Proud of What? by RoareyRaccoon < Submission | Inkbunny, the Furry Art Community

The war of labels is what you get when you give way too much oxygen and power to people with no personality, half-baked ideas and a grave misunderstanding and illiteracy of society, culture, politics, and language, to name but a few. The fringe far left that defines the hemisphere these days have bastardized my ideologies and leanings, and THEY'RE the ones that have to go.

sillylilfoxcub

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I may be a faggot but at least I'm not an SJW.

GayMunk2

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ MaximilianUltimata

I agree. Its about not being ashamed. I think (no offense) but Roarey is too focused on the politics. I made a journal on what gay pride means to me if anyone wanna read it.

MaximilianUltimata

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ GayMunk2

He gets too wrapped up in the war of labels and the most extreme fringe or trite, and then ends up painting entire groups with the same colored brush.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ MaximilianUltimata

I paint people with the brushes that apply to them. Identifying a genuine problem, the existence of an ideology, is not to be waved away as ignorance. Too wrapped up my arse.

Juria316

6 years, 4 months ago

link

As the straight, cis, white devil, I thank you for not making me or anyone else feel like shit just to boost yourself up. That's real equality. As a great man once said, "Remember, I'm pulling for ya. We're all in this together."

JaneThomas

6 years, 4 months ago

link

What are you trying to prove? The only thing I get from your pseudo-intellectual, self-important ramblings is that either you're in denial about something about yourself or you're the edgiest 30-something year old teen on the internet.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

What's pseudo-intellectual about this? You capable of making an actual point or is this ad-hominem shite the extent of your repertoire?

JaneThomas

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Whenever I see one of those things in my inbox all it reminds me is of political commentators who are more into sniffing their own farts than actually trying to make a coherent point, like they're content just pissing and moaning and trying to appear sarcastic and so above it all when they're anything but.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I don't care, you anon coward. I stand for what I believe in and put my name to it, with confidence and sensibility. I'm a reasonable, decent man. Try standing for something yourself instead of labelling yourself as trash in your own username. All the points I make are coherent, you simply stating they aren't isn't an argument.

JaneThomas

6 years, 4 months ago

link

You have all the coherency and sensitivity of a drunken slap, and having you descend to silly name calling and even trying to use my own username to imply my opinion isn't worth anything just shows that I got to you because I was on to something and you can't admit it.

(protip: "trashrat" = possum)

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Utter tripe, the only thing you've done is make assertions which you can't back up. You have no balls. And I'm descending to name calling? That's all you've done to me, you cuck, haha. You have called yourself trash, that's what I said, I didn't say you were trash. You are, though, for the record. Worthless, anonymous cowardice.

JaneThomas

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Keep bitching all you want roarey, but trying to have the high ground on a topic when you established yourself as nothing more than an uncle bruce who's just pissed the world moved on while you stopped in your tracks the moment you decided to suck up to the wrong side isn't gonna make yourself look better to any of us, it just makes yourself look even more out of touch.

Pissing and moaning about lefties isn't ballsy, it's just being loud for the sake of being loud.

And the only people who falls for that are the kinda people who decided that thinking for themselves is just too hard.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

High ground? I don't claim to have any ground other than the articulation of my own beliefs. You have come here to do nothing but insult me and claim I'm various kinds of shitty things without an ounce of an argument anywhere in sight. And you're doing it all behind anonymity, because actually saying something as you are is too intimidating a prospect for you. You are greatly perturbed by me because your beliefs require that you are insulated from all opposing views. You wish for an environment that only affirms what you think, so you see any articulation of beliefs to the contrary as a stirring of the pot and an intentional act of shitlordery. You are not entitled to my silence or obedience and you shall never have it. Everything you display is weakness.

By the by, the vast majority of responses to my cartoons agree with me. Out of touch? Nope.

BrotherPawden

6 years, 4 months ago

link

"You are not entitled to my silence or obedience and you shall never have it." -- Roarey Racoon

I want this engraved on a plaque.

CaptainKenmason

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ BrotherPawden

I'd buy one of those ^H^

FoxBrethren

6 years, 4 months ago

link

"	And the only people who falls for that are the kinda people who decided that thinking for themselves is just too hard.

The implication here being that the only correct way to think is the way you think. That anyone else isn't thinking for themselves.

Personally, I'm generally non-political. I'm probably more left on the spectrum if the term "left" actually meant something to me, but really since I don't follow politics left and right are just directions to me. Though that's getting away from the point I'm wanting to make in response here. What you said in this quote is one of the things that truly irritates me about people. Like, would anyone truly respond well to being told that they obviously didn't come to their own conclusions, that someone else was in charge of their thoughts?

My approach to people is to assume they are intelligent until proven otherwise. We all have our own reasons for coming to the conclusions we end up at. Fact is, if we didn't come to different conclusions and opinions, our species would never have created the civilizations we have today. So many things have been progressed in part to show someone else wrong. Differences of opinion should be celebrated as they allow us to approach problems from different angles.

I guess my point here is... instead of saying "you're wrong" try proving them wrong otherwise you're just attacking without purpose.

But then, I guess I don't think for myself because that's too hard, right?

WaltzNerdOtty

6 years, 4 months ago

link

My thoughts exactly, the movement started as something good but with time it became more of an erotic show and an oportunity for big companies to look good by saying they support LGBT. To be honest, I don't care if some shameless individuals go parading half naked down street, but they're selling the image of LGBT as whole... which pains me a lot because I'm not the sexual deviant portrait on those parades.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Is the opposite of shame pride?

Or is there something in between that would be a better descriptor?

Is there a way to advance protections for a sub section of historically marginalized people that would be inoffensive?

Assuming we care about the emotional response of people that disagree if not out right hate what we do in private.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Protections? I don't want that. I want the same rights as the rest of my fellow citizens, which I have. We are individuals, not "marginalised" groups. There is such a thing as linear time, which means it doesn't matter what the history is of how a demographic has been treated, it matters what life is like now. I reject your entire notion that gay people need protecting any more than straight people do, we all should have the same protection under the law, that's it.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

You're forgive me if I want assurances that we won't slide back into the time we were not treated equally.

There are places here in the u.s. that it is legal to deny services and employment to homosexuals. You can't do that based off religion. It's not the same rights whenreligion is held to better treatment here.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Advocating individual rights constitutes that assurance. Not surrendering to leftist collectivist drivel.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm confused.

I'm asking individuals not be fired and denied employment over sexual prefence and acts outside of the work environment the same as religious followers are protected from discrimination for their practices outside of work.

How is that in any way collectivism?

Unless you feel the democratic process to produce such protective legislation is collectivism itself.

JaneThomas

6 years, 4 months ago

link

wanting to be protected from homophobes is a leftist concept to that clown apparently

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

No, the issue between us, the only real one we keep going round and round over is how to ensure those rights and protections for everyone.

He's more trusting of individual restraint and I'm more trusting in goverment involvement.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Licketh thy wounds, babes.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

You have asserted these things are happening when they are, in fact, against the law. You're also dodging completely the point that the pride movement isn't about this basic stuff anymore, it is collectivist, far-left and interested not in equal individual rights but political power. Same with feminism, when women already have all the rights that men do, their efforts continue to amplify. It is a grasp for power and dominance, nothing more. There is nothing ambiguous in what this cartoon is about. You act like your motivations are simple wishes for equal rights, which is already covered by individualist principles, yet you object to this cartoon. Why? Because it is critical of the far left, which you support. Stop it with the red herrings.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

There certainly a political movement that uses homosexual pride to garner votes.  As well as feminism.

My concerns are not always in complete agreement if all things Democrats and liberals propose.  But nothing Republicans and conservatives advocating is anything I can back, so with our two party system I'm stuck backing one party that give token efforts at least.

I'd be willing to back a third party but they have to denounce conservativism and the platform of the gop.

Also, yes there are states gays can be fired for being gay.  Also Trump signed an  executive order allowing it for federal employees to be fired of found out gay

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

There are countless republicans and conservatives who fully support equal rights for gay people. Just not special treatment.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

And what legislation have those Republicans and conservatives managed to pass to prove that belief that homosexuals, racial minorities, women, non Christians, and non corporations have the same rights?

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

You don't think there's anti-discrimination legislation that protects people from sexist and racist discrimination? Okay. You have a point with Trump rolling back anti-discrimination protection for homosexuals though, which I disagree with. I also disagree with diversity policies and quotas, where people from certain demographics are prioritised over others. And again, the far left collectivists are not a solution to the issue, they are part of the problem to begin with. As for what laws have been passed by conservatives etc, you're focusing on only the legislature and not conservative people in general. Who voted for Obama twice. I daresay neither the democratic agenda nor the republican one, in political reality, actually reflects the desires of the majority of their voters. It certainly doesn't in my country, the parties don't stand for what they're supposed to.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I recall some chap going on about results mattering more then intent.

More and more Republicans and Libertarians openly denounce the civil rights act, and yes the Dems switch over to racial advocacy in part to steal votes in the 1960s.

As I went on in a prior submission, when a majority of people choose not to involve themselves with the democratic process we do have, it shouldnt be surprising the parties don't back the wishes and needs of the general population let alone thier constituents.

Donors write the checks and fund the campaigns, thus they tell the candidates what to back and say. Only way to break that is for the masses to show up to vote and run for positions that are open and contested. As well as becoming educated on the issues on hand.

You should note which party makes it harder and harder for legitimate citizens to actually vote in America.

Perhaps then there would be better representation and even bipartisan coorperation.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Democrats are far worse than republicans at present. They're raving lunatics consumed by identity politics.THAT will make things harder for Americans, should it win the day. You think Republicans essentially define evil, so you are not attuned to any wickedness from your own side. As a centrist, I can see it from both.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Republicans only care about tax cuts for the wealthy and humanizing global corporations.

Oh and manufacturing false evidence and testimony to get us into a war with Venezuela and Iran.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Haha, what a load of shite.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Pictures show the holes on the damaged tankers well above the water line.  It could not have been a torpedo like the White House claimed first, or a mine claimed later after they got called out by Japan that had leased the ships to deliver the oil they bought.

Also what happened with the popular uprising in Venezuela?  Bolton lied to Trump how easy it would be for the opposition to remove Maduro with a little nudging of political protection for military leaders to preform a coup.

But then the people didn't rise up in the streets and the military didn't switch sides.  And Trump actually realized he had been sold a load of bs and lost faith and intrest with the plan of regime change.

Good on him.

DiogenesShandor

6 years, 4 months ago

link

That's going too far. I agree that the democrats are raving lunatics, but so are the republicans. I'm pretty sure Trump in particular is literally insane

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ DiogenesShandor

Then I don't think you know what "insane" means, if you're going to say Trump is literally insane. I like him, personally, as a direct result of the constant cacophony of noise about how evil he is, completely unreasonable and non-factual, for the past 4 years.

Teddy

6 years, 4 months ago

link

*thumbs up*

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Well, I see your concerns, but in an individualist society, like the one being advocated for here, the protections wouldn't be as needed, only individual protections, such as the criminal code, would be. Oppression and restrictions from a governmental level are ARTIFICIAL, and created in a society that doesn't show concern for liberal and individualist values. If we were to build a society focused around the individual and assuring equal protections for EVERYONE the only negative pressures would be social pressures, and one cannot forbid social pressures, it's unethical and restricts the personal rights and restrictions that are needed to create the society we're speaking about. We can only punish people for crimes they commit (such as assault and battery, illegal discrimination, etcetera).

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

If we lived in such an enlightened state with all people agreeing to such beliefs in individual freedoms we wouldn't need a constitution.

But the democratic process has and does produce discriminatory practices from majority and minorities enjoying privileges over others.

So I'm afraid we're not in a time where such protections are not needed as the current near violent divide between our people so accurately displays on a daily basis.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Unfortunately I disagree with your conceptual basis. I disagree with the concept that minorities are oppressed in the western world. Again, we cannot control for social pressures without becoming tyrannical, and there are no discrepancies in the legal rights of minorities and majorities in the western world. That being said, if you'd like to change my mind, I'd be open to examples.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

So when Trump signed an executive order allowing homosexuals to be fired for no other reason then being gay, you see no problem with that?

It's not oppressive as long as it's the majority of society agreeing with it? Individuals only matter if they are in the majority?

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Citation please. When was this legislation signed, what was it titled, did he remove it and then federal courts tried to block it? If so, what was the outcome. Did it end up getting overturned? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis was it legal. I ask because we have a process for handling these things and I didn't hear anything about it.

I think it is far more likely that he removed a piece of protective legislation and you're choosing to misrepresent it as him condoning discriminatory hiring practices, which are illegal regardless.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Executive order allowing federal contractors to deny employment based on religious beliefs.

Its not legislation, its internal executive branch directive.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Ah, this one. First off, I'd like to make clear that this sort of practice is not something I agree with. If a federal employee's obligations do not line up with their religious beliefs, they are free to find alternative employment. That said, I also take objection to your portrayal of this federal directive. It does not allow for hiring discrimination. It condones duty discrimination. It provides federal employees and contractors with the ability to refuse to provide services on the grounds of their religion (similar things are happening in several southern states where they are removing marriage licenses and replacing them with certificates that judges are required to sign in order to ensure that they must in fact allow gay marriage). However, while this is regrettable and highly counter to the supposed goals of a secular state and administration, this is paired alongside established legislation that guarantees these services to all citizens. This means that, should service be refused by a federal employee, the administration is still required to provide this service, and as such must find someone willing and capable of performing the duty.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Also, I want to thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me in good faith. Roarey has the right idea, but he tends to be rather confrontational as far as I can see. There's nothing wrong with standing up for yourself and your beliefs, but it's not the best way to win hearts and minds.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I don't mind Roarey putting up these posts, and I hope he doesn't think I'm trying to destroy him.

It's a stimulating mental exercise, an academic argument that I like to partake in even if results are muddled at best.

At least he's been willing to response most often, which is more then a lot out there these days.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Agreed.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah, it isn't the way to win hearts and minds, that's not what I'm even attempting. I'm trying to be a sledgehammer, so that I confront the far left openly and unapologetically. Why? So people who don't agree with the far left can see someone standing up to them, so they feel more comfortable sharing their views. The discussion that they then make can win hearts and minds.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I think that methodology is just as dismissive to left wing views as the left are to right wing views. Unfortunately I can't see us agreeing on this, so there's not much point in discussing it.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

What is dismissive about strident opposition? It is the opposite of dismissive, because in taking something on you can't afford to dismiss it. I think you are pretentious to expect others to embody a particular spirit when approaching debate when one considers your quiet, utter lack of personal risk and engagement with contemporary issues. Instead you sit on the side and pontificate about how those who stick their heads above the parapet to make a clear point ought to conduct themselves. That, in actual fact, is dismissive. You are a conductor without an orchestra and your words are hollow.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Alright, let's get serious then, shall we? You engage in conversation, but not in good faith. In engaging with people without legitimately considering their viewpoints, you prove yourself just as petty and unwilling to consider others as the left wing radicals do when they sit in their echo chambers and dawdle. Instead of being constructive and attempting to foster productive dialogue, you seek to say "it is okay to be you, to think like you" the irony in it is that this is the literal message that the left wing claims to portray when they have idiotic pride parades.

And I know you agree, or at least don't find what I'm saying absurd, because I made a comment to a similar effect and you did not reply to it. I am not instructing you on how to engage. I am saying that it isn't a tactic for changing minds. There is purpose to what you're doing, and I feel the frustration in it, I'm a right winger going to college in California, if I speak my mind I can be crushed by those around me under a barrage of insults and personal attacks.

So if you decide to resort to personal attacks upon my character, calling me pretentious for taking the time to have a conversation in good faith with someone who was CRITICIZING YOU, rather than engaging with the points I make, you show yourself to be just as caught up on the personal offences of your opponents of the left.

You can call me pretentious for attempting to provide an alternative method of engagement if you'd like, but not everyone will engage positively with your method of presentation, so providing alternatives cannot be anything but a good thing.

Confrontation has it's use. So does measured dialogue. I don't think it's very fair of you to call me pretentious for pointing that out. I think you wanted to attack me personally for having a disagreement with your methodology rather than your views, and I think that is fundamentally opposed to a proper dialogue.

You are no great hero for speaking your mind, you are not putting yourself at risk any more than I am. I am engaging in conversation here, me going about it in a different way in no way makes me lesser than you, nor you less than I.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I don't engage in good faith? I am unflinchingly honest. Where's this bad faith? What I said about you was accurate, you are an anon fence sitter, telling me what is best practice while you practice fuck all. Be the change you wish to see, embody what you spout. That's what I do when I make these cartoons. Basic bitch principles and ideas that are swamped by rhetoric and pedantic bollocks, so nothing said is plain, clear and to the point. My opponents to this cartoon don't even know what the word "collectivism" means and they want to take me to task on something they can't even be fucked to look up in a 2-second google search. But because I have a completely unapologetic attitude I'm arguing in bad faith? Google search it, you lazy prick. It means to be dishonest and I'm not dishonest about a FUCKING THING. You're so fucking deluded you interpret the act of me taking on ideas directly as being petty and refusing to consider them. I have considered them, that's how I come to the conclusion that those ideas are wrong, pillock.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Bad faith is not dishonesty in the context of a debate or discussion, it is being unwilling to be open to a full discussion. It can be stepping in with preconceived notions that you are unwilling to consider from alternate perspectives, it can be stating you are willing to have a discussion and proceeding not to honestly consider their viewpoints.

Semantics aside, do you honestly think that being an artist makes you somehow more capable of engaging in debate or discussion? Because if so, THAT is pretentious. If not, I'm rather confused as to what you mean? Is me majoring in Political Science not enough? Me getting involved in discussions like this not good enough? Do I have to make political cartoons to have a meaningful role in the dialogue? What constitutes practicing what I preach to you?

I also fail to see how I did any fence sitting at all in that conversation? Was it the part where I asked for citation and then debunked what they cited? Or the part where I disagreed with the other actor's core argument? Or do you just dislike that I thanked them for having a discussion with me? Is that too polite for you?

You also said that nothing I said was plain and to the point. I'll admit, as you can tell, I have a tendency to repeat myself, but, while that's a personal flaw of mine, I fail to see how it makes what I'm saying any less clear. Is it because the words I'm using are the proper terminology and not "FUCK you."

See, it's astonishing, because everything you have just accused me of being or doing demonstrates your inability to engage in the meaning of what I'm saying, which was precisely my point... How did that happen?

I am genuinely curious. Enlighten me sir.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I didn't say that nothing YOU say is to the point, I said it about the people I argue with in the cartoons. Basic principles are buried in rhetoric with constant proclamations of "it's way more complex than that" when it objectively isn't. Bad faith in the context of a discussion is when you are disingenuous and dishonest. Misrepresenting your own case, using tactics and language games, being slippery with the definitions of words. I am thoroughly sick of that and I don't practice it. I am also sick of tone-policing by people who pretend they are high-minded simply because they are polite. I told you that I do what I do to create an environment where others can have a discussion wherein they feel comfortable to air their views and you've been able to have such chats with others in the comments section of my cartoon. I'm good at what I do so when I see you say I'm acting in bad faith and that my approach is all wrong-headed, I know you're talking shit and it aggravates me. I take the risk, the hit to my reputation, the consequences for taking a solid, imperturbable stand so people like you can have a fucking conversation. That's why I'm pissed off with you. Sir.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

You are not a hero because you draw political cartoons. You do not provide us with a mythical platform from which to speak. You are not a grand crusader. I don't think I'm better than you. I don't think me being polite makes me better than you. As I addressed earlier, it is simply a different approach to the same problem, because the same approach doesn't work for everyone all the time.

I did not insult you. I did not come after you. Yet you have made the decision to come after me and insult me because you think drawing a cartoon makes you important. You are an artist. You draw. Some people draw. You're a good artist, that's why I watched you in the first place and that's why I ever saw these cartoons. Wolfblade has done the same thing. I left positive responses on his work when he did it too. I appreciate it, it is good to see that this community, as cancerous as it is, is capable of alternate lines of thinking. That doesn't mean you are a legendary figure.

You can act as if I have some how attacked you by being polite, but I did not insult you, I merely said you are confrontational, which is true, otherwise you would not have come after me for some perceived slight. I would not presume to give you instructions on how to conduct a dialogue, which you would know if you had read my standalone comment on this piece where that is what I end with after voicing the same concerns, I simply provided a different approach, and there's nothing wrong with that. So you are welcome to continue calling me pretentious if you'd like, but in none of your conversations did I see anyone you argued with say anything positive about you, like the individual I spoke with did. None of them said they were happy to participate. They mostly ended in you cursing at them and them cursing at you. So you can keep calling me a fence-sitter, or pretentious, or whatever else you want. But I set out to have a productive amicable discussion with someone, and I did.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I never claimed to be a hero, I described what I do. If it was ultimately bugger all it wouldn't result in so much discussion. I am a person who will do something you won't, I will risk what you won't. That is objective reality, not me claiming I'm heroic. You did insult me, though not with expletives, you are simply less coarse than I am about it. You didn't just say the equivalent of that I'm bullish and rude, because that wouldn't bother me at all, since I do it on purpose. You claimed I argue in bad faith, that is an insult to me because I don't do that. I don't disregard the other side of the argument either, which you also claimed. That is no different than calling me an insult like "cunt", it is just worded more politely. You frame acceptable discussion in terms of how you discuss things, because you are polite, well there is nothing wrong with how I do things, because you don't get to set the terms of what constitutes good, worthwhile discussion. It is nothing other than a simple claim that your behaviour and manner is superior to my own. Well my way has its uses too, it gets people talking about issues that usually aren't discussed in our fandom. Which is why you are here, in my comments section, talking to people and not a bunch of people in your comments section from something you've put up, like a journal or a story or a drawing. I don't need to be a bloody hero and I don't try to be one, I'm just a man trying to push against things that I see are making our community worse. That's it. I have spent years slowly building a profile, a platform, by posting my drawings and trying to be half-decent at it, with limited success. I'm using what I've built up by my own effort to make a point, which means I risk losing all of it if enough people hate me for what I say. The vast majority of artists will never get involved in contentious subjects because they risk losing what they've built, but ultimately the important discussions can only take place where there is public attention. If you made a journal about something you care about, how many would see it? You think I'm being arrogant or self-important but I'm stating the obvious, basic truth, that it is artists in our fandom who get the eyes of the crowd on them, so it is artists who are in the best position to encourage or discourage discussion.

I'm not a big artist, I'm a modest one, but I'm still making an effort. You don't have a prayer of minimising that, though, writing it off as my ego. Piss off XP.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Again, you demonstrate that you think being an artist makes you important for no reason other than that you have an audience. I don't have the time or skill to invest in something like this, and I'm comfortable admitting that, but you still fail to realize how you saying you're putting forth some great sacrifice is ridiculous? Again, I return to my question. What, in your mind, would constitute me putting in enough risk for my thoughts on your methodology to be valid? You have failed to respond properly to any of the points I've made, multiple times now. You provide incomplete answers, ignore my responses, restate the same points, and do not provide responses that answer my questions. Perhaps I should ask again.

What constitutes sufficient investment on my behalf for my thoughts and opinions to be valid?

How am I a fence-sitter?

What about the way I approached my discussion was in any way unclear?

How have you engaged with my main point that it is useful to have multiple ways of approaching a discussion?

On that note, I have some new ones that have popped up.

Please explain to me how I said that you were doing things the wrong way, despite the fact that I've repeatedly said that different approaches have different uses (something you seem to argue for above, despite it being one of my central arguments)

I am curious as to why you think I don't acknowledge the refreshing nature of seeing new political views in what is an insular community, despite saying above that I appreciate you doing so.

I would appreciate a response to the things I've asked of you, though I doubt I will receive anything of that nature. I don't have any hard feelings towards you, I will continue to enjoy the content you produce, you have skill that you have earned over endless practice that I do not possess... but something tells me you will hold this as a personal insult to you. I like your views, I like your art, and I've said as much. Me going about discourse in a different way from you is not grounds for disagreement. We're talking past one another, and it's pointless.

Look, I'll admit I've been perhaps a little inflammatory, but you certainly came after me first with the pretentious remark, and you certainly have been much more insulting to me personally about it. I'm a fairly aggressive person, I get pretty sick and tired of the bullshit that I see from the radical leftists too... but living where I do, going to school where I do, I have to approach things very carefully, or I could get things thrown at me, I could get hit, I could get called slurs, I could lose my job, if enough people complained I could even be booted from my university. And for some people, careful works better... even when I want to shout them down. And for some people they just need a smack in the face.

It's nearly 3am here, and I don't want to keep arguing with you about this, it goes nowhere but further insult. Can we call the match yet, or do we have to keep going at it?

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

You could lose your job, you could get verbal or physical abuse. So you don't speak out. What do you think my art is? My income, which I could lose. I get the slurs, the reputational damage. But that's not me making a sacrifice or taking a risk? It fucking is, it's the risk you won't take with your reputation and livelihood. I hadn't seen your other conversations in this comments section when I responded to you, so when I said you were a fence-sitter it was in the context of what I saw as you judging my methods. I am ready for people hurling shit at me, which means I am more prone to be combative and to interpret things people say as direct attacks against my character. I apologise for being heavy-handed with you, but the position I'm in requires me to be defensive. At least, it's the only way I can cope with doing this. I'm not a martyr, a hero or making a huge sacrifice, but I AM making a sacrifice and taking a risk. A few years ago I had hundreds of people at my throat across multiple platforms, lost a shitload of customers, had my reputation disparaged utterly, because I drew a cartoon insisting there are only two genders. I have a personal stake in this crap, that's not me blowing everything out of proportion it's a fact. A fact of life so obvious that you know that if you want to keep your job and not get shat on by those around you, you need to keep your mouth shut.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I can respect your feelings on the matter, and I thank you for taking the time to elaborate further. Regardless of disagreements or differing methodology, I'm genuinely thankful you took the time to converse with me.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Then there's the icing on the cake, the fact that you say I'm dismissive, I don't consider the "other side" but you don't have an argument as to why the things I say in my toons are wrong. Because they aren't fucking wrong. I'm right on the money with them. All you're doing is sticking your nose up at the way I communicate, ignoring the most important thing, which is that what I communicate is bloody true. So you'll pile on bollocks about what I'm not attentive to, which implies that you are the things I am not. Well where the fuck are your nuggets of wisdom, your kick-ass arguments? Oh yeah, you don't have to make any, you just need to blab on about how other people choose to communicate their beliefs. Piss all the way off, you're useful to precisely nobody.

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I don't recall saying that you're wrong. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I defended you in my discussion with the other account, and even left a standalone positive comment that literally begins "I dig your message man"

DiogenesShandor

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Yes! Finally someone who understands! History is in the past! The dead are dead!

Silverlonewolf

6 years, 4 months ago

link

AMEN TO THIS!

Gaoru

6 years, 4 months ago

link

PREACH

BrotherPawden

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Every pixel of this drawing is absolute perfection. Finally someone else you GETS IT!!!

AlexTheAlpha

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I dig your message man. That said, I can feel the exasperation in it. I know you're going to say something along the lines of "I don't care about their feelings" and sometimes that's a good thing, like when someone is denying the truth, but if someone approaches in good faith I think it's important to treat them as such. Presenting a principled opposition is important, and a lot of times people are being exposed to the PRINCIPLES behind their political counterparts for the first time when they receive explanations. I wouldn't presume to give you instructions on how to give your views or start a dialogue, just something to keep in mind from someone like-minded.

Kapricus

6 years, 4 months ago

link

It's all fun and games until the prideful individuals threaten other less-prideful individuals with actual bricks. What a joke of a month.

OsTin

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Kapricus

Don't assume any pro-lgbtq+ as pacifist. We're not.

YIFFGOD

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I think you guys are reading waaaaay too deep into this. Pride Month, Black History Month, Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

These are times people like to feel appreciated and comforted, because of the hardships they’ve endured.
And there is nothing wrong with that, but it can become toxic when that excessive attention goes to people’s egos.

Moral of the story Everyone likes to feel good about themselves, but don’t let it go to your head.

And yes I sorta agree with Mr. Roarey, LGBT pride has become mainly a tool for Marketing.

You can go to Xbox YouTube channel right now and see them promoting LGBT pride.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ YIFFGOD

The fact that there are enthusiastic responses in affirmation to the toon is direct proof that those people, and myself, see and feel something that is happening. It isn't a case of reading too deeply into it, it is recognising a part of reality, a part that is vivid enough to affect people. Collectivism is dangerous and toxic, it pollutes everything, so it's important to have a principled opposition to it. I don't appreciate anyone who speaks on my behalf and tries to define some sort of "gay experience" when we are all individual people with our own minds, our own lives, experiences and beliefs. I don't want to celebrate being gay, because I'm not defined by it, I want it to be a completely unimportant thing in society that nobody gives a shit about, just like being straight is, so I have a problem with people who display homosexuality as being some sort of flamboyant identity. I'm not against any discussion of homosexuality, or even pride parades in principle, people can celebrate what they like. What I resent is the far left staking their claim to the identities of gay people like they stake their claim to everything else. It disgusts and appalls me and I won't abide it in silence.

YIFFGOD

6 years, 4 months ago

link

-_- ...... Okay Mr. Edgy Raccoon.

Our beliefs are opposite of each other, but that’s okay I still like ya. Different isn’t bad, it gives you personality. (•^~^•)

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ YIFFGOD

There's nothing edgy about me, I'm a sensible, reasonable adult. I say what I say because it matters to me, not as some juvenile display of nonconformity. The state of affairs right now, politically, are batshit insane, so unhinged that basic shit like individualism is seen as some attempt to shock people. That is intolerable to me.

Zenobius

6 years, 4 months ago

link

As a gay furry (irl asexual) person myself, I totally agree with this. I hate the beast that the LGBT has turned into, starting out as an organisation fighting for equal rights for people (which I was happy to agree with for obvious reasons) which was then turned into a tool to abuse so that they can then become exactly as spiteful, bigoted and judgemental as the people they hate and disagree with... it's irony at its finest.

It just annoys me that so-called liberals conveniently are trying to forget that freedom (the very thing the word liberalism stands for) should never come at the expense of others; but then again, here we are.

So no, I'm not planning on walking around all limp-wristed and lispy because it's 'expected' of me, in fact: It's thanks to Gay Pride and Queer media coverage that I'm afraid to tell people of my identity in real-life as I don't like being associated with any of that or become a shield for their opinions and politics... dare I even say: #NotTheirShield? ;P

Zenobius

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ Zenobius

Derp! I meant: 'sexuality' instead of 'identity'. Must not be posting late at night. Does prove how easily it slips into one's conciousness though.

PantyRanger

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

"No man is a island." = A friend said that.

Here's my point on this:

"Pitting individualism against collectivism over simplifies both concepts.
The glorification of individualism misses the part where despite how much you might preach the ideals of it you will still, even inadvertently, bow to collectivism."

Shared this friend, and they pointed this out.

"And my answer is, they have an extremely strong in-group preference, and society allows them to without stigma. So, some collectivism advantages you."

I believe he leans right, so I wanted to add this part.
He thinks your argue like a leftist. Not sure how you will feel about that.

Anywho, that's my 2 cents and a sentiment a friend has express, I kind of agree with. The lefty part, I'm unsure, but that was HIS opinion, so eh.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Collectivism isn't simply people being together under common values. Individualism must be "pitted against" collectivism because they are complete opposites, like night and day are opposites. Collectivism is a way of looking at humanity, it only views people in terms of demographics, with the pretence that grouping people by whatever characteristics you value is the way we should approach social and legal policy. Instead of having people be equal before the law and appreciating the fact that each person is their own person.
So me being me, Allan Fildes, isn't important. my deeds aren't important, my own feelings and beliefs aren't; what matters to collectivists is my race, my sex, my sexuality, age, shit like that.

Individualism is a view of humanity wherein we are defined by who we are as individual people, judged by what we do, not what we are. How can it not be pitted against collectivism? I haven't oversimplified anything, I've simply been succinct and clear, which we could all do with more of, frankly.

Calbeck

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Collectivism eradicates the person in favor of the group. That can be both advantageous ("collective bargaining", i.e., unions) and detrimental ("collective guilt/pride", i.e. white power, black power, anti-Semitism, Naziism, Communism, etc).

Moderation in all things... but then, no one but the extremists are complaining about us moderate types.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Calbeck

I think it's important to make the distinction between cooperating based on shared values, while remaining individuals before the law and in policy and seeing people in terms of their immutable characteristics. Social contracts, agreements, cooperation, these are completely inseparable from life, so it doesn't make sense to think of them as belonging to a political philosophy.

Calbeck

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Agreed.

PantyRanger

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

So question:

If collectivism offers obvious advantages to the people who think like that, why is that bad? And if someone else has this enormous advantage and refuses to give it up, giving it up yourself is just surrendering.

Just to add. A lot of people who view things in a collectivist mindset have quite a bit of power and control.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

What advantages? All the best countries in the world are individualist and the worst ones are collectivist. Surrendering your individuality so you can disappear into a collective you have no say in isn't an advantage.

PantyRanger

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

You're going to have to be a bit specific about which countries mind you.
America for example, you can argue would be best as a collectivist nation if you go by how the best outcome for say, immigration, would be people integrating into the culture instead of spitting in the face of it and pushing their own.

Also, wait, are you saying Japan is one of the worst countries in the world, cause damn, they are REALLY collectivist.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Japan is collectivist? How do you figure that? Its a capitalist democracy where people have individual rights. It isn't communist, theocratic, fascist, socialist etc. It is ethnically homogenous, that's about it, so they don't want their country flooded with migrants. A wise decision. You clearly don't understand the terms you're using.

PantyRanger

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

A homogenized culture where unity is an extremely important platitude and individuality is often looked down upon as strange or weird. They even got regulations on gay pride parades ... I'm serious.

They even police which creators are allowed on television, including the lgbt in order to protect family demographics.
Seriously look it up. LGBT actors have to be a specific kind of LGBT in order to be on air. They have to be a comical charicature on live broadcasts.

TBF, Japan is pretty weird about lgbt where they're like, half progressive on that front.

They censor their porn. They've had one political party in power for fifty years, as well which is pretty facist.
Might want to look up Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism

Japan is about as collectivist as they come.
Especially if you're a gaijin in their culture and how they treat you if you don't integrate into their customs well enough or respect them.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

No, North Korea is as collectivist as they come. And everything you listed there about Japan is a point against the country, not for it. I don't want that sort of shit in my country. It is nowhere near the best country there is.

DiogenesShandor

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Wait are you defending Japan or attacking them? Because in the previous post you sounded pro-Japan, but all the stuff you've just listed about Japan sounds really really REALLY terrible.

Like, I really don't get it. Your last post you was like "WTF, you're criticizing Japan???" and then in this one you're like "Japan is still fascist"

PantyRanger

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ DiogenesShandor

My opinions of Japan is mostly neutral.
It has good qualities and bad qualities.
It highly depends on how you feel about it.

Also, I don't really agree that everything I listed is objectively terrible.
For example, they still allow gay pride parades, but they have a list of regulations on them, specifically one banning skimpy clothing in public. Which is good?

One Party is something I disagree with, but the homogenized part. It's either that or the opposite which is open borders which is bad. They still at least allow people to move and live their, but they are still nessled in culture, would you deny them that simply because they aren't diverse enough?

Just adding, also. Facism doesn't automatically equal Nazi, but it IS facism.

Badgerkun

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Right on, babeh.

I'm actually kind of glad to see this sentiment gaining more steam.

Calbeck

6 years, 4 months ago

link

It's amazing how much hate you get for promoting individualism and equality.

DemarticusStone

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Roarey, you give me hope in humanity every time you post something like this.

nukie

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Pride is good extremism is not

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nukie

Pride is beautiful so long as it is in your accomplishments and you do not let it blind you into arrogance.

GreenPika

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Last year I want to the homosapien pride parade, , , but I got thrown out.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Misplace

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Do you remember back when pride march was about getting gays together and having them go down the street... to show how NORMAL they were? How they were just your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers? Do you remember when it WASN'T the insane rainbow S&M apocalypse? When it wasn't about dry humping things? Or fucking in public? Or molesting random people? Do you remember when there was something be PROUD of?

AsherTye

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ MarcusKoopa

Pepperidge Farm remembers...

(I Just Couldn't Resist!)

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ AsherTye

I would have been deeply disappointed if you hadn't!

matthegamer

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I wonder when we will get the show that will do for LGBT culture that the Boondocks did for African American culture. Do we have anything like that yet?

Prime

6 years, 4 months ago

link

<3 love this

DoubleDeal

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Lol this is dumb as hell

Badgerkun

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ DoubleDeal

No you.

SomeOtherGuy86

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I think Monty Python summed it up best:
Crowd: "Yes, we are individuals!"
Lone guy: "I'm not." (he got bonus for adlibbing that)

RolandPerteev

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm just waiting for them to put an N into LGBTetc. to try and claim dudes who bro hug for half a second too long and say "No homo..."

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ RolandPerteev

No, no. P is the next one. For Pedophilia... And I'm not kidding. Then they'll have B for Bestiality... or Z for Zoophilia, depending on which one sounds best.

Zenobius

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ MarcusKoopa

Actually the P stands for "Pansexual". I believe it'll be the M for "Minor Attracted Person". (joking asside, yes, the MAP thing is sadly true.)

EverestDragon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

If only all of your ideologies were this defensible.

also the shirt doesn't have the brown or black lines you racist fuck.

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ EverestDragon

Pffft, everyone knows people of color are just naturally gay.

GengarChronicles

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ EverestDragon

Can the black and brown rainbow flag just die? As a "poc" myself, it looks stupid and garish and makes the already inclusive rainbow look ugly

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ EverestDragon

BLM Canada added those lines, because they are Black Supremacists who wanted to make the movement about race. That's why they got a march cancelled because it didn't align with them. You are retarded.

EverestDragon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

oof so close

foxhound2000

6 years, 4 months ago

link

🤡🌎

unsent

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Without collective, group action, movements, etc. you'd still live somewhere where being openly gay would end up with you getting executed by the state.

In general, go fuck yourself.

RolandPerteev

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Don’t confuse the heady days of the LGB movement (yes it really only had 3 letters in it once upon a time) actually having a purpose for existing with today.

unsent

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ RolandPerteev

I live in what is considered the most LGBT friendly city in the world, and yet everyday people still get assaulted and abused for being queer.

Fuck off you dumb assholes. Especially you, for dropping the T. You owe everything to a trans woman.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Collectivism isn't cooperation, it is a political view of humanity in terms of their group rights, which are above individual rights. People having shared values is not collectivism. If you look at the marches for equal rights of the past, did the gay marches only contain gay people? Did the civil rights US marches only contain black people? No, they contained people of shared values. Now the LGBT movement is a political vehicle for far left power, nothing more. The people who want to raise awareness for the horrors gay people go through outside the west are a tiny minority on the sidelines.

Fuck YOU.

unsent

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I really don't give a shit what you think you pathetic disgrace.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Fine by me, I'm not interested in what you think either XP.

Skunks

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Why are you posting?

GengarChronicles

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I actually agree with quite a bit of these sentiments. Being black, I have similar concerns for the black community. My parents raised to appreciate and respect our history but also that we are not victims and perpetually oppressed. While things aren't perfect in the black community, we're way better off than before and if we can have a black president (love him or hate him), black can succeed.

Sorry to go off on a racial tangent, I concur with much of Roary's statements and like seeing the discussion in these comments.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ GengarChronicles

It is the same thing with race, you are correct. The way gay people are collectivised, spoken of as if they are a monolith with the same opinions is exactly what the far left do in the arena of race. If you're black, you must have x views and if you don't you're a race traitor, etc. It's just as disgusting to me as the takeover of the LGBT movement.

Legosi

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I just wish people could get along uwu

charyoshi

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I can appreciate that flamboyantly gay people can be annoying but as long as the bible belt keeps making laws based on religion, I see pride parades as necessary reminders that gays exist.

Mekrokan

6 years, 4 months ago

link

What? Common sense? In 2019? Preposterous!

Mole

6 years, 4 months ago

link

.... equal rights for all is collectivism. I think you missed an error in your thinking process.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Mole

No, that was the original intention behind the movement. Not what the movement now is. Check your own thinking processes.

Mole

6 years, 4 months ago

link

So you're saying you can stand collectivism.. considering you support equal rights?

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Mole

collectivism:

the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
"the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism"

Individual rights, as in we all have the same rights because we are individuals, not groups. That's the antithesis of collectivism you violence-advocating, lying gobshite.

noryn

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Thank god there are still people with their feet on the ground!

TerraMGP

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Without that collectivism, we'd be dead.

Literally. Without a unified front against oppression LGBT people would still face jail time and probably even death, being seen as wrong by ill informed would be biblical scholars.

You know this reminds me quite a bit of the anti-union debates I get into with some people. They will bemoan the dues, and the fact that you can't 'choose' this or that, and the fact that a union member may have to strike. They'll even talk about how those who don't make enough somehow are 'bad at negotiation' even though no business is going to negotiate in your favor and the whole reason to have negotiation is to see if they can underpay you just a little bit more rather than offering a fair wage.

But not one of those people would turn down benefits earned by the unions. Be it wages, or reasonable work week, reasonable work hours... none of it.

Pride works because it's a very simple statement. A statement that they can't get rid of us, bar violence. That we exist, that they have to know we exist, and that we are still going to fight for our rights regardless of what some hyper-evangelical pseudo-christian may try to say.

Because the kind of people who want us to go away tend to be all about bullying those they don't like out of the picture. If it's just one person, they can easily overwealm or attack that person. Lynch that person. Make that one person go away and then they are all ok. But with many people they can't do that. Suddenly their attacks may face reprisal. These people are cowards at heart, and as cowards a unified front means they have to face genuine risk if they wish to attack LGBT people.

That is how we claim our rights, and fight it when people try to take those rights away. I understand you have some sort of aversion to collectivism, but it's not inherently bad. So long as you retain your own views and are willing to stand up to elements seeking to draw the group or movement in a bad direction it's a useful and indeed vital tool of social change.

Being a feminist doesn't mean you suddenly can't speak out against TERFs or misandrists. On the contrary being a feminist makes it more vital to do so. Being a socialist does not mean you can't speak out against it when people try to push for harmful or ill devised policy. Again, it's more vital than ever that one do so.

You have nothing to fear of collectivism. The only thing you have to fear is giving in to groupthink, and each of us is responsible for that regardless of being officially 'collectivist' or not.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ TerraMGP

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Western liberty is owed to the opposite of collectivism. Individualism.

TerraMGP

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Not really.

Most worker rights are owed to unions, which are collectivist. Everything from the 40 hour work week, to safety regulations, all the stuff that has been slowly eroded here in the US since the unions got busted. So those rights are due to collectivism.

End of segregation and Apartheid? Pretty much every western nation outside of maybe france (which has collectivist movements revolting against oppressive autocracies as one of its cultural stereotypes) all ended due to heavy pushback from movements generally made up of the oppressed minorities and allies of said individuals. Suffrage, too. Public opinion is likewise the only thing that has gained any rights or recognition for LGBT people, and pride has been a core part of that for decades. Putting a human face on us for those who were otherwise ignorant and helping build allies so that simply ignoring or even harming us was no longer a viable option for the powers that be.

Frankly I'm hard pressed to think of ANY individual who did anything to solidify the rights of the people. The only way to do that would be some form of benevolent tyrant, and those are very few and far between.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ TerraMGP

The ethos of society overall must be individualist or people are treated based on their group identity, which directly causes civil unrest. That people cooperate with eachother to get something they all want like better pay in a business isn't the same thing as collectivism. If it is, one has then defined all human cooperation as collectivism, meaning every society is collectivist by nature. Then that destroys the distinction between collectivism and individualism, meaning both words are meaningless. I'm tired of you, so bye.

harbleglarble

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ TerraMGP

The 40 hour work week is thanks to Henry Ford who implemented it independent any union pressure.

LoneWolf23k

6 years, 4 months ago

link

To quote Ben Franklin: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Predators like to prey on those who stray from the pack.

Although I do like the irony that Republicans, Libertarians and others who speak out against Collectivism... ...usually gather in groups to do so.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ LoneWolf23k

Collectivism doesn't mean groups, it means group rights being prioritised over individual rights. Human cooperation isn't collectivism, if it was then all politics, all policy, would be collectivist, thus destroying the need for the distinction between collectivism and individualism. So it isn't an irony at all but a misunderstanding of what the terms mean.

MarcusKoopa

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Dude's a friend of mine. He's a nice guy, but he's Canadian. You'll never get him to recognize the evils of collectivism.

BizyMouse

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Never change

CorbinWells

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Maintain your dignity and self respect. Don't get pulled into the clown show. Good for you Roarey.

Lyserdigi

6 years, 4 months ago

link

well my dear.. i couldn't agree with you more if i tried..

Wolfblade

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I don't see how people have so much trouble understanding.

I mean, I see how and why, I just can't believe it works so well on them...

"Collectivism" does not mean anything where groups of individuals join together to improve everyone's situations.

"Individualism" does not mean 'every man for himself.'

People seen and recognized and protected as individuals equally and properly is what ENABLES those people, as individuals, to come together and do great things in large numbers that benefit everyone and move society forward.

People treated as primarily whatever group they're born into is what "collectivism" means. Collectivism is saying "you getting passed over for this position so we can fill a quota that doesn't recognize you as valuable or even just equally as human isn't discrimination - your ancestors did shit we think you deserve to be punished for, so you just don't get to complain that this decision was based on race/sex/sexuality/etc more than simple blind qualification and merit.

People don't understand that it's NOT POSSIBLE to discriminate "positively" toward one group without inherently discriminating illegally and unconstitutionally against another group. ANY person of ANY group being denied or passed over for something because of some superficial characteristic they were born as IS WRONG. But that is what happens any time someone is FAVORED for those reasons, too.

Preferential and beneficial regard over this stuff is inextricable from detrimental and discriminatory disregard. You can't DO one without the other, and that's why they're both wrong. Everything else is just excuses and more fuel to keep everyone segregated and apart and fighting one another. All over shit that wasn't perpetrated by the people being told to accept condemnation or inflicted on those who demand compensation for it.

When everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, there's no solving anything.

Collectivism is grouping people like that, and not looking at every individual person's own merits and failings and judging them only on what they, as an individual, have actually done.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Wolfblade

It is utterly infuriating when people think of themselves as smart as hell despite being so simple-minded they can't even look up what words mean in the fucking dictionary before they use them. It is perfectly clear what collectivism means and individualism. Yet every one of these "scholars" speaks under the impression that collectivism means cooperation between people in a social group. So desperate to defend collectivist bollocks like socialism but having to resort to changing the meaning of words to turn vice into virtue.

jumpingbunny

6 years, 4 months ago

link

this is so gay....

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

"Because I'm a gay man I am expected to possess far left view"

Duh. Is there anything questionable about that? That's like saying "Because I'm a black man, I am expected to be against slavery and segregation."

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Er, what? No, that would be more "Because I'm a gay man, I am expected to be against abuse of gay people." Far left politics is not synonymous with justice or goodness, or morality. Being against slavery and segregation is practically a human universal in the western world now, it isn't connected to a single political ideology or even a particular wing of politics. False equivalence.

The far left are collectivists, they believe in group rights, not individual rights, which means they view people as merely members of their demographic as far as policy is concerned. Meaning we are gay, not ourselves, and collectivists want the law to treat us as gays, not as human beings. This is a problem because being gay doesn't determine anything else about you, your personality, goals, dreams, experiences, talents, skills etc. This is basic shit. You ought to be more responsible than you are for your own education before you shoot your dumb mouth off.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

It’s not a false equivalence though. Capitalism perpetuates things like lgbt bigotry, because it’s useful to capitalism to have that “other,” to have marginalized minorities to form an underclass that’s acceptable for it to both exploit even more than it exploits everyone else by default, and to also scapegoat when capitalism inevitably causes a hundred and one problems for everyone. When minorities like gay people fall tough on their luck, capitalism can blame it on their differences and unwillingness to conform. When society is falling apart, capitalism can blame it on gay people like you and me, for “undermining societal values” and thus leading to the “decline of western society.” The reason you’re expected to possess far left views is because you as a gay man are particularly susceptible to exploitation from the system that far left views fight against.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

That's a spiel of meaningless rhetoric. Capitalism is only concerned with market forces, that's why it must be embedded within a society that has its own code of ethics and values. There is nothing inherent in hating gay people in capitalism, at all. Western nations are the best in the world, which isn't a direct consequence of them merely being capitalist but because it is individualist, as in we are treated under the law as individuals. The more society embraces that concept, the better human rights are for every person, regardless of their gender, sexuality or race. It isn't a matter of economics, but of values. The far left is collectivist, so only demographic groups matter, so different groups have different sets of different rights and considerations. Like holding one demographic to one standard and another to another. That leads directly to conflict because fairness is what relieves tension, unfairness increases it. Treating human beings based on what they were born as and can't change is inherently unfair and unjust, which means oppression. Simple.

The far left are wrong. End of story.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

That's the thing though, capitalism isn't just about market forces (although that is a big part of it). It's also about the division of society into two main classes--the working class and the owner class. A tiny minority of people get to own everything, while everyone else has to work for them in order to survive. The only reason people put up with that is because they don't realize how bad it is. Sure capitalism isn't inherently against gay people, but gay people do make for a convenient scapegoat. Just like when people were losing their jobs and just overall having problem after problem in their lives, some certain politicians said that it was the "immigrants taking our jobs" to blame, and people believed them, thus distracting them from the real source of their problems--capitalism. Capitalism is able to perpetuate itself by scapegoating and turning the working class against each other. It isn't because capitalism is inherently anti-gay or anti-immigrant or whatever, but because that's what it takes to keep the working class from turning against it and dismantling it once and for all.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

More nonsense that avoids the core issue. You have come here to tell me that because I am gay you expect that I ought to have one particular political opinion. You are gay therefore you must think x. That is exactly what homophobic people think, that gays are all thinking in one particular way, the only difference is what you think gays must think. You don't approach gay people as individuals who make up their own minds and are their own people with their own agency, you approach gay people as a group that is expected to conform to your standards. Your nonsense, completely unthinking standards. This isn't about capitalism, or any other economic theory, it is about whether you recognise that people are individuals and should be treated as such or whether you think we are represented according to our inherent characteristics like sexuality, gender and race.

All you're doing is avoiding the issue by ranting about capitalism, which is completely irrelevant to this subject. It is a red herring and you're a bigot.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

It is about capitalism though. I'm not saying that you HAVE to subscribe to left-wing views just because you're gay, I'm saying it's expected of you because left-wing views push for something that is particularly beneficial towards you because you're gay, and that, if you don't hold left-wing views, then it would be strange.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

No it isn't and I don't grant that it is and never will. Do you, or do you not, think we are each individual people without our own agency?

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Of course I think we are each individual people with our own agency. But I also acknowledge that certain people are particularly vulnerable under the current system due to certain traits. Being gay would be one of them. And so, if you're gay, it makes sense for you to be particularly against the current system--and as such, you'd be particularly likely to hold left-wing views (assuming you're aware of said vulnerability).

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

But nothing. If we are individual people we should be treated as individual people under the law. Which means the law should not give a shit what our sexuality, race or gender is, what our demographic is. If we treat eachother as individuals and don't care what our category is, then there will be fairness. Collectivism does the opposite, the far left is collectivist, and you have just repudiated collectivism. Ergo, you aren't on the far left either.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I mean, if you think being against capitalism isn't far left, then sure, by your definition I'm not far left. And yeah I agree that the law shouldn't treat people differently based on sexuality, race, gender, etc. but I also believe that other powerful institutions, such as employment, shouldn't be able to treat people differently either. So I understand why you'd want special protections in the law to fight against that, although I personally think that there may be other, better ways to protect people, such as, in the case of employment in particular, unions.

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Collectivism is the heart of the far left and the far right. Seeing problems with capitalism is just common sense, but being outright against it when every other kind of economic model is a disaster is a really stupid thing to do. None of this is hard, or complicated, it's extremely simple.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Every other kind of economic model is a disaster? Okay, so assuming you agree that one of the main defining characteristics of capitalism (if not THE main one) is private ownership of the means of production, then what about an economic model defined by social ownership of the means of production? Do you think there's something inherently wrong with that? With basing all production and distribution off of what the people need and want, as opposed to what the tiny arbitrary minority of people that are business owners and shareholders decide?

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

It's called socialism and it fails everywhere. Public ownership of production = who gets what is dictated by whomever administrates the country. The dictatorship of the proletariat. So no matter how you behave, how hard you work, what you decide, you will only get what a government decides you should have. Disaster, appalling, evil.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	Public ownership of production = who gets what is dictated by whomever administrates the country... So no matter how you behave, how hard you work, what you decide, you will only get what a government decides you should have.

Maybe that’s what it means to you, but to me it just means taking all that power and control that the business owners and shareholders have (like 1% of the population, or even less than that) and giving it over to everyone else, the working class. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Things like food, medicine, housing, etc. don’t you think those are things that society as a whole should have control over and make decisions about, rather than just some arbitrary minority getting to do whatever they want with it?

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Think of it like this: your life isn't perfect, you have many flaws, so you deserve to die. Alternatively, because your life isn't perfect and has many things wrong in it, you should change your life by way of living an even worse existence, doing things that are even more destructive than you already do. That's how you're approaching capitalism.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah I just think that we can do a whole lot better than capitalism.

Pokefound

6 years, 4 months ago

link

finally, some good fucking perspective

MarquisVulpes

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Preach the truth, brother. I live in a house with five other adult men. We're all furry. We're all gay. We're all over 30. And we all fucking hate pride month. It has lost its core meaning, and has become a wretched hive of tribalistic ideologues. It has also now become a medium for career politicians, multinational conglomerates, and big banks to advertise.

Kids, you're being played for fools.

Tinderfox

6 years, 4 months ago

link

@ MarquisVulpes

"	MarquisVulpes wrote:
	It has also now become a medium for career politicians, multinational conglomerates, and big banks to advertise.

That's what capitalism does, my friend. Pride was originally revolutionary--it originated from the Stonewall RIOTS--aggressive protests against the status quo. Now it has been recuperated, "mainstreamed," taken in by capitalism to be sold back to us as some commodity and thus stripped of its original revolutionary tones.

Kalibran

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Wrongthink spotted.

AurumG

6 years, 4 months ago

link

I have friends who are activists. I have friends who are gay. Things got awkward when a gay friend told the activists "Why do you think you own me?"

jumpingbunny

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

the only thing i see this thread as is "im a flaming fag but im not like the other flaming fags." youre a fag that likes talking about fag things. youre a fag. get over yourself. im not the one making a big deal out of it, you are. fag

Corgical

6 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Honestly i think a lot of the ideas presented by lgbt collectivism exist because people are scared that one day it will go back to when they could be oppressed and treated like dogs because of something that really doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. Even if that fear is more or less irrational. (I'm not really that seasoned on politics so take what i say with a grain of salt, but that's kinda just what I'm theorizing here)

jumpingbunny

6 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 3 months ago by Owner

im not a furry, im a pedophile. furry pride is a bunch of crap

RoareyRaccoon

6 years, 3 months ago

link

@ jumpingbunny

Are you on crack or what?

jumpingbunny

6 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 3 months ago by Owner

not on yours, obviously. youre so gay that your pic shows up in the dictionary under gay pride

jumpingbunny

6 years, 3 months ago

link

pride noun
\ ˈprīd
\
Definition of pride

(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : the quality or state of being proud: such as
a : inordinate self-esteem : conceit
b : a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship

youre proud of your own opinions. i wouldnt say thats far off from gay pride. you just dont share their same feelings because youre a crabby old fart that needs to take a chill pill. :3

Yiffox

6 years, 3 months ago

link

I got banned from fa forums for being conservative and then kicked from FA for dare questioning 2 yrs, where are all these trans people coming from?

Irusufox

6 years ago

link

I really like the way you laid this out and I completely respect that view. I feel the same way (except maybe saying "all white men" because I do know a lot of white men, and that stereotype seems a bit harsh for someone who cant control if they're white or Male or not). I am glad you stand for true freedom of choice and not forced freedom.

RSDC03

5 years, 8 months ago

link

Fuck yeah, preach it

pendingdeletion

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I always felt afraid of what LGBT is becoming. They're supposed to defend rights of their people, so EVERYONE has The same rights. But nooo
.. nooo... Cisgender scum This, White people that, made Up genders, tons of meaningless bullcrap just y
To make everyone wich disagree "biggots" or whatever ... Bullshit! Trans people and non binaries are people Who want to pass by, and Live as every human being deserves. But sjw fucktard logic made them look like spoiled far left brats.

pendingdeletion

5 years, 6 months ago

link

@ pendingdeletion

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans people and non binaries are people Who want (AnD deserve) to pass by, and Live as every human being deserves. They want equality, but real equality. A world where everyone respects everyone. I support people with different sexual preferencies, as Long as they don't use them to archive superiority by being assholes to other collectives of different ideals.

UnstableSable

4 years, 11 months ago

link

Congratulations! I'm glad to see more gay people be outspoken about the leftist collective.

johnc

4 years, 8 months ago

link

Lol Nice to know there are people that don't fall for the scam that relieves them of their personal agency. Please continue;)

FriendlyWerewolf

4 years, 6 months ago

link

lmfao why are there nazi furries on the cub porn website bruh

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

@ FriendlyWerewolf

Not that there are Nazi's more like idiots who have no idea what a Nazi is and use words like "bruh".

AnonymousFeline

4 years, 4 months ago

link

If I may rant for a moment...

I somehow ended up here after wandering from an old journal of another big user of this site vehemently lambasting you to be some sort of hateful, conniving-yet-incompetent pariah of the furry community. Imagine how surprised I was when basically none of what they said about you turned out to be true (spoiler: I wasn't surprised. At all). Your posts here were blunt, and I would argue that perhaps some were a little more brash than need be, but I failed to see anything that could reasonably be construed as "racist," "transphobic," or "hateful."

Which reminds me... It's crazy how when you actively try to suppress open dialogue, improper preconceptions and prejudices -- the very things many opponents of the ideals you defend here so passionately declare themselves to be against, ironically -- end up running rampant. Who'd've thunk it, ah?

It's the same elementary "rumor has it..." mentality people are generally expected to grow out of by high school. If you're going to attach definitive labels to someone while not even giving them a chance to justify, clarify, or reconcile their beliefs, then on what basis do you have to attach those labels to them in the first place? It's literally a passive non-admittance that they could be completely wrong about their impression of somebody, but aren't willing to give that person the time of day to validate or refute that very impression. That is, in the most literal sense, the gateway to censorship. Fascism.

"I think you're [x], [y], and [z], and because of that, I'm not going to waste my time with you."

"Well, actually I'm not [x], [y], or [z], and if you give me a chance to substantiate my argument, perhaps you'll see why."

"No. I won't give you that opportunity because I don't interact with people who are [x], [y], and [z]."

Because that line of thinking will surely lead to progress being made. And yet, would it surprise anyone to know that it's generally those who self-identify as "progressive" who I most often witness using exactly this line of thinking in Current Year? 'cause it shouldn't. >___>

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 4 months ago

link

@ AnonymousFeline

Indeed, it's the only option for those who are full of shite to lie about and smear their intellectual opponents. Not like they have an actual argument to put forward is it XP.

ModularDragon

3 years, 11 months ago

link

Yes, But I am proud. Not because it is a collective thing or a trend. I am because I feel this in my heart.

damionstjames

3 years ago

link

RoareyRaccoon

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, and I don't know if you even read this account any more, but I'm going to keep it (for me at least) brief.

Thank you at least for having the convictions to say what you really mean, even if people don't like what you're saying. Thank you for not doubling-down or doing backpedaling, and sticking to your guns.

I read through tons of messages, and I actually have experiences similar to what has been described above. Wanting/craving a sexual relationship with another man, doesn't mean you follow a script society writes for you. Being supportive of your fellow meat-sacks is important however, and I can only suggest we all remember we're all mostly beautiful bastards riding on the back of Nimrod (may he be praised). It is possibly to be socially progressive, and fiscally conservative, and the opposite also being true.

I can say part of you had to know that doing that picture would've gotten you some heat. Wouldn't have been what I would've done, but I also couldn't draw a stick figure if I even watched a youtube tutorial video first and had 12 hours to complete the sketch. Remember that once its out there, its out there. Some of the things said, are going to invoke a response like you've received, and in turn the ones you posted in rebut. Also keep in mind the two-pronged nature of Implicit Bias, and text-tone-deafness. People read text in the mindframe they tend to be in when they read it, so certain cues may be mixed.

Stay safe you beautiful bastard. Hail Lucifina.

Wireless

2 years, 4 months ago

link

Calm down Ernst Rohm

RoareyRaccoon

2 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Wireless

Takes true wit to invoke Godwin's Law, particularly when it isn't remotely applicable. Unscrupulous dunces are in endless supply, it seems XP.

Wireless

2 years, 4 months ago

link