7 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2020
  2. Jul 2020
  3. Jun 2020
    1. Popular media provided the only available information (Stahl & Lewis, 2003; Gurley, 2001), which suggested that furries had interests in zoomorphism and anthropomor-phism. These media portrayals were resoundingly unfavorable toward furries and empirically unfounded.

      A good example of this was the CSI: Miami episode "Fur and Loathing".

      According to the Reception section of the article on this episode on Wikipedia: "Toronto-based filmmaker Michael McNamara, who had been working on his own documentary episode on furry fandom, said that the CSI episode "portrayed the community as a community of sexual deviants who like to have sex in fur costumes" and expressed concern that "it winds up giving the whole fandom a bad name, which made them nervous and camera-shy, so it was tricky to get their trust".[2] He wrote that the deviancy "probably represents about two percent of fandom but it’s the one obviously that the press always gleefully jumps."[3] Greg Gaudio of The Virginian-Pilot wrote that "The steamier side of the Furry Fandom – sexual behavior involving animal costumes and stuffed animals – has grabbed media attention in recent years, most notably as the subject of a 2003 episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The episode showed attendees at a furry convention engaging in a costume-clad orgy"; however, one of the furry fandom attendees he interviewed replied that such behavior "only involves a tiny percentage of furries and is not something that’s part of the local scene."[4] Negative perception towards members of the furry fandom for purported sexual deviancy has been a historical shame(?) (<-- figure out correct word in annotated bibliography) amongst members of the furry community, and acts as a harmful stereotype despite the small percentage of furry fandom members participating in acts of plushophilia or autozoophilia.

  4. May 2020
  5. Aug 2018
    1. Contrary to what many have criticised as anexcessively idealistic Kant in the (in)famous exampleof the Categorical Imperative requiring us to tell thetruth even to those obviously bent on harm, Myskjapoints out that in Kant’s later work, a more realisticunderstanding of human nature and thereby, a morenuanced understanding of the role of deceptionemerges. Briefly, deception may take place for lessthan ideal reasons – but as deception allows us tohide our more negative characteristics while none-theless developing more virtuous character, it canhelp us become better persons. This role of deceptionfits wonderfully well with what is otherwise oftenregarded as a highly morally problematic dimensionof online communication – precisely that we can therehide our real selves.