but the risk is that furry fandom as a whole is also associated with such movements - which may ultimately put innocent fans in danger
This phrase right here is the one I feel is quite problematic and sheds some light on an inheritantly dangerous political belief. It does this for two reasons.
1) First and foremost it implies that those movements are in some way "not innocent" or in the verbiage of the state "guilty" for the advocacy.
Political advocacy and lobbying of the government by individuals who simply wish to live their lives without the government treating them as a stepping stone, invisible stair, or at the worst a group of people to actually eliminate though the legal system should never be inferred nor implied to be a guilty party. Advocacy and lobbying is the bedrock of concepts like the first amendment, and if practicing it is something that is to be used by the state as a means to punish its citizens, then everyone, whether furry or not, will indeed be in danger.
2) Language like this sets up excusing the abuser.
It is indicating that should the furries have just been "good boys" and not challenged those in power that they would not have gotten hurt. Look what you made the government do.
When in reality, if verbal challenges do cause physical responses by the government it is by far more of an evidence that the vocally abused were correct to protest in the first place.
But the advocates for the abuser will use that language to go: "Look, your own were warning you, you shouldn't have said anything and you wouldn't have gotten hurt." So be careful with your defensive language, it can be used to excuse atrocities.
This phrase right here is the one I feel is quite problematic and sheds some light on an inheritantly dangerous political belief. It does this for two reasons.
1) First and foremost it implies that those movements are in some way "not innocent" or in the verbiage of the state "guilty" for the advocacy.
Political advocacy and lobbying of the government by individuals who simply wish to live their lives without the government treating them as a stepping stone, invisible stair, or at the worst a group of people to actually eliminate though the legal system should never be inferred nor implied to be a guilty party. Advocacy and lobbying is the bedrock of concepts like the first amendment, and if practicing it is something that is to be used by the state as a means to punish its citizens, then everyone, whether furry or not, will indeed be in danger.
2) Language like this sets up excusing the abuser.
It is indicating that should the furries have just been "good boys" and not challenged those in power that they would not have gotten hurt. Look what you made the government do.
When in reality, if verbal challenges do cause physical responses by the government it is by far more of an evidence that the vocally abused were correct to protest in the first place.
But the advocates for the abuser will use that language to go: "Look, your own were warning you, you shouldn't have said anything and you wouldn't have gotten hurt." So be careful with your defensive language, it can be used to excuse atrocities.