspergers. autistic people are not sick, and aspergers is no longer its own diagnosis but recognized as a full part of autism.
 * You make some valid points. Some of what you bring up may have been an attempt to state the stereotypes the same way and using the same terminology as one who uses those stereotypes. Speculation aside, you are welcome to edit the article yourself to make any corrections you deem appropriate (although you might have to register, as I believe the article is semi-protected due to frequent vandalism). --mwalimu (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (EST) (P.S. I have Asperger's, and as you say I do not "suffer" from it. I'm not bothered by how it's addressed in the article but I can see where others might be and some improvement in the language might be in order.)
 * Article is not semi-protected (yet), one more will probably do it, so the user can still make the changes brought up for discussion without registering, but it's highly recommendable. - Spirou (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Cubs
Actually, the cub art does have a bit of truth to it. Cub porn is legally a form of child porn as the characters in the art are indeed under 18 or at least resemble children and some cub artists are indeed real pedophiles. I should know, I was stalked by one on DeviantArt once and even insulted by some twit who seems to like to blame the victim, claiming I somehow "provoked" him by ignoring him and pretending he didn't exist. Must have been his white knight or a defender of so called "pedosexuals" or something. DonutBandit (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

A grain of salt
Perhaps for some confirmation we collect a range of sources on the discussion of Fursona stereotypes to make the statements made have more weight to them? I think perhaps even inserting a playful meme demonstrating a stereotype or two in action would be helpful for this section? It feels vague. SlinkySkinky (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020