Anon 09/08/2020 (Tue) 05:03:28 No.6523 del
(15.28 KB 380x285 AtFair.jpg)
>>6512
>so your definition of furry aims [...] for any fictional character that is not human but has human qualities.
Animal. The character has to have an animal base. So betty boop, the staff tha worked for Disney's Beast, they are not 'furry' but Beast (until redemption. Feh.) and Mickey Mouse are.

>Unless there are two words in order to tell what defines the fan and the concept
I think this is part of the problem right here. We have a word, *furry*, that can mean either the IRL person consuming entertainment, or the character on the screen providing that entertainment.

It's what about the thing excites and draws you, that makes you furry, and thus the art gets labelled 'furry' as a derogative term. This chases the individuals together as, on the internet, you can find anything. Including other furrae. Thus we find ourselves responding to the new guy:

>>6515
>Bronies' cultural definition is from mass rejection

That may be, but furries before them felt the same way. What I remember seeing, what mutual antagonism, people found the show and loved the simplicity of life in Equestria, and shunned the multitude of gray found in pursuing furry art that was most of it, much darker, angrier. What appealed to early bronies seemed, to me, to be how happy everyone was, and how certain both that they had a place in society, and that that was the best place for them to be.

Also the Scalie vs. Were vs. Furry vs subsection-of-the-month caused its own divisions as young artists and consumers fought to understand themselves, mostly by arguing with others about what they weren't and feeling, I think, a little forced to accept what was left as 'themselves'

...Oh! Hi! I'm back, having successfully circumnavigated the seventy-five-thousand-acre (30,350 hectares, for Carrotfag -- assuming that helps) wildfire that obscured the road the whole day coming back.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.