I don't even know what that is. (Please don't link it. :) Might as well say "people on the internet".
Appreciate the attempt, but I have no use for rhetorical "what ifs" and bad analogies, without journalistic inquiry into actual examples. (I know, this is a blog, it can still aim higher.)
What "furries who see and speak no wrong in the fandom" is this about? What did they do? Did it even matter? Why should we care, if people on the internet say disagreeable things sometimes? That isn't very "dire". How can this article give us more than rhetoric?
The article just breezes by the Alan Panda example, which might provide evidence for an issue, what evidence I don't know. On the other hand, it may be a stronger counter-example for how US crime sentences are disproportionately skewed by absurd moral panic. Any reasonable person should question why, after a hung jury, he got more years in jail for intentions than many people who actually do the crime. (Many female teachers who rape students barely get any jail at all). The bottom line is, he was punished so harshly that any protection anyone wanted to give was ineffectual, and not a very relevant problem.
The NJ BBQ incident brings up even more relevant questions about moral panic. I'd say it's the only actual example here worth an article. This is the best thesis:
Those who focus too much on the bad are harmful or blind in their own ways. A good example of this being the NJ BBQ event. Many furries who spend a good deal of time in drama circles were the first to jump on the wagon that these two were actually real people and not a figment of a politician's imagination. They, in essence, believed a "Big Lie" because they hear so much about the bad, they aren't too surprised and tend to believe even the false negative things they hear.
"the cub community"
I don't even know what that is. (Please don't link it. :) Might as well say "people on the internet".
Appreciate the attempt, but I have no use for rhetorical "what ifs" and bad analogies, without journalistic inquiry into actual examples. (I know, this is a blog, it can still aim higher.)
What "furries who see and speak no wrong in the fandom" is this about? What did they do? Did it even matter? Why should we care, if people on the internet say disagreeable things sometimes? That isn't very "dire". How can this article give us more than rhetoric?
The article just breezes by the Alan Panda example, which might provide evidence for an issue, what evidence I don't know. On the other hand, it may be a stronger counter-example for how US crime sentences are disproportionately skewed by absurd moral panic. Any reasonable person should question why, after a hung jury, he got more years in jail for intentions than many people who actually do the crime. (Many female teachers who rape students barely get any jail at all). The bottom line is, he was punished so harshly that any protection anyone wanted to give was ineffectual, and not a very relevant problem.
The NJ BBQ incident brings up even more relevant questions about moral panic. I'd say it's the only actual example here worth an article. This is the best thesis: