The Problems Of Fans & Fandom
A comment I have seen has tackled some of the issues I touched on in the OP in a most excellent matter, which I will now share with you along with the video it was made in response to.


Anthony Wrote:You are completely right... within your revolting mental ghetto which you believe is the entire universe.

On the barest and least interesting level of talking about these works like they're arcade games created solely around the aim of providing predictable and masterable challenges, yes, the original is better. But they aren't and never were that.

You keep quoting the IGN review. Maybe a cynical move because IGN are retards and use "game" focused lingo because they're a bunch of tools incapable of evolving who are forced to write in certain terms they don't understand or care about forever. By contrasting your own genuine neurosis over "gameplay" with theirs yes you get to make lots of corrections and so on. But IGN are basically a decades long scam. None of them give a shit about anything they're saying. Nobody does. They're like RT. They exist so their numbers can be screenshotted and talked about.

This game does not sell because of weighted opinions on its "game design". The first level on which something like this sells, the lowest level, is that the name just exists and is recognised due to time and inertia. This is enormously valuable even if nothing anybody has truly cared about has ever come of it. The 'Tomb Raider' brand was sold for hundreds of millions despite being a cheap, hollow, napkin scrawl idea that was obviously just a bare minimum justification for doing novel things (indiana jones with polygon tits). Normal people will buy a new advertised thing called 'Tomb Raider' just because if something endures long enough for the name to stick there's a familiarity that emerges which can then be activated in the natural mass consumer class on command. Games directed to this level tend to be very one-size fits all because the thing is already going to sell, all you have to do is not disrupt the rhythm of consumption by scaring people with something weird. Achieve victory, then go to war.

But that's not all that's going on here. Not a sufficient explanation of how we got to a remake of Resident Evil 4. No, there doesn't appear to be meaningful saving of money or effort in reusing the ingenious premise of "man in spain shoots people" or the "succession of rooms full of people to shoot" 'level design'. That's not why this happens.

Capcom did not hire IGN to sell their game to people. They got Sphere Hunter. Think about that and you can see why this remake actually happened (not politics, relax). Yes, the point about one size fits all "game design" is accurate, but it's incidental. The real essence of what's going on is understood if you understand what Sphere Hunter is selling. SH is a brand ambassador of "cool Japanese stuff". What the Japanese have learned and understood better than Hollywood is that most people are not connoisseurs, they don't appreciate what they think they're into. They enjoy *participating*. Beyond the barest act of habitual consumption buying Resident Evil 4 is an act of consummation. Affirmation of inclusion and participation in Resident Evil fandom. And why is this something desirable which you can sell to people? Because Sphere Hunter and the rest exist.

Sphere Hunter's value to Capcom is in creating and maintaining brand image. SH and an army of 90s-2000s cool aesthetics accounts creating this nostalgia-trap simulacra of an age of watching Evangelion VHS tapes on a CRT in a room covered in poppy anime posters. Each customer doesn't have to be into that or any other image specifically, but what matters is this sense of a weight of history behind the consumer which is a source of anxiety. A learned helplessness towards old media paired with a sense of having missed out on the good time which the game is a totem of.  This is where a remake comes in. You get to have your own experience of cool old person golden age history.

What Capcom have successfully done here is what Hollywood keeps failing to do. Star Wars 7, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Jurassic World. They stoke the idea that they own this incredible thing which was momentous, generation defining in its own time, *and you missed out.*. "But... this summer... [piano doing a tinkly NOSTALGIC opening of the main theme]..."

The idea is perfectly sound. What Hollywood does wrong is is being stuck in old media with no connection between the original audience and youth (kids don't care about the experiences of movie people, nobody aspires to be the old tools who saw A New Hope) and putting women and JJ Abrams in charge instead of Japanese people (full credit to the Japanese, copying success is actually quite difficult).

Why does RE4make exist? To let people both participate in and catch up with something they have been successfully programmed into believing is cool and desirable.

Now onto the substance of your critiques, how it plays as a contrived challenge. Or that revolting word, "gameplay". Again, yes, you are right within your own framings and axioms. Obviously. But you even yourself raise the point which is the seed of refuting you. You concede that it can be "immersive" to include elements like sway, inertia, and generally disrupting fluidity of input. You simultaneously critique this game on its disregard for intentionality of design, while refusing to acknowledge its own intentions. Your problem with RE4make is that it's not RE4. RE4make is a problem because of its "one size fits all" approach to its "game design", but you are also going to judge it by universal (or at least non-particular and foreign) standards. Someone whose problem with RE4 is that it doesn't handle like The Last of Us, Days Gone, and Horizon: Zero Dawn is failing to take it on its own terms. But someone whose problem with RE4make is that it doesn't handle like RE4 is doing the same thing.

Now my real problem with you. I addressed the substance of your critiques above, but I can't properly answer you within those, because the real issues at the heart of Resident Evil and its REmakes are so far above you you can't even see them, let alone be wrong about them.

A good starting point would be the word "art". You use this a lot, and as far as I can tell to you it means something between "very good craft" and "something I like a lot". Where I think your attempt at making sense of the phenomena of RE4make really falls apart is trying to talk "art". With the Kubrick point this could have come together, but instead it completely fell apart. Why was Kubrick an artist..? Because... he was really good and original.

It isn't really surprising to see you say this since you're apparently a *shmup guy*. Into arcade machines and so on. An interest in video games which amounts to seeing them as sensation-dispensers. A flashier and more expensive alternative to doing sudoku puzzles with the same ultimate point. To be contrived challenges which you can endlessly remix and keep yourself occupied with forever so that you never have to actually think or engage with the human condition.

Stanley Kubrick was very good with delivering sensation, and putting care into how things looked. But that was not all that he aspired to do with his work. He was not a dispenser of sensation. If that's all you believe there was there is a rather extreme amount of effort on top of that which you have to explain. Why did he not just fire out a new stock genre film every year? Why did he take the projects he did? What is ultimately the point of it all? If he just wanted people to feel excited through his efforts why didn't he sell cocaine instead of becoming a filmmaker? I've already given away my answer with the above paragraph of course. Stanley Kubrick was interested in people.

If something in Kubrick's work could be called the "art", it's the expressiveness. Stanley Kubrick observes the world and humanity, and then creates his films. Those films are refractions. A little cinematic world-experience as a representation of Kubrick's own perception of us and our wider world. A personal impression of Kubrick can be read not just in how he presents things in front of a camera, but what he chooses to present. Calling Kubrick a filmmaker leads many into error. He could perhaps better be understood as a multimedia artist who was able to work his way up to being able to use the cinema for his own ends. That's the essential point. Kubrick used cinema. Cinema did not use Kubrick.

You may not understand yet why I raised this. My problem with your reading of Kubrick is that you take a few arbitrarily selected points of craft as the "art" and say things that don't do it that way are boring, and not art, or bad art. I say that Kubrick's way of doing things was emergent from Kubrick's views on the world and what he wanted to say in that particular work. And that he was not merely a particularly clever sensation peddler. Now think back to where we started... Resident Evil...

I want to talk about Shinji Mikami. If you were capable of following what I wrote about Kubrick I shouldn't even have to do this. But let's aim for clarity. The existence of Resident Evil cannot be sufficiently explained by appreciating is a well crafted collection of challenges and sensations. It's too idiosyncratic and strange, the approaches to basic video game concepts like firing a gun go beyond novel into lateral. Mikami is not Kubrick, he does not share the same level of interest in the inner lives of people and nations. But Mikami is still a man fascinated by the world who refracts and reflects all of that into his work. These particular tastes and fascinations drive his work. Kubrick was an urban American Jew. Mikami is Japanese. The characters and interests are different, but both are true artists and so their creations reflect their respective characters.

Mikami has a catlike fascination with craft and fine objects. He is more than passingly interested in politics, Americana (David Lynch in particular), he loves watches, particularly their fine working mechanisms. Do you see where we go from here? Resident Evil from the start has contained lots of handling fine things. Rendered as 3D objects and spun around, as though they're in your hands. Why is Racoon City a mountain town? Because of Twin Peaks. Why is there an evil sterile lab under a mansion full of art? Because Japan was on a big bio-horror kick at the time fuelled by a fascination with new science and on top of that Mikami liked nice American stuff. The dynamics that emerged from this contrast were at the heart of this series ever since.

I could go on but I only mean to establish the general point, and believe I've iterated enough. Art, even low pop-art, emanates from character. We cannot speak intelligently about art without consideration of the minds behind the works we want to appreciate. By talking about RE4 and RE4make as though they are sufficiently of a kind to be compared directly you are perpetuating the problem which made this state of affairs possible. If RE4make is "a step down" as you say, then it must be possible to create an RE4make which is "a step up" too. But of course I'm not saying we should want or expect that either. What I'm saying is that we should rediscover the actual source of these great older things which we love so much. Yes, arcade culture was an element, the Japanese understand what feels good in virtual space. But that is not all that's going on. The industry evolved beyond those games for a reason.

Am I happy to see RE4make? No. So why write this comment? Because by hating it wrong you're part of the problem. The problem is not insufficiently fun "game design". The problem is the depersonalised cargo-culting of what were and remain deeply personal creations. People who like RE4make are guilty of this. But so are most original RE4 fans. Including you. The genuinely tragic (yes, tragic) thing about RE4make is the Japanese themselves getting more comfortable with the idea of depersonalised pop-art, which is really no longer art at all. More like well-crafted fodder.

Art is nothing without the humanity that strong creative and expressive will can imbue. It is both boring due to the shallowness of anything which isn't expressing anything, and sterile due to the lack of organic reasons to try anything genuinely new. Henry Ford said that if he asked his customers what they wanted they'd have said "faster horses". RE4make is Capcom delivering faster horses. And your problem with that is that you believe you could have created a faster horse.

I hate video games.

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
Ah, I see "weirdcore" is mentioned. I like strange and obscure stuff, sure - I think most actual humans on some level do, but there is something... specific about these types. A certain hipster-ish "pretentiousness from a safe distance." And though we might like the same things (mostly) - there's a distinct mindlessness and subhumanity about them.

There's a particularly popular form of image or video with usually distorted sound, low image quality of shadowy, ominous creatures interacting with the viewer like in a RPG, usually with eyes in random places in the background and whatever, as some sort of weird disassociation "simulation" thing - and what strikes me apart from how unpleasant they are audiovisually in a distinctly *irritating* manner, is how non-transgressive they are. The eldritch abomination might as well tell you to wipe your ass after shitting - it's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. But everyone acts like it's some work of art or cool or some shit.

A very simple example of something like this fanboying is DDLC - the game is good, interesting approach and plot, can be pretty disturbing and uncomfortable at times, but holy fuck does everyone soy out over it - it might be due to the combination of cute anime girls and [bone chilling spine tingling etc etc copypasta goes here] horror, but nevertheless there are literal walking coal miners attracted to this shit.

Wanna see fucking weird you niggers? I could always find their discords and spam Biden Rape Groyper edits until the entire user base ACKs.
(03-28-2023, 11:58 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: [Image:]
This image is absolutely correct in choosing Vriska as the representative of Homestuck for this demographic, as opposed to any other troll or any of the actual main characters that get introduced at the start of the story (the human kids). Her image as a character has been so mutilated by the "murder lesbian" troon fandom, which I am sure some of you have noticed as a very specific but real strain of troonthought online. I think it is worthy of note that the 'badass murder lesbian' trope could, on surface level, be filled much more readily by Kanaya - who actually enters a lesbian relationship in the story and even brutally kills the rampaging incel of one plotline (Eridan). Kanaya, however, does not suit the troon mind - which is much more acclimated to the bastardization of Vriska they have created as a prototypical nietzschean tranny. Kanaya is somewhat feminine and reserved, whereas Vriska is much more mannish in her actions and motiviations - allowing the AGP troons who disproportionately helped to fill out this image to project onto a superposition of "epic girl lesbian" and their latent male desires of mastery over the world. The worst part is that the actual character arc of Vriska is very well written, but she was in the wrong place at the wrong time metatextually.

Also, man it sucks what happened to the SCP community.
Great topic, much to discuss.

I was reminded of it while watching this:


(03-27-2023, 11:14 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: What I wish to discuss is that due to various factors I will go into more detail shortly, the mindset of fandom, in various forms has become the default view for looking at all media/art for those who rise to the minimum level of being interested in the subject matter and unpassive in absorbing it-a disaster for culture.

(03-27-2023, 11:14 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: I consider this to be one of the main issues in culture today, this mindset reduces all to screeching like monkeys and much worse social behaviors. It effects creativity by colonizing the mind and withering any organic understanding.

(03-28-2023, 01:39 AM)Guest Wrote: Fandom is the wilful submission of a man into a mass.

The mass will always exist. As will fandoms. But the "keys to the kingdom" were given to the mass when authorities ceased holding onto artistic standards.

(03-28-2023, 01:50 AM)Sanae Wrote: In other words, the concept of fandom is a theater-kid-ism

(03-28-2023, 02:27 AM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: I wish for nothing more  for it to have stayed in the minds of such people never moving towards realization but instead it has as I have said burst out from 1970s low rent hotel conference halls to being the default way of interacting with culture on a level beyond couch potato.


Let's talk about furries...


(03-28-2023, 03:28 AM)Illustrious Wrote: In fact I suspect that most of the fandom types initially don't care that much about the object of what they're fawning over, they're just seeking a group to integrate themselves within and form relationships; this is the genesis of the geeky female nerd rawr, upon failing to integrate themselves into normalfag territory, they turn their sights into random media IPs to form a group and hopefully top the hierarchy. That's how you get dem gals memeing about how le cake is a lie XD yet haven't beaten Portal.

(03-28-2023, 05:27 AM)Guest Wrote: Fandoms are a natural consequence of low IQ niggers being let into what was previously high culture. If you personally do not have an identity, you either subsume into a group identity (hippies, emos, punks, etc.) or you subsume into a media identity.

But the "furry" is not an "animal-fucker" or any of the other (ancient, and often deliberate) misinterpretations (zoophiles are extremely rare, and far more interesting as individuals) that many "anti-furry" would tell you.
No, the furry is something much worse than someone who wishes to be an animal (only ignoble if selecting a particularly retarded animal, which furries do and that is part of the problem (dogs), how often do you see cat furries? ..avian furfags seek to be grounded with no interest in flight, and the subject of how Web 1.0 - 2.0 furfags were able to contort foxes into a type of "dog" is so important it deserves its own thread), they are someone who wants to be a "cartoon":


Rod O'Riley Wrote:We were a very strange fandom. We didn't fully grasp how strange we were going in, but we were not a fandom of a property, nor were we a fandom of a genre. Other fandoms would look at us and get extremely confused. "What are you about?" "WHO are you about?" All of those specificities don't matter. It's the overarching: animals-doing-things-that-animals-don't-do, thing, that binds this all together. Beyond that, it can be anything. 

WikiFur Wrote:Mark Merlino is one of the founding members of the furry fandom, along with his long time partner Rod O'Riley, describing himself as the 'Father of the Furry Fandom' in his Oklacon 2004 panel "History of Fur". He got into the fandom in 1971 by meeting science fiction convention attendees with an interest in animal characters. He was one of the founders of the Cartoon/Fantasy Organization and by 1985 he organized the first furry room parties, most notably at Westercon, which, due to their growing attendance, lead to the creation of a newsletter and two magazines. In 1982 he created the first furry BBS, Tiger's Den.

Let's get this clarified before I move on: The "furry fandom" has nothing to do with animals, it's the first (or the first I can point to after 16+ years of research sprawling the internet, virtual worlds, and meatspace) "fandom-fandom". From here, we can begin to understand that "furries" are the only "fandom" that has ever mattered or will ever matter. Every other "fandom" that has existed since is downstream from furries— EXCEPT for ANIME:


It is the weeaboo (not the otaku, key difference— the weeaboo and furry are both AMERICAN) who is the antithesis to the furfag.

But why compare the two? Why isn't the opposite of a furry a gamer, or anything else?

I'll show you:


February 29th, 1976

A hatred of "seriousness", "pretentiousness", "impact", and "significance"... hmm, what does this sound like in contemporary terms? Who does this look like in 2023, 47 years later?


One fight, one enemy— who takes many forms (this is the key point, one I will come back to later).

The war of the Goon vs. the Channer is no different.

Chained to them, sharing the same space and air.

The "furry" is the perfect "communist": A deracinated faggot non-faggot (everyone is "gay" now, this is different than being a faggot as many would imagine) born out of genre fiction, cartoon and capeshit obsessive (anesthetic taste)... the furry breathes kikeshit to degrees that would kill a normalfag (as much as they try):


The furry is "terminally online", parallel to the weeaboo (or was, furries have unfortunately "won" post-Chanology (as most 'edgelords' were lost in the 2008 reset) because they are the mass). Deeply connected to the pulse of internet culture.

Rod O'Riley Wrote:Right about the time that furry fandom was hitting was right about the time that the AIDS crisis hit.

Now that's a fucking quote, hoo-wee! Can't believe I didn't write that shit.

As a proud veteran of the YouTube Furry War..

(Recovered propaganda showcasing one of our boys executing the enemy, both most likely furries or An Hero now.)

I am most qualified to discuss this subject, and it's crucial relation to ALL "fandom".

I was there, over 9,001 years ago:


The war between weeaboo and furries might as well be as old as the internet itself.

The true war, one fight, against one enemy.

We fought them on YouTube:


We fought them on Second Life:


Some people even fought them in the streets:

(If I told you someone in this video was on a TekWars episode about Gargoyles— that they know Kantbot, would you understand what I mean when I say "...the world will keep getting smaller?")

On every platform there were faggots and retards, and on every platform I would interfere, as would many, many others.


As for what happened? Everyone "grew up".

Well, not exactly.

The current (or maybe last, we haven't moved past it) stop on the hyperreality train, the "furry" seeks to abandon their humanity but not in the way anyone understands. All "fandom" is furry fandom now, and all "gay culture" is downstream from furries:

(Remember what I said about "dogs"?)

"Pride" is the Gay Fandom convention.

But this is quite different from older eras of faggotry:


This is not to say old faggotry = good and new faggotry = bad (although old faggotry = better and new faggotry = worse, is entirely correct), but that looking at these people they are simply NOWHERE near as degenerated. Of course, we could talk about lower levels of poison in food and water, less sedentary lifestyles.. all manner of external differences, but we're still talking about FAGGOTS and especially faggots (back then) at a time where STDs were significantly more deadly. So, what happened? Did the strongmen fags all die of AIDS? Well, that's probably a factor worth considering, but it's not what I think.

I think that furries don't have anything to do with being gay, just like they don't have anything to do with animals, and that both of these details as crucial as they may seem outwardly, are completely incidental.

The furry is then better understood as being more like a Canadian— someone who's identity is reliant on surrounding circumstances to exist at all.
But that fucks up my metaphor, that I watched all of his happen before and it's happening again, if my metaphor was true, there would be a perfect parallel to what I described in the past happening now...


Now finally, I can come back to what I said earlier and connect all the dots— one enemy, that takes many forms:


The troon (NOT the tranny, they are different because of this) is the modern version of a furry, but they're importantly DOWNSTREAM from furries— the furry is not a type of troon, but the other way around. Furries created troons, but they did so in such obscurity no one noticed.

For anyone who remembers Shmorky..


..and for those who don't, he is the perfect example of everything I'm talking about. "First" a goon (functionally second or third in command of SomethingAwful itself), then a furry, then a troon.


There is no single person who has "won" more from the changes in culture than Dave Kelly, even with him being run offline.

We are living in his world.

The world of fandom.



Wikifur Wrote:He owns a well-known furry household, The Prancing Skiltaire in Garden Grove, California.
(05-12-2023, 01:55 AM)PIGSAW Wrote: ...

Excellent post. 

There is a lot to say on the psychology of furries and furry culture.  In the tranny thread, I wrote a lot about digital virtuality and the role it plays in cultivating alters before they manifest in the real. Much of that carries over to furries, with one crucial difference - where trannies attempt immanentize the virtual, the furry ultimately has little interest in doing so. I've known furries in relationships (with other furries), and I've also been (unfortunately) been granted quite a bit of aspect to the nature of their sexual relations. One thing I've encountered a few times is that they rarely actually *have sex*,... instead they will often go in different rooms and engage in ERP over Discord/Second Life/MMOs - 24/7 in-character roleplay is quite common. Relationships in general are more textual than physical. Those who are really into fursuit sex are actually something of an aberration --- that is somehow too real for many of them.

So, where the tranny desires to feminize their physical self in accordance with their virtuality, the furry desires only to go towards a deeper virtuality. Physicality is rejected entirely.

This, of course, is why furries are some of the most vulnerable people on the internet. Even just with online bantz, it takes very little to wound them or cause psychic harm. The digital spaces they inhabit comprise the entirety of the identity, and their flesh is nothing more than a petulant reminder that they cannot become their text.
(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: There is a lot to say on the psychology of furries and furry culture.

I consider them to be the most fascinating "fandom" (well, not really, technically 'Columbiners' or anything about violence is cooler (actually that sucks too since it's reduced to fujoshit), but furries teach you the most) as per everything I outlined. I have more esoteric observations, but I didn't want my post to become so long it's unpleasant to read, and I wanted to offer space for people to interject.

(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: In the tranny thread, I wrote a lot about digital virtuality and the role it plays in cultivating alters before they manifest in the real.

In the documentary I linked "The Fandom" (as well as all of them, really, especially anything post-Tumblr, after the normalization of medicalized language) when they tell stories about how "becoming a furry" "helped them realize they were trans"— they're not lying.
This circumstance isn't actually bad— it's neutral, and the results are what you bring to it (humans are social animals, and even the greatest among us need to see possibilities in the flesh to often realize they're there) with it primarily showcasing how many people shouldn't have last names or be taught how to read or write— as I said, the furry/troon is very close to its opposites and detractors.
Anyway, this isn't to say I "could've been a furry in a different life", as I'm too much of a freak, and actual freaks are not accepted in (any) "fandom" circles (I know all fandoms are full of freaks, but it's rejected, when it's not you get things like early SA, 4chan, etc. at their most destructive, it's good when that happens and what should be aspired to— it's cleansing fire):


I hate to link to these cocksucker "recap" channels on internet history, but since all the old archives for all the oldfaggot shit I talk about is broken, this is the best I can do as some ease-of-access. However, this is a good jumping off point— this YouTube pundit is stolen valor for "Carpet Sample". Both of them can't qualify as "furries", it's one or the other and I have far more respect for this disgusting sigma than any of his detractors. This is an outsider, and furries hate him.

Another one I like (or find interesting, at least) is Boomer:


Based Boomer's fucking retarded (again, "dogs"), but on the other hand, never before or since have I seen a paper fursuit.. 40 something year old wizard, never been on a date... he also hosts a pirate radio station:


In the documentary he describes firing a grappling hook into a tree in his yard, to set up a satellite to run a pirate radio station.
No one thinks this is interesting, all the furries in the documentary don't really want to talk about Boomer, basically allude to him being a retard that makes "the rest of them" look bad.
Which is true— Boomer just like Carpet Sample is too different to exist in a culture for posers. The weird thing with furries however, is that Rod O'Rapemyassly was telling the truth when he called furries 'strange' initially— because initially furries actually were an outsider culture:

All this shit still sucks, obviously, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't want to go to a '90s furcon. Y'know, it's fascinating in the same way the FLDS or Turkmenistan is— it's a walled culture that you might've never heard of if normalfags hadn't gotten their claws in it somehow.
Well, probably not with furries 'cause they couldn't shut the fuck up. But anyway, my point is that this earlier, genuinely strange stage of furry subculture was incidental, not desired. The modern furry, including the troon, is what they wanted from the beginning, it just wasn't available— or known to be possible yet.

(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: Much of that carries over to furries, with one crucial difference - where trannies attempt immanentize the virtual, the furry ultimately has little interest in doing so.

Interesting point.

(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: I've known furries in relationships (with other furries), and I've also been (unfortunately) been granted quite a bit of aspect to the nature of their sexual relations.

I used to know a lot of furries (after Literally Hitler Russiagate'd the election (BIGLY!) the days of being able to talk to a wider variety of retards went out like the dinosaur, which is to say it was never real in the first place), despite how much havoc I caused them on Second Life, some of them (back then) actually had senses of humor and would randomly befriend me (not typically the ones I was attacking, but observers). Unfortunately, because I'm fairly nice, it obstructed me from continuing to beat them up when they did this (I find it difficult to be cruel to people if they're in too close proximity).
I was telling my friend the other day about one I knew named "GiantM Ember" who claimed to be a "Boombox" (I think, which he listed in his profile was a hybrid of Midna from Twilight Princess and Shadow the Hedgehog, this was also considered to be an animal species, the result was a bat furry) who once tried call a "hit" (harass a lot) through me on some other furfag he disliked. I can't actually remember what I did, I think I told him he was retarded, and then agreed to do it because of how fucking funny the premise was.

Their "culture" is fascinating, but the interpersonal details especially:

(Unrelated, just funny.)

(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: One thing I've encountered a few times is that they rarely actually *have sex*,... instead they will often go in different rooms and engage in ERP over Discord/Second Life/MMOs - 24/7 in-character roleplay is quite common. Relationships in general are more textual than physical. Those who are really into fursuit sex are actually something of an aberration --- that is somehow too real for many of them.

So, where the tranny desires to feminize their physical self in accordance with their virtuality, the furry desires only to go towards a deeper virtuality. Physicality is rejected entirely.

Yes, this is part of why the whole "animal-fucker" thing (which is ancient 4troon misinformation) is nonsense. "Furries" don't like tactile things (which is why I wouldn't consider Carpet Sample to be a "furry"), and the notion of "fursuit sex parties" is actually extremely rare, furfags were never lying when they said that was made up by CSI. Not that it doesn't happen, it does, and it happens a lot more now— but this is because even furfaggotry is being gentrified.
One thing to notice in some of the videos I linked to, is how many non-whites you see depending on era. The All Gas No Brakes video opens with nigger furries talking about "Palestine", because the era of furfaggotry as a walled culture is long over (this is actually a bad thing, unfortunately, them expanding only makes them worse, they become stronger through diluted expansion since it's communism).

(05-12-2023, 11:34 AM)Zed Wrote: This, of course, is why furries are some of the most vulnerable people on the internet. Even just with online bantz, it takes very little to wound them or cause psychic harm. The digital spaces they inhabit comprise the entirety of the identity, and their flesh is nothing more than a petulant reminder that they cannot become their text.

This also gets at the distinct relation between the furry and troon— logocentrism, they want to exist as words and definitions, as well as to revere definitions ahead of truth (which exists outside of people). This exact detail is the truest definition of what a "troon" is.
Roger Ebert Wrote:A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them. They have mastered the Star Wars or Star Trek universes or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies. Extreme fandom may serve as a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills. If you are Luke Skywalker and she is Princess Leia, you already know what to say to each other, which is so much safer than having to ad lib it. Your fannish obsession is your beard. If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else. That's why it's excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to.
^^ As much of an utter faggot Ebert was otherwise, he really tore the wig off the "memer" phenomenon there ahead of time.
When someone says that they are a fan of something, they're expressing that they enjoy or appreciate some work which is necessarily received from someone else. To be a Star Trek fan is to receive the licensed, franchised work of some one else. This can be contrasted with a hobby where the activity is not received, but is rather something that the subject does in their own capacity, skill, or creativity. There's a line of nuance when it comes to things like cosplay wherein the subject is a "fan" (passively receiving) some artistic work, but expressing that appreciation through putting together their own costumes and acting the character, which is a creative activity as a "hobbyist".

It's possible to be a fan without being stupid about it but it requires some level of creative vision within the individual, otherwise you get the aforementioned "fans" who are duds, creative dead ends, who Ebert pinpoints as boring people with no capacity for conversation beyond their niche interest. One which they cannot actually contribute to or work on, because it is not their vision and can only be altered in the lowly category of "fanfiction." This seems to me the core of the problem, at the individual level before any third person has entered the room.

The "fandom" is the group of third persons with the collective creative deficit, who form networks based around their mutual identification with a work that they didn't make. It isn't merely a sum of individuals because we see these types signing petitions, sharing fan theories and lore, propping up merchandise and other such activities which ultimately propagate memes about a work and mediate its enjoyment to the broader world. It's akin to how New Vegas trannies don't remove anything from the game per se, but their chatter crowds out other memes in the New Vegas noosphere resulting in the feeling that they have "ruined" the game. Star Wars fans propagate the meme that Lucas is an incompetent filmmaker, the original trilogy wasn't really his work, etc.

I don't think this'll ever be solved so long as there are combinations of traits which produce uncreative/obsessive types. The best thing to do is simply nignore fans as an artist and autistically shill auteur theory.
(08-14-2023, 04:10 PM)Corvid Wrote: One which they cannot actually contribute to or work on, because it is not their vision and can only be altered in the lowly category of "fanfiction."

I find the idea of canonicity a bit quaint in contemporary media landscape. It makes some sense with regular authors in their lifetimes- oh, who here is telling the story? Yeah, listen up. Doesn't make sense when we reach what I humbly nominate the "dem rangs demarcation" where the legitimacy of a work of fiction allegedly depends on the function of a particular legal system, either through licensing agreements or possession of the right to author the story. This point can be crossed before the author is even dead. It is funny to imagine people seriously pondering the "canonicity" of works depending on arcane civil cases, legal coercion or even executive action.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)