My criticism of this article is that it does not really offer any new insights ... it just merely discusses the words being used, and a view on anthropomorphic ("funny animal") art that is so US-Centric it borders on ignorance, and then the author tries to draw conclusions what the furry fandom should or should not do.
But what is the point? The argument itself is pretty thin already, but on top of that, the furry fandom is a genre on one level, and a cloud of people grouped by their common interest for that genre on another. IT is not an organisation, and neither it is some kind of intelligent entity. It's pointless to argue what it should/shouldn't do based on some abstract cultural goals that you just pulled out of your hat ;)
The only way you can really shape the fandom is by actively participating, and shaping the culture with the impact of your contribution.
My criticism of this article is that it does not really offer any new insights ... it just merely discusses the words being used, and a view on anthropomorphic ("funny animal") art that is so US-Centric it borders on ignorance, and then the author tries to draw conclusions what the furry fandom should or should not do.
But what is the point? The argument itself is pretty thin already, but on top of that, the furry fandom is a genre on one level, and a cloud of people grouped by their common interest for that genre on another. IT is not an organisation, and neither it is some kind of intelligent entity. It's pointless to argue what it should/shouldn't do based on some abstract cultural goals that you just pulled out of your hat ;)
The only way you can really shape the fandom is by actively participating, and shaping the culture with the impact of your contribution.