Furry Fandom and Drama General

[UnsufficentBoobage]

fake foods like eggs

It is an urban legend, you moron. Do you believe in plastic rice, as well?

And lab diamonds are not fake, they are identical.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

We should have a general furry meme thread.
View attachment 5868447

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE

 

[Google.com]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE

You know, I've suddenly realized at least 40 percent of the furries I know have some sort of military job. In some sort of support or r&d role

 

[Toolbox]

It is an urban legend, you moron. Do you believe in plastic rice, as well?

And lab diamonds are not fake, they are identical.

This is the country of gutter oil and toxic industrial chemicals in baby food, I don't blame anyone who believes the most insane shit being said about their practices. They've done worse.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

This is the country of gutter oil and toxic industrial chemicals in baby food, I don't blame anyone who believes the most insane shit being said about their practices. They've done worse.

I am sorry, but believing you can fake an egg perfectly outs person believing as complete retard. Vegans could not do it, why random poor chinese could be able to?

And fake rice legend was clearly by wealthy trying to make people not buy cheap, fullfilling food.

 

[Slav Power]

Oh look, the website that constantly claims it's not a porn site is getting directly affected by anti-porn site legislation and is crying about it.

Obviously the legislation is bullshit, won't stop kids from accessing porn, and is the government's foot in the doorstep to RealID for accessing the web, killing off all online privacy for good, and yes it should be opposed by everyone who has the two brain cells to look through the "save the kids" facade they've been using for decades to control the web.

But still, it won't stop being funny that e621 staff keeps saying they're "an art site that predominantly hosts NSFW content" instead of admitting that people don't go to e621 for the SFW stuff. I still hope that shit will get vetoed and every politician that pushes for it loses their position. Either tell the parents to do their job and keep an eye on their kid, or come up with a solution that won't affect online freedoms of everyone, or burn on a stake.

 

[Whatevermancer]

people don't go to e621 for the SFW stuff.

I go to e621 for SFW stuff.

 

[Murry Loon]

I go to e621 for SFW stuff.

you fucking retard, use e926.

 

[Whatevermancer]

you fucking retard, use e926.

I use rating:safe.

 

[Creative Username]

a solution that won't affect online freedoms of everyone

Considering that lawmakers can force them to do this crazy shit, they could also force them to make their HTTP server emit a simple header indicating content not suitable for minors. This would work well and not have any real drawbacks if certain other things were to happen: Parents taking charge, being responsible, and ensuring their kids are using browsers that unconditionally reject pages with these headers using a setting that's hard to disable. As if that's ever going to happen.

It sucks that the cleanest solutions are always impossible because of retards. And this is all assuming that lawmakers act for the betterment of society (lol) and that this isn't just the classic "think of the childerinos" façade to erode digital privacy, which it is.

 

[Murry Loon]

they could also force them to make their HTTP server emit a simple header indicating content not suitable for minors

and then all links/embeds & search engine results to these websites get deprioritized or omitted in favor of advertiser friendliness, drastically impacting revenue for many to create a sanitized internet. The perfectly sanitized AmaMetaX utopia. Eat the bugs!

 

[Whatevermancer]

Considering that lawmakers can force them to do this crazy shit, they could also force them to make their HTTP server emit a simple header indicating content not suitable for minors. This would work well and not have any real drawbacks if certain other things were to happen: Parents taking charge, being responsible, and ensuring their kids are using browsers that unconditionally reject pages with these headers using a setting that's hard to disable. As if that's ever going to happen.

It sucks that the cleanest solutions are always impossible because of retards. And this is all assuming that lawmakers act for the betterment of society (lol) and that this isn't just the classic "think of the childerinos" façade to erode digital privacy, which it is.

Then you would need the browser developers to honor this header. And the way they'd do it would probably be by showing a warning message where you need to press the "allow anyway" button, similarly to how they treat web pages without SSL nowadays.
So it would be up to parents to block children from accessing those websites, exactly the way it is now.

 

[Slav Power]

So it would be up to parents

It was ALWAYS up to parents, but most parents are incompetent idiots that are incapable of raising a child, so they give them a phone or a tablet with unrestricted access to the Internet, and despite the hundreds of parental control functionality available at their disposal, they do not want to put any effort into ensuring the safety of their child, and instead they cry to the big daddy government to do their job for them at the detriment to everyone else because fuck you, lazy entitled parents are more important than your privacy or freedom.

This has been the scheme ever since the Internet became a big thing and I have no idea how people still defend legislations like these because they're in that cute "protect the kids" wrapper. The other being the "stopping terrorism" wrapper, which is how PATRIOT Act got pushed through and how all the shit Snowden aired out was able to happen.

But I guess the world is full of double digit IQ retards that are incapable of thinking beyond "right here right now" and that'll always be the issue.

 

[Pax Romana]

Takes literally two seconds to access a VPN. Then again, don't tell them that, it might be a good wake up call when the porn addiction shakes begin to set in.

 

[TAB]

Bro, wait 'til you find out about the butt baby
oops, I meant to quote someone talking about beats dildos being illegal lol ah well

 

[Google.com]

How to be a terrible parent and sit your kid in front of a computer 24/7 without them watching porn. A guide for the mentally retarded

---

1. Make a non admin account for your child and don't give them the admin password. If your giving them a mobile device to rot their brain out, make downloading apps require a password.
2. Enable child protection settings on your device, allowing you to limit access and use times.
3. Go to your router settings and enable the child safety block list it probably has built in. If not buy one of the millions of easy to install internet child safety programs.
4. Since your too much of a retarded nigger to do any of this beg the government to fuck over the whole countries internet freedom

 

[Slav Power]

How to be a terrible parent and sit your kid in front of a computer 24/7 without them watching porn. A guide for the mentally retarded

---

1. Make a non admin account for your child and don't give them the admin password. If your giving them a mobile device to rot their brain out, make downloading apps require a password.
2. Enable child protection settings on your device, allowing you to limy access and use times.
3. Go to your router settings and enable the child safety block list it probably has built in. If not buy one of the millions of easy to install internet child safety programs.
4. Since your too much of a retarded nigger to do any of this beg the government to fuck over the whole countries internet freedom

Don't forget the "b-buh muh child's friends can show that stuff" copout that exists because parents collectively don't give a shit about keeping their kids safe, and if they collectively started giving a shit it wouldn't be a problem. The friend won't be able to show porn to others because he also has parental blocks and can't access it.

Collective responsibility leading to this issue disappearing, crazy concept, I know, very hard to conceptualize to an average parent.

 

[Doktor Grimm]

Collective responsibility leading to this issue disappearing, crazy concept, I know, very hard to conceptualize to an average parent.

Forgive my bluntness, but I fail to see how "collective responsibility" is anything other than a total sham. The vast majority of people aren't inclined to disrupt the status quo, because that's how we survive as a species. The reality is that most parents are social beings, just like everyone else, and if they see other parents giving their children unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age, they'll be inclined to do the same. Yes, that's bad parenting -- so what? If 90+% of parents are involved in bad parenting practices, then it's probably a sign that some external authority needs to step in and take control of the issue.

It'd be trivial to implement an ID system for porn that wouldn't involve handing your information over to anyone who didn't previously have access to it anyway. How would this negatively impact the average Joe? Or anyone who doesn't use the Internet to engage in actual illegal activity, for that matter? Frankly I don't really understand what makes "online privacy" such a major issue in the first place.

 

[Slav Power]

The reality is that most parents are social beings, just like everyone else, and if they see other parents giving their children unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age, they'll be inclined to do the same.

And when the push comes to shove, then they'll collectively get their shit together and change that. By going "this is the current state of affairs and it's bad but I can't be bothered to change it" you're part of the problem. The more parents start doing it, a domino effect will happen and now parents will collectively give a shit about their children. Needless to say, implementing systems like these, that affect everyone to protect a single group is idiotic.

If 90+% of parents are involved in bad parenting practices, then it's probably a sign that some external authority needs to step in and take control of the issue.

The government is not your friend. This "external authority" will always be the government, and the government hates you, and will use any excuse to take away your freedoms.

They'll always use situations like these as a perfect excuse to push privacy violating legislations, because they'll make it a trojan horse that cannot be vetoed, because then people will call you a pedophile for opposing a legislation that "protects the kids", even if in that very legislation there is a paragraph that gives the government the ability to apply this system to more than just porn sites.

It'd be trivial to implement an ID system for porn that wouldn't involve handing your information over to anyone who didn't previously have access to it anyway.

Since you seem to have the naivety of an infant, here's the kicker. Just because someone says their system won't keep any data doesn't mean that that will be the case. And if the government is implementing an ID system to access porn sites, they'll 100% design it in a way where they can keep track of all the citizens that access them.

How would this negatively impact the average Joe?

First: the government has no business in knowing which sites you visit. Second: once people get used to this violation of their privacy, the government will move on to implement an even egregious one, like needing ID verification to simply access the Internet, and that'll mean that the government will be able to track absolutely everyone's online activity directly associated with their real ID.

China didn't became a surveillance state overnight. They also did the same game of slowly adding more and more legislations that were more and more invasive. Democracy doesn't guarantee you that the same won't happen in the US or Europe. They'll just make you vote yourself into a totalitarian regime, or just train you to let it happen no matter how illegal it gets.

By the way, legality is also a funny concept. Who decides what's legal or not? The government. Who enforces the laws? The government. The government could outlaw plastic bottles overnight and now millions of law abiding citizens would become criminals.

Or anyone who doesn't use the Internet to engage in actual illegal activity, for that matter? Frankly I don't really understand what makes "online privacy" such a major issue in the first place.

Then please, share with us, complete strangers, detailed information about your daily life. Where you live, where you work, what you ate for breakfast, where you went at which time and for what purpose. You're not doing anything illegal, you're a law abiding citizen so it's okay to share this information with everyone, right? Write it down for everyone to see if you believe that online privacy is not a major issue.

Your first reaction will be "why would I share this information with strangers I don't know", and you'd be right to not share it. However, what makes this group of strangers less trustworthy than the other group of strangers, that is the corporations and the government? Is it because here, you have a direct human interaction, so you feel more wary about sharing this information, but when it comes to corporations and governments, those are faceless organizations that don't talk to you, therefore you're willing to share all that info with them? Or that when this information is shared passively without your awareness it's now okay? Has all the Zuckerberg hearings haven't taught you that they are also not to be trusted?

Your entire take is idiotic because it assumes that every human being on the planet is perfect and trustworthy and can do no wrong, therefore it is okay to let things like these happen because they won't ever abuse it to oppress people. This is the same assumption on which communism was built on, yet in practice it always failed, because we live in a very imperfect world full of untrustworthy people.

All of these anti-porn legislations are a trojan horse for the government to keep track of everything you do online, directly corelated to your real identity. And just because today you're a law abiding citizen, doesn't mean that tomorrow you'll be a fugitive, because what's legal or not is relative to what the government says, and the government wishes for nothing more than to be become a totalitarian state that has you on a leash, and will abuse any excuse they can get to accomplish that.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the system that is being proposed here is useless, kids will bypass it with a VPN or Tor, will still have easy access to the most extreme pornography, but the ID system will remain. The legislation didn't solve the issue it claimed to solve, but it gave the government the proverbial foot in the doorway to implement this system further.

That's how it always goes, the government never solves problems, it creates them to benefit them and not the people they're supposed to represent. Just look at National Firearms Act. Didn't solve the issue it claimed to solve, but created a new one, that affected legal gun owners negatively but gave the government more power.

If you still trust your government, you're a retard and you deserve to be put through a meat grinder, because the government has decided you have to become dog food, and who are you to defy your god.

 

[Murry Loon]

If 90+% of kiwis are involved in baiting people into suicide, then it's probably a sign that some external authority needs to step in and take control of the issue.

- - - -