The WikiFur Review

[Kindrift]

Since insufferable nerd GreenReaper defends the right of common furries to lie about themselves and encourages the rabble to fully trash the privacy of infamous Internet trolls, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that he views the EFF as an enemy of the basement dweller.  We're waiting for him to claim it's a joke but you have to laugh that someone in the position of operating a wiki would even say it.  In Cairo's promotion of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as Furry Digg's Featured Charity, the WikiFur admin writes:

I prefer to give my money to groups lobbying for furry rights.

Between these embarassing outings, and his implicit encouragement of illiterate moderators to ban and revert anything they dislike or don't understand, GR's actions go a long way toward savaging the reputation of his supposedly neutral information source.

[LordNagetiere]

lobbying for furry rights

lobbying for furry rights


lobbying for furry rights


"Excuse me, Senator? Senator! Can I have a word with you, I represent a consortium of concerned citizens who claim the modern  education system isn't fully accessable to the humanity-challenged. Do you know only three schools in all the nation have a dedicated yiffing room? And none of those are equipped with the latests in zeta toys. We're lagging badly behind Europe. Do you think we could do lunch sometime to discuss this matter more indepth?"

[Freehaven]

I prefer to give my money to groups lobbying for furry rights.

Oh, for the love of fuck.  How much more stupid can you get?

[GreenReaper]

Need I remind you that I live on the second floor?

The EFF is fine - I don't know where you got the idea that I dislike it - but, like a few of the topics that have come up recently on furryne.ws, it's really nothing to do with furry fandom. Instead, it is of interest to some who happen to be in the fandom (you know, those basement second-floor dwelling furverts). That was what I was attempting to point out.

No, it wasn't a very good attempt. I'd been up late reading Twokinds the night before.

[ProvincialTwit]

Speak his name and he will come.  It's pretty creepy, actually.  Like a single-mention Beetlejuice or Candyman.

[GreenReaper]

Speak his name and he will come.  It's pretty creepy, actually.  Like a single-mention Beetlejuice or Candyman.

You're right; I saw Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory a few weeks ago, and that candyman is pretty darn creepy. Think about it - either he practiced that song, or he ad-libbed it verse for verse. Either way, it can't be good.

[Kindrift]

'Sup, Larry.

I have no personal beef against the EFF, I just don't want to give them my money. The EFF supports a lot of cases, and I don't have a significant interest in all of them. Why would I give my money to them rather than (say) a furry convention, research into viable animal-human hybrids, or a museum dedicated to anthropomorphic animals in art and literature, which might be 100% aligned with my interests rather than 50%? It's a matter of priorities, and focus.

Your interests are crap.  Most children of your stature pledge support toward something altruistic and beneficial to mankind, if you want to throw money at short term entertainment and shit that is never in a hundred years going to happen then you lose any respect commenting on any charity whatsoever.  You aren't giving to any charity is your problem, you're buying geek porn.  Which is 100% aligned to your interests, cool, but don't dress it up.  We aren't that stupid.

FYI, using :-) to soften your ideas just makes you into a fantastic tool.  Enjoy.

[Vuna]

'Sup, Larry.

I have no personal beef against the EFF, I just don't want to give them my money. The EFF supports a lot of cases, and I don't have a significant interest in all of them. Why would I give my money to them rather than (say) a furry convention, research into viable animal-human hybrids, or a museum dedicated to anthropomorphic animals in art and literature, which might be 100% aligned with my interests rather than 50%? It's a matter of priorities, and focus.

I too would love to toss piles of money at stupid bullshit.

[GreenReaper]

I don't want to save mankind - it's managed to survive so far, it should be able to save itself. I'm willing to settle for something altruistic and beneficial to the people who share my interests, and who I care about - members of the furry fandom. (At the current rate of growth, we'll all be furry fans by 2169, so I figure it's much the same.)

As for scientific progress, I guess I'm an optimist. Tell you what, let's see how things are in fifty years. If I've not got cute green ears and horns, and you're not a four-legged skunk, you can tell me you told me so.

Edit: Looks like Penny Arcade has similar views. Fursuits or smoke bombs, take your pick.

[MetropolitanDonut]

Altruistic? You have to be fucking joking.
Altruism by it's nature is non-selective and gives no benefit to oneself.  By throwing money into the wind that's blowing in your direction, you are absolutely not being altruistic. Acting beneficially specifically to those within proximity to your interests and beliefs is self-catering.  Truly being altruistic would be donating to a charity for children on the other side of the planet, whom you will never meet or see.

You're not altruistic, please don't kid yourself.

And as far as you're concerned for your future rights after you turn yourself into what-the-fuck-ever? It's about as asinine as lobbying for piercing rights, tattooed rights, or any other form of body-modification.

[Arche Kruz]

I prefer to give my money to groups lobbying for furry rights.

Please tell me you're joking.

[Pi]

Help, officer, my right to typefuck as a 40 foot dragon who entered this plane from an orange portal in Norway is being infringed upon and needs protection!

Meanwhile, the great firewall of china still exists, DRM is still screwing consumers, and RFID is used in condoms to track reproductive habits.

All because GreenReaper boycotted the EFF.

[LordNagetiere]

Like a single-mention Beetlejuice or Candyman.

If only mentioning his name would bring Beetlejuice here. I bet he could make stellar parallels between entertaining tourist dipshits and entertaining furry dipshits.

I'm willing to settle for something altruistic and beneficial to the people who share my interests, and who I care about

As someone pointed out, being altruistic is inherently in conflict with being selective about it. I think it still bears repeating, is all. You're not being earnestly generous for the sake of generous if you limit generosity to those who think or act like you, or support you in some manner. In fact, that's just basically being generously self-serving. Not that it's a bad thing, we arent all saints, but don't dress up masturbatory fantasies as altruism if you want people outside of your little circle to be generous with your (fucked up) opinions.

[GreenReaper]

My apologies for the misuse of the word "altruistic". I was attempting to turn around Kindrift's statement, and lumped its meaning together with "beneficial for a group", which was incorrect. One of my parents is an English teacher, so I should have known better than that.

I care about a specific group of people, the vast majority of whom are not myself. I am willing to help them achieve happiness at a cost to myself, because I see the group as more important. I don't care much about people beyond that group - which is not to say that I wish them harm, just that I don't have any real interest in them either way, and so would not sacrifice much of my happiness for theirs. That pretty much sums up my philosophy in the area of "giving to others", or whatever you wish to call it.

If you want a concrete example: I'm willing to volunteer at a con, but not at a food bank, because I don't care about the people I'd be helping there.

I don't claim to be better than those who choose to donate their time or money to more abstract causes, but I don't see their actions as morally superior to my own, either. (Jesus might, but God hates furries anyway, so it balances out.)

I'll admit I don't have much patience for those who see altruism as the ultimate good and who try to impose their sense of morals on others. Over a decade ago, our school had a mufti day. I deliberately came in wearing school uniform, because I didn't appreciate being bribed into giving to charity. I was really rather annoyed that the school was sponsoring such a thing. Today, I'd probably be less annoyed, but I still wouldn't pay. This is one issue I have with most organized religions.

[MetropolitanDonut]

Actually, their actions would be morally superior to your own, as they are helping people who are usually in need and unable to help themselves.
While you are simply offering to do work at a function that you would be attending anyway.  This also goes entirely without mentioning that most conventions allow their volunteers to attend for free when not working, and if not, usually for a reduced fee.

Though, as an assessment of your idea behind performing actions for the benefit of a group actually turns out to be quite offensive.  You're simply drawing arbitrary boundaries between people who you see as fit, and unfit to receive your aid.
And I'll go ahead and risk invoking Godwin to mention that there is very little difference between that behavior and people who draw arbitrary lines between any other group of people, be it by race, blood relation, sexual interest, religion, or something equally as irrelevant as to deciding 'who gets help'.

In short, your philosophy is disgustingly egocentric.

[GreenReaper]

Actually, their actions would be morally superior to your own, as they are helping people who are usually in need and unable to help themselves.

This comes down to your sense of morals. If you see helping those in need as the highest good, then that's fine, but it's not a view that I share. But I ask you - how is it any less arbitrary to say "I'm going to give my wealth to those who have the least of it"? You're just using a different criteria, based on your view of how the world should be - a place where those who have skill or good fortune support those without either.

[Pi]

Actually, their actions would be morally superior to your own, as they are helping people who are usually in need and unable to help themselves.

This comes down to your sense of morals. If you see helping those in need as the highest good, then that's fine, but it's not a view that I share. But I ask you - how is it any less arbitrary to say "I'm going to give my wealth to those who have the least of it"? You're just using a different criteria, based on your view of how the world should be - a place where those who have skill or good fortune support those without either.

this conversation reminds me of racing golf carts around in first gear until their engines explode.

That said, you're getting dangerously solipsist in your argument. It's like plugging your ears and going NYAH CANT HEAR YOU.

[Freehaven]

It's like plugging your ears and going NYAH CANT HEAR YOU.

Wait...isn't that the direction most arguments in the furry community end up going?

[MetropolitanDonut]

Moral Relativism is a pathetically weak theory.
And considering that you're petitioning to Moral Subjectivisim (Assuming that you're not self-absorbed enough to consider yourself a society or culture.) is even worse when you realize how little it applies to common sense.

And the criteria for what constitutes requirement of aid should be obviously not arbitrary.  The man who is starving obviously has a greater need for food than the man who is well fed.  The man who is crippled has a greater need for help ascending a staircase while the man who is able-bodied.

However, your distinctions on this matter are starting to show a rather extreme prejudice toward furries.

[ProvincialTwit]

The volunteering at a con thing is like saying "I bought this porn in the charity auction because I want to help the kitty shelter!" or whatever.

The inherent problem with trying to have any sort of honest and altruistic intentions toward furries specifically is that, quite frankly, most furries don't NEED charity.  We've been over this sort of thing time and again, but the vast majority of furries are in/from white middle to upper-middle class families, and either have their food and shelter provided for them or have little to no difficulty obtaining such.  You could probably help some furries incidentally by volunteering at a food bank, or for a gay rights organization, but you seem to be indicating that you wouldn't think of such a thing because you may accidentally help someone who isn't a furry.  Oh noes, etc.

I really don't think you can win this one, GR.  Explicitly saying you would never give a second of your life to help anyone who isn't a furry (by your own definition, 'people [you] don't care about') is pretty offensive, moral relativism or no.  And nothing that you could possibly do to 'help furries' would ever be honestly altruistic or charitable; I'm really challenging you to prove me wrong on this.  I'll gladly back down if you can name me one charitable action you could perform to 'help furries' that would not benefit yourself in an equal or greater manner.  Running wikifur is not a charitable action.  Nor is volunteering at a con, buying art in the charity auction, donating to a furry website, or seeding a torrent for Creatures 3.