A taste of Real Politics
Nov. 6th, 2006 09:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechEven as we're* about to be swamped with a barrage of political ads, one of the fandom's I'm involved in has gotten a taste of politics on a more personal level. A furry art site (a gallery) got themselves embroiled in a HUGE blowup about whether to allow pedophilic artwork (under a variant of the, "they're not children, they're 500 year old elves who just -look- like children," justification). The owners of the site made a decision based on politically altruistic and (IMO) martyr-esque feelings.
I wonder if people will make the connection: that this is -- in miniature -- the reason why things happen in Washington? There are many good men and women in office: what makes them vote for something they are clearly against: The war in Iraq...compromising civil liberties...turning a blind-eye towards immoral or blatently illegal activities?
That's politics, boss!
One mistake the site-owners made (again, IMO): this is a private site, not a government site. They didn't -have- to allow that art under free-speech laws. Using those legal arguments isn't necessary (unless they're trying to hide behind them to justify their actions). They own the site, they make the decisions. While they claim their conclusion is based on truly noble aspirations (freedom of speech, artistic freedom, the rights of Man, etc.), their action boils down to one of personal ego and the self-flattering image of being a hero in the fight for what's right. Yeah. You're -just- like the students at the barricade. Hoo-rah.
A point they ignore is what the consequence of their action is. Cheers for idealistic puffery-- but even as they give themselves pats on their backs for doing the "right" thing, they drove away large numbers of high-end artists. Many of those who left were against the topic morally; others couldn't risk careers and lives being associated with a site that is now seen as supporting that kind of activity (regardless of how the site-owners protest: actions define you more than words).
Did the creators of Fur Affinity lose sight of why they made the community in the first place? I'm guessing their goal was to become a popular creative destination where talented people come to post their art (writing, etc.) and to be the primary stop when people go to look for the latest anthropomorphic stuff. Their actions speak of a short-sighted, lack of maturity: do the noble, heroic thing (for personal glory) ... but forget -why- they put all that work into making such a site in the first place. Sure, they're popular within the porn community-- at the loss of the primary reason they made the site in the first place.
What does that leave the owners with? A site associated with a distasteful (very) subject and likely to turn into a magnet for more of the same and a membership notably lacking well-known artists and writers. That means viewers are unlikely to go there first. The result? A once-popular site that was growing by leaps and bounds suddenly takes a left turn towards a future as a third-rate site with an unfortunate reputation for porn and mediocre fan art. Just like the dozens of other mediocre, porn-filled art sites. Except they still have to put the same amount of energy into a project with none of the goals they set out to achieve.
The owners even took a poll (essentially a "vote") and those opposing the topic won...by -one- vote. Still, a majority is a majority. Why take a poll if they're going to ignore the results anyway? They use the closeness of the poll to justify going against the consensus-- but that's just picking and choosing the facts that support their (personal) decision. They're saying, "We'll use this legal justification here...but ignore this poll here because that doesn't support what we want to do." Classic political rhetoric
Democracy is a nice luxury, but the best-run sites seem to be those who have benevolent tyrants running them. On the other hand, this has been a boon to another site (Jaxpad/Artspots), who had been a distant second to Fur Affinity.
Why do I care? I don't, personally. I have a number of artist-friends who are upset at the demise (in their eyes) of a once-great site and having to delete/move their galleries. Mainly I find this an interesting study in how something that seemed to have everything going for it makes one decision that causes the whole thing to unravel. This is an interesting study in how-why things happen in political situations. Plus I'm avoiding some work.
*Here in the US, that is...
I wonder if people will make the connection: that this is -- in miniature -- the reason why things happen in Washington? There are many good men and women in office: what makes them vote for something they are clearly against: The war in Iraq...compromising civil liberties...turning a blind-eye towards immoral or blatently illegal activities?
That's politics, boss!
One mistake the site-owners made (again, IMO): this is a private site, not a government site. They didn't -have- to allow that art under free-speech laws. Using those legal arguments isn't necessary (unless they're trying to hide behind them to justify their actions). They own the site, they make the decisions. While they claim their conclusion is based on truly noble aspirations (freedom of speech, artistic freedom, the rights of Man, etc.), their action boils down to one of personal ego and the self-flattering image of being a hero in the fight for what's right. Yeah. You're -just- like the students at the barricade. Hoo-rah.
A point they ignore is what the consequence of their action is. Cheers for idealistic puffery-- but even as they give themselves pats on their backs for doing the "right" thing, they drove away large numbers of high-end artists. Many of those who left were against the topic morally; others couldn't risk careers and lives being associated with a site that is now seen as supporting that kind of activity (regardless of how the site-owners protest: actions define you more than words).
Did the creators of Fur Affinity lose sight of why they made the community in the first place? I'm guessing their goal was to become a popular creative destination where talented people come to post their art (writing, etc.) and to be the primary stop when people go to look for the latest anthropomorphic stuff. Their actions speak of a short-sighted, lack of maturity: do the noble, heroic thing (for personal glory) ... but forget -why- they put all that work into making such a site in the first place. Sure, they're popular within the porn community-- at the loss of the primary reason they made the site in the first place.
What does that leave the owners with? A site associated with a distasteful (very) subject and likely to turn into a magnet for more of the same and a membership notably lacking well-known artists and writers. That means viewers are unlikely to go there first. The result? A once-popular site that was growing by leaps and bounds suddenly takes a left turn towards a future as a third-rate site with an unfortunate reputation for porn and mediocre fan art. Just like the dozens of other mediocre, porn-filled art sites. Except they still have to put the same amount of energy into a project with none of the goals they set out to achieve.
The owners even took a poll (essentially a "vote") and those opposing the topic won...by -one- vote. Still, a majority is a majority. Why take a poll if they're going to ignore the results anyway? They use the closeness of the poll to justify going against the consensus-- but that's just picking and choosing the facts that support their (personal) decision. They're saying, "We'll use this legal justification here...but ignore this poll here because that doesn't support what we want to do." Classic political rhetoric
Democracy is a nice luxury, but the best-run sites seem to be those who have benevolent tyrants running them. On the other hand, this has been a boon to another site (Jaxpad/Artspots), who had been a distant second to Fur Affinity.
Why do I care? I don't, personally. I have a number of artist-friends who are upset at the demise (in their eyes) of a once-great site and having to delete/move their galleries. Mainly I find this an interesting study in how something that seemed to have everything going for it makes one decision that causes the whole thing to unravel. This is an interesting study in how-why things happen in political situations. Plus I'm avoiding some work.
*Here in the US, that is...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 06:41 pm (UTC)There are times for voting and there are times for just making decisions based on what you know is or is not the right course of action.
That being said, I sympathize greatly with the admins on a certain level over this particular issue. Furry critters don't have birthdates or ID Cards, and an awful lot of art leaves it very much up to the discretion of the viewer how old anyone is. Sure, some of it is obvious -- but then you are diving into subjectivity when deciding whether to ban something or not. ("Well, there is a size difference, but the clothes suggest...") So many of the toony-style critters people draw sure LOOK young to most people's eyes...
Once the issue came up, there was no winning. Choose to allow and people defect on moral grounds (with every right to do so). Choose to ban and people from BOTH sides will start watching you like a hawk for messups. Choose to ignore it and you implicitly allow it.
Now I fear things will get even worse. The acceptance will draw people out of the woodwork to post LOTS of that kind of art (as well as the loss of some good artists as well, as you mentioned). It is only a matter of time before that attracts unwanted attention from outside (if not sooner if someone disgruntled by the decision helps the process along), and that will ultimately cause problems for everyone.
Democracy is a wonderful thing, but sometimes the will of the people NEEDS to be discounted in the name of the greater good. The trouble is always when and whether it is truly justified -- and that's where you get a lot of the stuff we are seeing in the US Government right now...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 07:04 pm (UTC)No win: yeah, but that's what dictatorships are for. Figure out what the purpose or goal you have is and make the decision. Putting it out for public debate just opens you up to disasters just like this one.