STEAM GROUP
It aint Furry, it's Anthro, screw your Fandom »LOGIC«
STEAM GROUP
It aint Furry, it's Anthro, screw your Fandom »LOGIC«
1
IN-GAME
31
ONLINE
Founded
23 August, 2010
ABOUT It aint Furry, it's Anthro, screw your Fandom

The Reasonable Intelligent Soldiers of the Goodchild Dynasty

Yeah that headline makes little sense. Unless you watched the movie its from, in which case it makes less sense.

Lets get the not so apparent ♥♥♥♥ out of the way though. Those who know me realize how little I truly care about other peoples opinions on this, despite that it still manages to vex me in a weird way. So this is not intended to be political and super ultra serious. Again, this is not business, this is casual tossing about of my own thoughts. Though in a remote sense I do still somewhat think that more people involved with this sorta stuff should at the most understand what I mean within this all.

Also to the raging furries out there, this is not antifur, but go ahead and act like it is anyways just to humor me.

I made this for one reason, just to talk about the one thing that everyone seems to get upset about. That fine line in the fandom drawing apart those whom are a part of it and those whom are not.

If you are easily agitated by other peoples opinions, especially when they vie the pathetic little world you built as a bubble around yourself, than please for the love of god(s) read this so we can get a good chuckle out of your blatant lack of social skills.

First, there is a great difference when it comes to anthropomorphic artwork and the definitions we manifested in media to distinctly categorize people in a majorly broad sense. This difference, however, has been blurred by peoples lack of understanding as to what belongs to who.

Primarily, anthropomorphism does not belong to any subculture, fandom, or independant group of people. it is simply a base form in itself that we stem different (more or less) cultural foundations from. Perhaps I've used cultural as too big of a sense. The obvious example of this is the furry fandom. Anthropomorphism and the fandom are in fact not one and the same. Anthro is like the base, the crust of a planet in which life sprouts from. Now furry would be like a tree. It needs the crust to survive as an anchor point and a source of everything that makes it physical. To lessen this metaphor down to a small mouthful, furry needs anthro to survive, anthro though does not need furry. A connection, but a distinction between the two.

Thus in this, anthro belongs to everyone, and should be able to be seen by everyone as it is independantly rather than being smothered by the inevitable stereotypes that a large cancerous collective of social rejects have built upon it.


So my friends, I call to you to understand this little fact, and consider what we have seen thus far from those around us. How such a seemingly trivial thing can come to tainting the image of . . well an individuals images! There needs to be a change soon, and someones gotta raise up these facts to make the people aware. It still doesn't matter to me if you agree with me or not, as long as you understand this point of view.

If you take this too seriously you probably shouldnt be on the internet in the first place.



A cool song that could be interpreted as an anthem if you tried hard enough to relate it to this group, you obscure little goon
POPULAR DISCUSSIONS
VIEW ALL (11)
RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH O' FAT BAHSTUDS!
Keryth wasn't dead anyways
468 Comments
Kiki Sohma 17 Aug, 2018 @ 6:07pm 
Therefore, to try and sum up. There is a black and white where anthro covers a broad range of things while furries are focused on anthro animals and the community that has grown around it with the use of fursuits being solely a furry thing (mascot suits are not furry suits). While the majority are normal people, a small minority have given furries a bad association.
But, there is also a grey area where some people may not fit into the “full furry box, but they also solely enjoy anthro animals and not all forms of anthro. There is no coined term to describe these kinds of people and these are people that could be anthro or they could be furries. But, in circumstances that someone is in this grey area it should be the opinion of that person that defines who they are. If someone in the grey area says they are not a furry, they should be respected as such and the same should be said for anyone who says they are a furry even if they don’t do all the stuff that full furries do.
Kiki Sohma 17 Aug, 2018 @ 6:06pm 
However, it isn’t as simple as that. As some people may create OC’s and not act like animals or their characters, but they may have one anthro animal character that represents themselves (myself included). Also, a misinterpretation of a furry is that they sexualise animals and a perverse people and causes many people to not want to be associated with them. But, this is not the case as many furries will see the characters as separate from animals or they don’t associate themselves with anything sexual. Furries have been given a bed rep from media and tv shows as the strange and odd behaviour of a minority of the furry community attracted the attention of non-furry/anthro people and has caused an incorrect association between furries and perverse behaviour.
Kiki Sohma 17 Aug, 2018 @ 6:06pm 
While the word “furry” used in the context of the furry fandom does not have an official definition and therefore can be debated.
Some people have tried to argue, a furry could be defined as someone who likes anthropomorphic animals. However, this definition causes many people who are not associated with furries or the furry community to be labelled as furries. Another way to define if someone is a furry is if they think and act like the characters they create. Having a fursona and fursuit gives people the freedom to pretend to be something they are not and that can feel nice to some people. But people who like anthro animals but do not act like their characters could therefore be labelled as not a furry.
Kiki Sohma 17 Aug, 2018 @ 6:06pm 
After reading quite a lot of the comments on the argument, I joined just so I could say some words on the matter.
The problem lies within the fact that definitions are extremely broad and can overlap and is therefore very subjective and is usually drawn from personal opinions.
However, officially, anthropomorphic is defined as giving a non-human being or an object human attributes. It can include giving anything from animals, household objects, machinery and plants human characteristics. However, it can be as simple as giving these things human emotions, limbs or a face but it can also be much more complex by giving an object all the characteristics of being a human with subtle qualities of the object they are, or it could be something in between. Therefore, anthro covers anything non-human that has been given even a single human quality.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 4 Sep, 2015 @ 9:06pm 
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Same.
Peach 23 Mar, 2015 @ 3:48pm 
.-.
1
IN-GAME
31
ONLINE
0 IN CHAT
Enter chat room
Founded
23 August, 2010