An independent and alternative review of the new FFA convention

As one of the people who had to edit this piece, I will denote that I will be not commenting on these for at least a week to give the readers to read it and say their thoughts without my interference.

That and I'm a bit tired so, have fun guys.

this article is a garbage fire of right-wing disinformation and should be pulled. it lacks any journalistic integrity.

the second top search on google for "anthro west open organization" is the bizpedia page which lists peacewolf as one of three incorporators for the nonprofit entity. this was also already covered by another news outlet here. capps also shows that peacewolf did a video with the neonazi furry raiders in june of 2021.

"i have failed to find something, therefore it isn't true" fails to meet the most basic of journalistic standards. it even fails to meet a 5th-grade 1-page essay standard. the fact that this article made it to publication shows a grave error on the part of anyone who had a hand editing this piece.

[This comment was originally hidden due to the word 'essay' triggering the spam filter, and so is duplicated with replies below. --GR]

@The Anonymous Inari wrote: "she has sad some hurtful things"

Did you mean "said some hurtful things"?

This article is right-wing disinformation and should be pulled. It lacks any journalistic integrity.

The second top search on Google for "Anthro West Open Organization" lists Peacewolf as one of three incorporators for the nonprofit entity. This was also already covered by another news outlet here. Capps also shows that Peacewolf did a video with the neonazi furry raiders in June of 2021.

"I have failed to find something, therefore it isn't true" fails to meet the most basic of journalistic standards. The fact that this article made it to publication shows a grave error on the part of anyone who had a hand editing this piece.

Head on over to here for some receipts of why the con lost their hotel.

https://twitter.com/NazifurReceipts/status/1437375144322732038?s=20

Oklahoma already has an FFA convention; I don't know why you think we need another.

One of two articles from first-time contributors about American politics... fun times. This whole article reads more like a journal entry than an article and blurs factual reporting with an opinion piece where the boundaries are not clear.

For an article that's supposedly fact checking a controversial event, there seems to be surprisingly little effort made; e.g. you leave the first rumour completely unaddressed while apparently not sending a message to either the convention or Peacewolf to ask directly. The other, major, problem with this whole article is the near-complete absence of supporting information. At times, the article is arguing something that everyone is just assumed to know. In the first rumour we are told that Peacewolf has said some hurtful things but never told what they are. The following sentences about those statements are meaningless because we don't know what the exact accusations and statements are. And we can't follow up anything because there are no links to anything. There are multiple statements and accusations in the first two rumours but not a single link to anything.

If anything, the vote ratio on the troublemakers posts in this thread gives me hope that maybe this con will give the community the pushback against the bad elements we need. A lot of silent people are tired of the "I DONT LIKE THAT PERSON.. THEYRE A NAZI, AND IF YOU DONT IMMEDIATELY UNWATCH THEM WE CANT BE FRIENDS" ideology- nay, *religion*, which has spread throughout the fandom in the past decade.

We let them bully us to the point that saying "I don't want to talk about politics" gets you thrown into the same boat as (what the claim are) nazis. It's utterly ridiculous.

I'd rather a thousand peacewolfs than a single one of these people.

I, frankly, can't wait to get back to being a drunk dog in a fursuit hanging out with other social rejects and talking about our made-up fictional personas, and we can leave this dark and politically-tainted segment of our history in the past.

This is a good post! Freaking no one hating on this con did a lick of research on this con, and just parroted the dmn hate click posts about it, cause they can't step outside their little weird bubble. FFA will get off the ground, and will be a good fun time with friends, and I can only assume THAT is why they're so pissed off: That people will have fun without their okay. Frankly, the haters sound more like the real fascists.

Attempt to brigade from group of Len "revenge based guerilla tactics" white supremacist guy

https://twitter.com/NazifurReceipts/status/1438051549393997825?s=19

So a few things that stand out to me here.

From what I can see, [Peacewolf] has sad some hurtful things about various topics like Transgender people only having that label for the benefit, but her view is not an "abnormal" or "out of this world" opinion that's "inhuman". In fact, that viewpoint can logically be described as valid humanity.

The viewpoint of "transgender people only claim to be transgender because it brings them benefits" can logically be described as "transphobic". The phrase "valid humanity" is difficult to parse here: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not saying that it's "valid humanity" to deny that being trans is a legitimate identity, but it's very hard to read what you wrote any other way.

On the flip side, it can also be viewed as an attack on those that actually have had to hide in the closet like myself…

As someone who's felt like they had to "hide in the closet" for their own safety, would you feel perfectly comfortable at a convention run by, whose policies are set by, someone who believes that you're only claiming to be gay "for the benefit"? Is it the "benefit" of being gay that led you to stay in the closet? Now apply that to being trans in a period when laws are literally being written around the country to punish you for being out of the closet, and ask yourself whether you would really just look at this as something we can "agree to disagree" on.

It's very weird to couple this next bit from the article:

Having failed to find anything to verify independently or through the AWOO website who the leaders are…

With this later comment about "We Got This Covered":

...and quite a few editors I asked that work at various actual news agencies like CBS and the AP…

You're saying you took the time to ask editors who worked at various news agencies about their opinions on "We Got This Covered," but weren't able to verify anything about who runs AWOO? Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that means finding out who runs AWOO and FFA is comparatively difficult -- but if that's true, you should think long and hard about what that means. How many other conventions make it so difficult to figure out who's behind them? Is there a reason this one has been so secretive?

I was able to verify via a public statement made on both Telegram and Twitter last night that these people [sending violent threats] are not part of the organization…

Were you able to verify this, or are you just taking the public statement at its word? I'm going to have to assume the latter, since you've made it clear you haven't been able to verify anything about this convention.

AWOO remains firm that FFA will stand apolitical and not support any political candidates or topics. The trend from various cons over the past five to ten years has to been to trend towards being supportive of certain political topics or candidates.

What furry convention has ever officially supported a political candidate? For that matter, what "political topics" are we talking about here? The only thing I can think of are the anodyne statements in support of Black Lives Matter many conventions have released.

I have never found a group that's super upset about "how political furry fandom is getting" that's upset about "politics" in a nebulous, general way. This is never a conversation about how furries should just stop chattering on about tax policy or zoning restrictions. It's about specific "left-wing" topics -- social justice, diversity, trans rights, minority rights -- having risen to the forefront of sociopolitical awareness both in and out of furry.

To put that another way: if cons were coming out with statements in support of "Blue Lives Matter," liberal furries would be hopping mad, right? But they'd be calling it out explicitly with "we hate what that says about your politics," not "uwu stop putting your politics in our fandom." Every time this comes up, this is a repeated and consistent distinction: the people calling for less politics are, with very few exceptions, conservatives who feel that "social justice issues" are liberal attacks on them.

A GOH should - in my opinion - never be chosen based on their popularity and the number of people they will bring in, but rather be chosen for their deeds and personality and how they affect the people around them.

Many criticisms of FFA are almost certainly sparked by the perception that 2 the Ranting Gryphon was chosen for his deeds and personality and how he affects the people around him. He's been largely sidelined by other cons due to statements many furs have considered transphobic, racist, and consistently punching down. Even if you don't see choosing him as the inaugural GOH as a statement of agreement with his apparent politics/attitudes, it's hard not to see it as a statement of "we are choosing him to reject what we see as furry 'cancel culture.'" Either way, that is a political statement. Let's not pretend otherwise.

AWOO has a form to submit that looks similar to a background check form you may fill out for an employer. While I have never seen this, it does make me think about how much easier it'd be to hold people accountable for their actions if you have their real life names and addresses.

First, if this was a con that you perceived as one of the ones "supportive of certain political topics," would you think this was a good thing? I'm going to bet the answer is no. Why is it better now?

Second, remember how you can't "verify independently or through the AWOO website who the leaders are?" You can't even find their fan names. Doesn't this seem like they want to "hold people accountable for their actions," but don't want anyone to be able to hold them accountable for their actions?

The week is up, and Chipotle's comment is about the closest to what I was going to point out, it's the first to note the line about ignorance about trans* folk. Which, in my opinion was probably the most revealing and harmful inaccuracy of the article.

From what I can see, [Peacewolf] has sad some hurtful things about various topics like Transgender people only having that label for the benefit, but her view is not an "abnormal" or "out of this world" opinion that's "inhuman". In fact, that viewpoint can logically be described as valid humanity. By that I mean that humans will always align themselves with something they think they can get the most benefit from.

There are two segments of power in human civilization: finance and social influence. For the most part, those that are transgender or transsexual certainly do not have the 'path of least resistance'. Those who pursue and just so happen to be privileged enough to be in decent fiscal standing usually have to expend income to take hormones and have surgeries to battle their gender dysmorphia. And as far as social influence, it can be tough to pursue other social matters when you're constantly having to fight a political battle just to have people accept your existence.

If a certain comedian thinks losing a stage is hard, try losing your connections to your family, only to go to a convention and have a guy on the stage say they identify as an attack helicopter. It would make them wonder why furry folk can only get comedians that are pulling their humor from internet memes.

Furry indeed is a place where we leave those things at the door. If a trans* furry wanted to hear those kind of jokes, they'd hang around their drunk uncle at Thanksgiving dinner instead of go to a furry convention.

But going back to the "there is nothing more human than going for the path of least resistance"? I mean, I hope you say "God Save the Queen" instead of "God Bless the USA" in *checks notes* Texas. Because America's foundation was resistance. I guess our forefathers were 'inhuman'? I understand this kind of word play is why right wingers hate politics, but it's the kind of thing you need to be aware of. In your statement against Trans* folk you basically attacked the core of American Values... and that more than anything highlights why the Republican Party has been losing folks these days. What will you sacrifice and how much power do you want to give to the government just in the hopes they will make 'those people' go away?

The second point I would bring up is around the GOH statement:

A GOH should - in my opinion - never be chosen based on their popularity and the number of people they will bring in, but rather be chosen for their deeds and personality and how they affect the people around them.

The thing is you can tell a lot about the character of a con by who they picked for GOH, as previously noted. But in combination with other parts of the article I would also like to note you can tell the character of a con by who they decided NOT to go with.

As noted before, the reason PeaceWolf left the convention leadership was her reaction to the negative reception of having Tsebresos as a guest of honor. So then, if the GOH is supposed to be for merits, why not bring Tsebresos as the first guest of honor? Is it because she's willing to compromise in the face of criticism and is deemed too weak by PeaceWolf? Is it because 2 was willing to bankroll some of the convention just to get a taste of the stage again? Or perhaps it is simply: 2 Gryphon is more known in the fandom than Tsebresos is, and they brought him in to put butts in the seats.

I think it kind of shows a tragic aspect of that side of the political aisle. When it comes to doing small gestures such as flooding into a system to upvote/downvote an article on a site they usually don't visit, they're all for it. But when it comes to being there and actually providing something of meaning for actual loyalty to their ideals, such as giving a position of honor, don't expect them to stick their neck out for you.

Just ask all those folks who are sitting in prison for where they happened to be on the 6th of January this year led in by the false promise of Presidential protection.

Assuming they can actually find a venue that will allow them in. Let them hold their convention. If it's actually a spite con or an alt-right con, it's doomed anyway. I don't know how they came up with 2 as a GOH. He's certainly well known if no longer well liked by many. Typically, to get a guest of honor that really would boost attendance numbers, it's somebody a convention would have to pay an appearance fee too. Not likely for a first year con.

How does one "review" a convention that hasn't happened yet? And did anyone ever get this guy to translate this sentence:

In fact, that viewpoint can logically be described as valid humanity.