Except you are confusing reputation with purpose. The stated core purpose of the Taliban is pretty damn vile, whereas wearing stupid animal suits is largely innocuous.
I'm not talking about "purpose" I'm talking about reputation alone.
The Taliban has a bad reputation. Furries have a bad reputation. That is all I am equating, and "why" the reputation sticks is a moot point, because a reputation is still a reputation, regardless of how "deserved" it is, and why it was earned.
All the negative things associated with furrydom, the whining, the creepyness, the smut etc., are all secondary to the core of the hobby (or whatever the fuck it is), which seems to be little more than an excessive appreciation for Disney characters and suchlike.
Except there is no consensus in the furry community of what makes a furry a "furry"... and if there is, this "consensus" seems to shift rapidly depending on what is convenient to say in order to win an argument. Many like the sexual aspect, many claim that the sexual aspect is totally a side thing and don't pay attention and don't look over there and that's NOT ME THAT'S THEM, etc etc etc...
You should be ready to expect it, but accept it? I think not. You are automatically assuming that a group's infamy is justified, and it isn't necessarily. Again poor reputation from a few vocal outlier examples, where the infamy is not justified, is not the same as collective intent, where it is.
The world do not care whether it is justified. It still exists. Stereotypes don't catch on because they are morally justifiable, they catch on because they are memetically strong; they are striking, simple, and they fit within people's existing world-views, to name a few characteristics. Think of it like a virus of the mind. It's going to spread, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes it, until it is replaced with a different stereotype.
That does not mean the stereotype is justified. Some stereotypes have some basis behind them, but many (if not most) do not. Just because a lot of intellectually lazy people subscribe to an unjustified stereotype does not somehow justify the stereotype. Just because a lot of people do something wrong does not make it right.
Like I said, whether stereotypes are "correct" or not has no bearing on whether or not they exist. You may disagree with the stereotype, even find it reprehensible (example: "uneducated, drug-dealing black man" stereotype) but the stereotype still exists in people's minds. It is still a stereotype.
I think you are probably mistaken there as well. Are you certain they are trying to use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or are they merely saying that the majority of furries are not like the creeps? There is a difference, and the latter is a valid argument. I can't really see any intelligent furries trying to claim the creepers aren't also furries, because they obviously are. Voluntarily running around in a silly animal costume == furry, and claiming otherwise is preposterous. To use the motorcycle example again, it would be like the American Motorcyclist Association claiming the Hells Angels don't ride motorcycles. I can, however, see furries claiming that only a very small percentage of furries are creepers. I don't know if that claim is true or not, but I can see it as a valid argument they would actually try to make.
Not quite.
If the community ostracizes a certain part of them (i.e. "the creepy furries") they are making a distinction that labels the "creepy" ones as a different group altogether by explicitly distancing themselves from the "creepy" ones. Thus, they are still using the fallacy.
Again, are all furries attention seekers, though? Or do you only notice the attention seekers because they are the ones seeking attention, while the quiet ones who keep their weirdness to themselves go unnoticed, thereby skewing the perception of the whole?
I never said all furries were attention seekers. I said I don't fit the description of the archetypical furry we're making fun of in this thread so I can't understand the reasoning behind their autism because it makes sense only inside their brains.
I'm going to describe my thought process as it would happen in response to a furry trying to convince me using those arguments. I mean this as respectfully as possible so that you can understand why their arguments fall on deaf ears to the common person. I feel this is the best way to elucidate my point.
We agree that most people only notice the attention seekers, just like you said. That's all anyone notices; the obnoxious ones. This is true with any group, and I'm glad we agree on that. What I'm saying is that I am perfectly justified in noticing the ones that are easy to notice and coming to a conclusion based on those, even if that conclusion does not incorporate the ones who "keep it to themselves" and "go unnoticed", because it is not my responsibility to do in-depth research on the fringes and subcultures of every weirdo I come across because frankly, I have a lot of other shit to worry about and I don't care enough. The effort required is not worth it to me because I gain nothing in return. Fully understanding the intricacies and niches of this person's subculture is irrelevant to me (and not worth my time) because their identity is not important information to me unless they are a close friend/family member, in which case it is a moot point because I am already (hopefully) judging them based on their individual personality and not the stereotypes associated with their cultural identities.
As a non-furry, as a common man, as an outsider, I am prioritizing information such as "Do I need to get gas on the way home?" "Are my bills going to get paid this month?" Not things like "Hmm, I wonder if some arbitrary portion of these people are super-chill to hang out with and also normal as fuck and NOT creepy."
Really, how
could I possibly know about the ones who keep to themselves and go unnoticed? They go unnoticed. Therefore I do not notice them. That's... what the word means.
So, all I am left with is the ones who can't shut the fuck up, the ones I see first, and obviously I do not like those ones (nobody does, apparently) Does this make me a bad person who uses evil stereotypes? No, it makes me a functioning adult. It makes me the kind of people who these furries run into every day and inadvertently cause them to cry persecution.
You are tarring a group with a very wide brush and trying to claim that is their own fault. Just because a lot of other people also do that does not make it right. Nobody deserves that. Not even furries.
I've already responded to the comments of morality, so I'll address something else instead - rather than pinning the responsibility on me (which, for reasons I have discussed, will literally
never accomplish anything) why doesn't the furry community take responsibility for the nutcases it has? Why not do something about it? Why not hold the community to higher standards? Why continue to allow the "creepy" furries to act the way they do, despite the fact that it they are bringing the "normal" furries down with them? They are the only ones in this equation who are truly reprehensible. The root of the problem begins and ends with them, and it always has. The more you tolerate their destructive behavior, the more they will continue to do it.
tl;dr: Why force the world to change to accommodate you? Why not change yourself, or your community? If people view the furry community as fucking nutcases, that's probably because there are nutcases in the community. If these nutcases cease to exist, this view will no longer exist. It is a very simple thing.
