You're being so frustratingly vague and obtuse, it's not possible to construe anything meaningful about this. I'm puzzled why you even wrote it. Please explain:
Since there are those in the fandom that really want out image as squeaky clean as we can get it, if another fur sees something illegal (not just immoral) going on, they could feel intimidated because they don't want the furs who want our image to be squeaky clean upset at them. That those people who want us to appear flawless will get angry at them for coming forward to do the right thing and turn in a fellow fur who they know (not just feel) is doing something illegal.
What does "those in this fandom" mean? Who are "those people who want us to appear flawless"? Can you please point one out?
What illegal thing are you talking about? When and where did it happen? In what way does it support your concern?
These are basic ingredients for writing about an issue. The single example that was even barely explained, the reaction to the NJ BBQ incident, contradicts your concern and gives a good reason why people should be more skeptical.
If they don't turn them in on fear of what other furs will feel about them it could make things actually worse. That is the concern here.
Has this ever happened? How does anyone in this fandom have power to intimidate?
I'm sure you've seen smaller case examples of this kind of peer pressure within the fandom, if you haven't yet then you will in time.
I haven't, and it's really up to you to back up your own concerns. I don't believe anyone in this fandom has power to do anything like that completely non-comparable institutional cover-up that was mentioned. People say disagreeable things on the internet... so what?
Legit criticism is valuable, but I really don't care for rhetoric that beats around the bush, and hints about some sort of rotten core or slippery slope that people should be warned about, using a bad analogy to something that happened somewhere else.
I generally find furry fans to be cool people who earn a healthy amount of trust, even when they're freaky, which makes me like them more. I'm puzzled why you write stuff like this:
Complaints are dealt with a roll of the eyes, sometimes even if they're legitimate.
If people hear something "dire" without a single legitimate complaint in it, why shouldn't they roll their eyes? *roll*
You're being so frustratingly vague and obtuse, it's not possible to construe anything meaningful about this. I'm puzzled why you even wrote it. Please explain:
What does "those in this fandom" mean? Who are "those people who want us to appear flawless"? Can you please point one out?
What illegal thing are you talking about? When and where did it happen? In what way does it support your concern?
These are basic ingredients for writing about an issue. The single example that was even barely explained, the reaction to the NJ BBQ incident, contradicts your concern and gives a good reason why people should be more skeptical.
Has this ever happened? How does anyone in this fandom have power to intimidate?
I haven't, and it's really up to you to back up your own concerns. I don't believe anyone in this fandom has power to do anything like that completely non-comparable institutional cover-up that was mentioned. People say disagreeable things on the internet... so what?
Legit criticism is valuable, but I really don't care for rhetoric that beats around the bush, and hints about some sort of rotten core or slippery slope that people should be warned about, using a bad analogy to something that happened somewhere else.
I generally find furry fans to be cool people who earn a healthy amount of trust, even when they're freaky, which makes me like them more. I'm puzzled why you write stuff like this:
If people hear something "dire" without a single legitimate complaint in it, why shouldn't they roll their eyes? *roll*