Given that the example at the end of the article was an allegory, though, I'm not sure it's super relevant what the church was supposedly trying to punish the rats with. The allegory's point is about the ineffectual church justice system failing to protect the village from the rats. Of course, Crossaffliction's basic criticism of "is making the animals evil the best way to reach a furry audience" remains reasonable, as would be questions about whether "here are examples where amateur volunteers running furry conventions appear to have fucked up in handling harassment complaints" can be reasonably abstracted to furry as a whole.
And, that would really be my criticism of the whole shebang, I think. Despite framing it as a question in both the article title and in the comment above, Charles does not actually seem to be "asking what justice means to furries." They don't even seem to be asking whether or not furry conventions have a problem dealing with harassment claims and accusations against staff members -- something that probably is true, although there's little evidence to suggest that it's something intrinsic to furry. (The same can, and has, been said of many other fannish conventions, of tech conferences, of music festivals, of trade shows, on and on and on.) They seem to be making a pointed claim about furry as an entire subculture failing to have a sense of justice, which is much bigger, more inflammatory, and much harder to support.
The article skirts dismayingly close to presenting the Furry Convention Leadership Roundtable as a secret society that meets to strategize on ways for cons to escape responsibility, with their publicly-documented panels like (checks notes) "You are Not Welcome Here: Problematic People and Groups", "The Transforming Landscape of the Fandom", "Creating a Greener Convention", "Ethical Dilemmas and Conflicts of Interest", "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: How It Relates to Convention Staff", and "Going Past ADA: How to Better Serve Our Disabled Community". At least as dismayingly, it starts with -- as I mentioned in another comment -- an attempt to paint Uncle Kage as, if not an outright Nazi himself, a Nazi sympathizer because he used a moderately well-known alt character to express hope that a fur who'd been outed as alt-right might one day be redeemed while very explicitly condemning their alt-right leanings. Bluntly, this all comes across as conspiratorial thinking.
"Anathematizing," not "anesthetizing." :)
Given that the example at the end of the article was an allegory, though, I'm not sure it's super relevant what the church was supposedly trying to punish the rats with. The allegory's point is about the ineffectual church justice system failing to protect the village from the rats. Of course, Crossaffliction's basic criticism of "is making the animals evil the best way to reach a furry audience" remains reasonable, as would be questions about whether "here are examples where amateur volunteers running furry conventions appear to have fucked up in handling harassment complaints" can be reasonably abstracted to furry as a whole.
And, that would really be my criticism of the whole shebang, I think. Despite framing it as a question in both the article title and in the comment above, Charles does not actually seem to be "asking what justice means to furries." They don't even seem to be asking whether or not furry conventions have a problem dealing with harassment claims and accusations against staff members -- something that probably is true, although there's little evidence to suggest that it's something intrinsic to furry. (The same can, and has, been said of many other fannish conventions, of tech conferences, of music festivals, of trade shows, on and on and on.) They seem to be making a pointed claim about furry as an entire subculture failing to have a sense of justice, which is much bigger, more inflammatory, and much harder to support.
The article skirts dismayingly close to presenting the Furry Convention Leadership Roundtable as a secret society that meets to strategize on ways for cons to escape responsibility, with their publicly-documented panels like (checks notes) "You are Not Welcome Here: Problematic People and Groups", "The Transforming Landscape of the Fandom", "Creating a Greener Convention", "Ethical Dilemmas and Conflicts of Interest", "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: How It Relates to Convention Staff", and "Going Past ADA: How to Better Serve Our Disabled Community". At least as dismayingly, it starts with -- as I mentioned in another comment -- an attempt to paint Uncle Kage as, if not an outright Nazi himself, a Nazi sympathizer because he used a moderately well-known alt character to express hope that a fur who'd been outed as alt-right might one day be redeemed while very explicitly condemning their alt-right leanings. Bluntly, this all comes across as conspiratorial thinking.
— Chipotle