Every time I see Twokinds art, I always wonder how Mark feels about his brother being a furry...

MTGNerd said:
Every time I see Twokinds art, I always wonder how Mark feels about his brother being a furry...

If I remember right, Tom says that he is not a furry.

redfox1221 said:
If I remember right, Tom says that he is not a furry.

He sure does draw a lot of furry art for someone who isn't a furry.

TinyVoices said:
He sure does draw a lot of furry art for someone who isn't a furry.

That's like saying that anyone who draws children is a pedophile.

Reian said:
That's like saying that anyone who draws children is a pedophile.

Wut

Maybe child porn, but not children by itself. What is your logic here?

redfox1221 said:
If I remember right, Tom says that he is not a furry.

He may not think he is a furry, but just look at his work for a second.

TinyVoices said:
Wut

Maybe child porn, but not children by itself. What is your logic here?

Drawing an anthropomorphic character makes one a furry as much as drawing a child makes one a predator. There is no direct correlation between the two things, that's all I'm saying. Doing one does not intrinsically make a connection to the other.

I'm not trying to draw any connection between furries and socially unacceptable behaviour so please don't misunderstand or read into this comment for meaning that wasn't intended.

Is it possible to enjoy skateboarding and yet not end up having oneself described as a "skater"?

Reian said:
Drawing an anthropomorphic character makes one a furry as much as drawing a child makes one a predator. There is no direct correlation between the two things, that's all I'm saying. Doing one does not intrinsically make a connection to the other.

I'm not trying to draw any connection between furries and socially unacceptable behaviour so please don't misunderstand or read into this comment for meaning that wasn't intended.

Is it possible to enjoy skateboarding and yet not end up having oneself described as a "skater"?

Nope, that's how the internet works. Deal with it.

(said no sane fucking person ever)

I'm bisexual, and I give a lot of leeway for guys who get blowjobs or fooled around as teenagers, just as I would not count a gay guy who dated girls in high school, but some limits must exist or words have no meaning.

If you skateboard, you may not be one of the die-hard grinders who breathe the sport, and you'll probably give up the sport (and the label) when your teenage mutant healing factor starts to go, but you're a skater. (And some old skaters so identify even when walkers replace their boards.) Tom may not enjoy some or a lot of aspects of the fandom -- I know I would rather die than wear a fursuit -- but Tom is a furphile to some extent.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

somercet said:
I'm bisexual, and I give a lot of leeway for guys who get blowjobs or fooled around as teenagers, just as I would not count a gay guy who dated girls in high school, but some limits must exist or words have no meaning.

If you skateboard, you may not be one of the die-hard grinders who breathe the sport, and you'll probably give up the sport (and the label) when your teenage mutant healing factor starts to go, but you're a skater. (And some old skaters so identify even when walkers replace their boards.) Tom may not enjoy some or a lot of aspects of the fandom -- I know I would rather die than wear a fursuit -- but Tom is a furphile to some extent.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Except that, typically, labels such as these are meant to identify enthusiasts, for lack of a better word. I wouldn't call the animators who worked on Merry Melodies, Ducktales, Thundercats, or any other piece of comparable work, except for -maybe- The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat, as "furries" even though the bulk of those works feature anthropomorphic characters.

Why, then, does Tom fit the bill? Because he draws them under a more sexually appealing aesthetic? I find that difficult to agree with since, well, need I say more than Krystal, Renamon, Lola Bunny, and rule 34?

"Furry", as with many labels of the like, is subjective. What one person may view as "furry" another may not. Just because you think Tom is a furry doesn't mean everyone does. In order for the label to actually fit, the person in question would have to accept it which Tom does not.

It is possible to skateboard without being a skater. It is possible to play video games without being a gamer. It is possible to ride a bike without being a biker. It is possible to draw anthropomorphic characters without being a furry.

Reian said:
That's like saying that anyone who draws children is a pedophile.

You have to admit, Tom does put his characters in alot of suggestive situations...

FusRoDerp said:
You have to admit, Tom does put his characters in alot of suggestive situations...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_service

Um... *cough*

Nice art!

WinterXat said:
Um... *cough*

Nice art!

Yes.
Good Art.
No Drama here at all.
Just a nice piece of art.
Ignore everything above Xat.

After following one of the longest post family trees I've ever seen to end up here several months after the fact, I feel I missed an opportunity to place this in the middle of the dispute, but I'll share anyway for those interested who may also stumble upon this, I suppose it may be another 'science with notquiteanon' like you may spot scattered about, social science edition.

Jonathan Ponikvar, author of Peter & Company, has gone through a similar issue of being included in the 'furry' label, which has a definite social stigma attached to it. This social stigma came recently, along with the mainstream use of the term 'furry', but was not always present. Ponikvar explains his stance here:

http://peterandcompany.tumblr.com/post/93156976442/the-furry-problem

And later apologizes for some parts that inadvertently could have been construed as homophobic, in case anyone's mindset may have done so.

The point stands, however, that, due to the sexual, and even heavily perverse connotation that the term 'furry' possesses in modern culture, some people do not wish to be associated with it, and justifiably so. There have been direct terrorist attacks on several conventions for fans of anthropomorphic creatures, from bomb threats to poisoning air supplies of entire hotels.

I submit that labels in any case breed hatred from those not included, and it is corroding modern society, but it is an unfortunate truth that our brains *need* labels and categorization to function properly without managing a mental file on each individual in existence, which would slow our decision-making process to a crawl. I digress, however.

Tom Fischbach has requested he not be associated with the term, and that is his decision, and therefore he should not be associated with the term, regardless of one's feelings on the matter, because the intrinsic denotation of the term 'furry' hinges on the personal preference of the described individual. Therefore the only one who can determine for certain if the label applies is the person in question.