601
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 96 points 11 months ago

Humphrey's bill, House Bill 3084, would ban "students who purport to be an imaginary animal or animal species, or who engage in anthropomorphic behavior commonly referred to as furries at school" from participating in class and school activities.

This is, hands down, the worst description of furries I have ever read in my entire life.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 46 points 11 months ago

Hell, it sounds like something Kindergarteners have been doing since forever.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I used to pretend to be a monster at that age. Would they have to call Monster Control?

(I was a nice monster, like on Sesame Street.)

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 27 points 11 months ago

So what I'm hearing is if I tell the teacher I'm a platypus I don't have to go to class?

Guaranteed if this law got passed there would be a high school somewhere where the entire student body shows up wearing cat ears.

[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Ironically also means that it basically wouldn't apply to anyone unless that person specifically wants it to. Performative outrage bill.

[-] Globeparasite@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

yeah you see you can't do the intelligent thing of just saying "you have to come to school with normal clothes on" which is literally what countries with a brain did. Also this is generally left to the school to set up. In France the law just says that a school is allowed to implement rules regarding clothing. Just simply think of P.E clothing. The law has a couple safeguard like you can't ban a specific outfit for being from another culture (obvious) and the rest is left for the school to decide

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Like basically every school in the US has a dress code already. Don't get this twisted into something else, this is purely performative nonsense by some backwoods inbred redneck.

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"What is my purport?"

"You are a furry"

"No"

[-] Grass@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

I mean the impression I had for like a decade was essentially this. Then a guy sent me links on how to be his specific type of fantasy creature. It was sergel or sergal iirc. It had some really weird backstory and lore to the species detailing how they were warlords or something and I was really weirded out. It was very much like how some kids I went to school with would loose it if you told them that they weren't whatever comic or movie character they were hyperfixated on, only more socially awkward and adults doing it.

Anyway I feel like that's as close as you can get without reading out someones entire backstory novel.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 13 points 11 months ago

...yeah that sounds about right for sergals, tbh

Generally speaking, once you get past the "traditional" species like foxes, rabbits, cats, etc., and start getting more into the esoteric fantasy/scifi species like sergals, protogens, and yinglets, the people who create characters for those species tend to fall into one of two camps:

  • super srs "you must follow this lore to the letter or I will end you, by which I mean I will post a FurAffinity journal for my 7 followers complaining about your character diverging from the lore that nobody will pay attention to" types

  • "oh this looks cool I'm gonna make one and put my own twist on the design" types

Funny story, the person who originally designed protogens tried to be the first type, but pretty much everyone ignored him and just did their own thing anyway

[-] Globeparasite@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

what the devil is that contraption your describing ? What is a protogens ?

I'M SCARED

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 2 points 11 months ago

They're literally fluffy cyborgs with an LED monitor display for a face lol

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 0 points 11 months ago
[-] Laurentide@pawb.social 0 points 11 months ago

I think (hope) they're referring to the last panel of that comic.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah but also why do people care that much about a one-off gag in a two-panel comic

It's like going "well ackshually if Superman tried to lift the plane like that he'd just rip off its nose" except even dumber

So many people need to remember the MST3K mantra: "it's just a TV show/movie/game/comic, I should really just relax"

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

You need to calm down buddy

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Literally the computer equivalent of a lobotomy has happened in that comic and their guardian is like "lol lmao". Idk why that Erkul guy is hella mad when I pointed out the plot

[-] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Don't be scared. Protogens run on 2015 Bayesian Inference search results from Google before Google became inherently evil.

So as long as long as they don't update...

[-] Globeparasite@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

so if we connect them to internet we die ? Is that right ?

[-] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

Sergal

It's originally from a Japanese series or something I'm not really well versed into that specific lore

[-] FlembleFabber@sh.itjust.works -2 points 11 months ago

How would you describe furries?

[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

The above description would fit many many circumstances that are not furry related or problematic at all. Saying "I'm a cat. no, really" or meowing or licking your hand would all fit that description, (except not really because the word anthropomorphic is used wrong), but don't mean a person is a furry. Moreover these behaviors by themselves don't cause any problems unless you imagine a bunch of other stuff that's not included in this definition.

So it is an overbroad law that allows prosecutors to apply it selectively and at the same time is very hard to defend against.

A better definition for the purpose of the law would describe some behavior that actually causes damage to society, like disrupting class or arresting kids at school for saying they are a cat.

A better definition of a furry would probably include some kind of pattern of behavior and the extent to which it impacts daily life, as here

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

I wouldn't use a definition that includes some kid prancing around race track pretending to be a horse. That's just kids being kids and politicians need to stop sexualizing them.

[-] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Not even sexualizing, right?

I love furry culture because I can see the art that's intended for Magic The Gathering cards before it goes into print.

The internet has to get over this furry shame and start collectively recognizing that a tail is like a necktie for your butt, and everyone should have one, because it's rather flattering.

this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
601 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12554 readers
277 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS