Actually, Son, I would say that Antifa was an influence on both articles, though the Dogpatch article was probably written by an Antifa.
The reason I think 2 is right to attach harping on the tax thing to Antifa is because it is a side issue of no consequence that is used to distract from more relevant issues, which is a common troll tactic. 2 says the tax problem had been resolved already, and I tend to believe him, because, logically, if they couldn't survive the tax thing they would have died before any of this started.
So, the cause of death is not either the tax thing or the threat thing, it was a combination of the two pushing things beyond budget, which even then probably could have been survived by going into debt and clearing that up with a fund raiser. But, because of the prospect of violence ruining things, going to all that trouble seemed not worth it. They lost the motivation of serving a pleasant community that was worth going to the wall for.
So, obviously there is nothing particularly significant to the tax thing in terms of killing the con, but there is something significant to the threats of violence, and one has to wonder why people keep saying, "Don't look at the obvious reason, look at this side issue." That's like defending Deo, and why would anyone who was not under the influence of Antifa want to defend Deo?
Did 2 say Deo contacted the hotel, or did he say she contacted the police and con security? I seem to remember him saying the hotel got wind of it on its own.
Everyone hyping the tax issue may not be tied to glossing over the threats of violence, but I do notice they tend to have a fanatical anti-Furry Raiders stance. Thus, people hyping the tax issue may not be card carrying Antifa, but they have certainly bought into Antifa's fear mongering, and don't want anything taking heat off the unsubstantiated claim that Furry Fandom has a white supremacist infestation. Nor do they want anyone thinking that the people promoting this unreasoning fear might themselves be the problem.
Add to this that paranoia and condemnation of The Furry Raiders is the dominant view of those posting here, and that those same people try to brand anyone who contraries them as a Nazi, and it becomes pretty obvious that Flayrah has the infestation problem. It's dominated by Antifa and Antifa supporters who will not even stand to defend anyone being accused of being a Nazi, even when it's well known that they're not.
So, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're actually trying to be unbiased, I don't see why you're having a problem with 2 calling you out on that. Even though your own article spotlights testimony that the tax problem was already taken care of, in the comments you continue to hype the tax problem and attempt to brush the threats under the table, because the consensus at Flayrah is that any violence against a person labeled as a Nazi is justified. And the regular posters here will attack, troll, defame, badger and humiliate anyone who actively opposes that consensus. Unbiased this site is not. And you'd have to have a serious denial problem not to know that by now.
Yes, 2 is a sensational commentator. But I don't think that's the definition of sensationalism in journalism. Furries associate sensationalism in journalism with deliberate and extreme distortion or falsifying of the facts to gain ratings. 2 doesn't need to do that. He could read the nutrition facts off a box of cereal and make them sensational without having to doctor them in the least.
You don't do that in your actual article, but your article is actually rather small. Really, it's just a lead in to the comments section where people will get the bulk of what they take away from your site. And the comments are filled with sensationalism, which you know will automatically be there, since the posters at this site haven't changed much over the years, and their negativism towards the tolerance of the fandom can be well documented. So it's hardly surprising they'd be quick to jump on the Antifa bandwagon.
More crunchy carrots huh? ^_^
Actually, Son, I would say that Antifa was an influence on both articles, though the Dogpatch article was probably written by an Antifa.
The reason I think 2 is right to attach harping on the tax thing to Antifa is because it is a side issue of no consequence that is used to distract from more relevant issues, which is a common troll tactic. 2 says the tax problem had been resolved already, and I tend to believe him, because, logically, if they couldn't survive the tax thing they would have died before any of this started.
So, the cause of death is not either the tax thing or the threat thing, it was a combination of the two pushing things beyond budget, which even then probably could have been survived by going into debt and clearing that up with a fund raiser. But, because of the prospect of violence ruining things, going to all that trouble seemed not worth it. They lost the motivation of serving a pleasant community that was worth going to the wall for.
So, obviously there is nothing particularly significant to the tax thing in terms of killing the con, but there is something significant to the threats of violence, and one has to wonder why people keep saying, "Don't look at the obvious reason, look at this side issue." That's like defending Deo, and why would anyone who was not under the influence of Antifa want to defend Deo?
Did 2 say Deo contacted the hotel, or did he say she contacted the police and con security? I seem to remember him saying the hotel got wind of it on its own.
Everyone hyping the tax issue may not be tied to glossing over the threats of violence, but I do notice they tend to have a fanatical anti-Furry Raiders stance. Thus, people hyping the tax issue may not be card carrying Antifa, but they have certainly bought into Antifa's fear mongering, and don't want anything taking heat off the unsubstantiated claim that Furry Fandom has a white supremacist infestation. Nor do they want anyone thinking that the people promoting this unreasoning fear might themselves be the problem.
Add to this that paranoia and condemnation of The Furry Raiders is the dominant view of those posting here, and that those same people try to brand anyone who contraries them as a Nazi, and it becomes pretty obvious that Flayrah has the infestation problem. It's dominated by Antifa and Antifa supporters who will not even stand to defend anyone being accused of being a Nazi, even when it's well known that they're not.
So, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're actually trying to be unbiased, I don't see why you're having a problem with 2 calling you out on that. Even though your own article spotlights testimony that the tax problem was already taken care of, in the comments you continue to hype the tax problem and attempt to brush the threats under the table, because the consensus at Flayrah is that any violence against a person labeled as a Nazi is justified. And the regular posters here will attack, troll, defame, badger and humiliate anyone who actively opposes that consensus. Unbiased this site is not. And you'd have to have a serious denial problem not to know that by now.
Yes, 2 is a sensational commentator. But I don't think that's the definition of sensationalism in journalism. Furries associate sensationalism in journalism with deliberate and extreme distortion or falsifying of the facts to gain ratings. 2 doesn't need to do that. He could read the nutrition facts off a box of cereal and make them sensational without having to doctor them in the least.
You don't do that in your actual article, but your article is actually rather small. Really, it's just a lead in to the comments section where people will get the bulk of what they take away from your site. And the comments are filled with sensationalism, which you know will automatically be there, since the posters at this site haven't changed much over the years, and their negativism towards the tolerance of the fandom can be well documented. So it's hardly surprising they'd be quick to jump on the Antifa bandwagon.