Are some definitions of 'furry' are more valid than others?
Really interesting post by @Crispix:
(emphasis in 2nd paragraph mine)
https://e621.net/forum/show/191571
Crispix said:
I think some of your issue here may stem from semantics around the terms "not furry" and "furry" on e621. The word is being used in a different sense than you are expecting, I think.
When defining something as "not_furry" for tagging purposes on e621, we are using the term "furry" purely to mean "of interest to the furry fandom". Furry/Not Furry is used in this case more along the lines of how you would use the term when referring to a "Furry Convention" or to a "Furry Art Website". It's a categorization of general interest.
It is NOT based on if the characters in the picture are anthropomorphic animals or have any anthro traits.
The definitions in the not_furry wiki try to clearly define things according to whether or not each thing would be "of interest to a furry fan":
Didn't notice this part, which is an interesting statement;
What exactly would count as "of interest to the furry fandom"?
I ask because I've seen people upload images onto e621 (presumably a 'furry fandom-based' site), only to have it flagged and tagged as not_furry by others
If someone, who is presumably a member of the site, uploads content relevant to their interest, does that mean it's considered furry?
-
Basically, what I'm asking is this:
Are some definitions of 'furry' are more valid than others?
- If so, why?
- If not, why do we even have a not_furry tag in the first place?
Updated by anonymous