Alright, if we're going to bring up naivete and having no perception of the world, let's do just that.
You're the person twice my age who writes off my usage of terms like "proletariat" and "class struggle" as "cold war Communist rhetoric", both condemning those terms to history as if they weren't still relevant and condemning them to the WRONG point in history as if they weren't concepts discussed in the 1800s.
You're the person who acts as if I'm totally mystified by the notion that you would be weirded out by my usage of those terms, despite the fact that I'm not mystified at all -- I'm well aware that the average American is not raised to have any sense of class understanding and is quite frankly raised to run screaming from horrifying "Soviet" words such as "bourgeoisie".
You're the person who is willing to tolerate Foxler, a guy who looks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, and quacks like a Nazi, despite the fact that, historically, tolerance of Nazis has lead to the proliferation of Nazis. Such tolerance of intolerance is an act of naivete if ever I have seen one. Even Hitler, a guy who presumably knew a thing or two about his movement, himself pointed out that his movement would have ground to a halt had it been smashed from the moment it begun with "utmost brutality". Only a fool would look at 80+ years of history and come to the conclusion that the best way to end such a movement would be to turn a blind eye to a guy who is CLEARLY not simply "making a poor choice of attire", not simply "using Nazi imagery in his creativity", but has in fact identified with Hitler and stated that he hates black people.
You're the person who buys into identity politic such as the idea that "homosexuals can't be Nazis because the Nazis persecuted homosexuals", denying history outright, and "true Scotsman" rhetoric such as the idea that "real Nazis hate furries, thus a furry can't be a Nazi" (which I guess would class this guy as a "fake Nazi" by such logic, and as others in this thread have pointed out, playing at being something is frequently a step towards being that thing), or that "we already have rules in place to ban people who act like Nazis", which is a pretty nebulous statement given that if "we" here should be interpreted as "the furry fandom", then "we" are at best an EXTREMELY loose community of people who are not concentrated in any one central location and we do not have one central power to just "ban" anyone from the furry fandom at the flip of a switch.
I get how I come across. I'm being abrasive and blunt here. And if I thought that you weren't already disinclined to hear me out because I'm refuting your ideas, maybe I'd be concerned with avoiding those scary communist words or calling you foolish. However, it's pretty clear that you've had your mind made up from square one and would rather call me a Nazi for saying that Nazis are crap than see this guy for what he is, so I might as well just say what I need to say and feel how I feel, and hopefully other people see where I'm coming from. Even if my approach isn't "respectable", not that any approach is "respectable" enough if someone just isn't willing to hear it, maybe some people will be like "whoa, maybe this dude who has said some racist stuff and bedecks himself in Nazi iconography isn't entitled to the benefit of the doubt, just because he's a member of a subculture which often touches on the topic of sexuality".
Anyway, the reality of the situation is that it is not the form of my statements that you find repulsive, it is their content, and to make this about their form is to once again refuse to refute the evidence I have given and arguments I've made. So go and reflect more on what I and other people in these comments have said and less on how it's been said, and maybe we can have the pretense of civility if we ever bump into one another at a convention someday. Not this convention, of course, but perhaps some convention.
Alright, if we're going to bring up naivete and having no perception of the world, let's do just that.
You're the person twice my age who writes off my usage of terms like "proletariat" and "class struggle" as "cold war Communist rhetoric", both condemning those terms to history as if they weren't still relevant and condemning them to the WRONG point in history as if they weren't concepts discussed in the 1800s.
You're the person who acts as if I'm totally mystified by the notion that you would be weirded out by my usage of those terms, despite the fact that I'm not mystified at all -- I'm well aware that the average American is not raised to have any sense of class understanding and is quite frankly raised to run screaming from horrifying "Soviet" words such as "bourgeoisie".
You're the person who is willing to tolerate Foxler, a guy who looks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, and quacks like a Nazi, despite the fact that, historically, tolerance of Nazis has lead to the proliferation of Nazis. Such tolerance of intolerance is an act of naivete if ever I have seen one. Even Hitler, a guy who presumably knew a thing or two about his movement, himself pointed out that his movement would have ground to a halt had it been smashed from the moment it begun with "utmost brutality". Only a fool would look at 80+ years of history and come to the conclusion that the best way to end such a movement would be to turn a blind eye to a guy who is CLEARLY not simply "making a poor choice of attire", not simply "using Nazi imagery in his creativity", but has in fact identified with Hitler and stated that he hates black people.
You're the person who buys into identity politic such as the idea that "homosexuals can't be Nazis because the Nazis persecuted homosexuals", denying history outright, and "true Scotsman" rhetoric such as the idea that "real Nazis hate furries, thus a furry can't be a Nazi" (which I guess would class this guy as a "fake Nazi" by such logic, and as others in this thread have pointed out, playing at being something is frequently a step towards being that thing), or that "we already have rules in place to ban people who act like Nazis", which is a pretty nebulous statement given that if "we" here should be interpreted as "the furry fandom", then "we" are at best an EXTREMELY loose community of people who are not concentrated in any one central location and we do not have one central power to just "ban" anyone from the furry fandom at the flip of a switch.
I get how I come across. I'm being abrasive and blunt here. And if I thought that you weren't already disinclined to hear me out because I'm refuting your ideas, maybe I'd be concerned with avoiding those scary communist words or calling you foolish. However, it's pretty clear that you've had your mind made up from square one and would rather call me a Nazi for saying that Nazis are crap than see this guy for what he is, so I might as well just say what I need to say and feel how I feel, and hopefully other people see where I'm coming from. Even if my approach isn't "respectable", not that any approach is "respectable" enough if someone just isn't willing to hear it, maybe some people will be like "whoa, maybe this dude who has said some racist stuff and bedecks himself in Nazi iconography isn't entitled to the benefit of the doubt, just because he's a member of a subculture which often touches on the topic of sexuality".
Anyway, the reality of the situation is that it is not the form of my statements that you find repulsive, it is their content, and to make this about their form is to once again refuse to refute the evidence I have given and arguments I've made. So go and reflect more on what I and other people in these comments have said and less on how it's been said, and maybe we can have the pretense of civility if we ever bump into one another at a convention someday. Not this convention, of course, but perhaps some convention.