The premise of this argument thread is flawed, in that it assumes that this story is written by an unbiased, naive observer — while the piece's own subtitle states that the fandom has a "notorious reputation".
The Daily Dot article is deliberately constructed to make furries look bad, reaching a decade back to Vanity Fair and using selective linking and quoting to emphasize "deviant" aspects of the fandom. Flayrah's report may have triggered its creation; however, we are not responsible for its author's malice.
Over the years, many unscrupulous journalists have sought to make a dime off the fandom. One more is of little concern.
The premise of this argument thread is flawed, in that it assumes that this story is written by an unbiased, naive observer — while the piece's own subtitle states that the fandom has a "notorious reputation".
The Daily Dot article is deliberately constructed to make furries look bad, reaching a decade back to Vanity Fair and using selective linking and quoting to emphasize "deviant" aspects of the fandom. Flayrah's report may have triggered its creation; however, we are not responsible for its author's malice.
Over the years, many unscrupulous journalists have sought to make a dime off the fandom. One more is of little concern.