A taste of Real Politics

[furtech]

Even 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...

Comments

[skiefire.livejournal.com]

Its a horrible issue to deal with. Each choice ends up with bad outcomes on both sides for all party's.

I think one of the main problems with banning it outright is where would it stop? Knowing this community, there would easily be another drama in 6 months time over something else, as there are plenty of other 'vices' on FA that people could demonize.

Preyfars journal has been pretty interesting reading regarding the whole issue. http://preyfar.livejournal.com/

[brerandalopex.livejournal.com]

[Brer] I think Ambassador Kosh would say "Democracy is a three-edged sword". On one hand you have to listen to the will of the people, but on the other hand leaders are (supposedly anyway) in those positions because they know BETTER than the man-on-the-street what should be done.

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...

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I knew almost nothing about this, as I've always maintained a gallery myself rather than use any gallery sites.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Yeah-- the admins were in a hard place. I was surprised that Preyfar was involved and that-- even with his involvement-- that things got so far out of hand. He's usually a better thinker than that.

Opening up the issue to public debate was a mistake (IMO). All that does is give people a soapbox to stand on and cause people (many of whom would have never voiced any opinion) to grow into a mob where feelings run hot. They should have quietly banned the work, tyrant-style and moved on. There are more specialized places for the various fetish interests.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

You make good points. Three-edged sword is right! There's also the issue of public figures: as a publisher, how many times have you held your tongue because of the public profile you present? We have so many good examples of public figures (movie stars, politicians, etc.) who speak candidly and spend the rest of their lives trying to fix the mess.

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.

[frysco.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned in someone else's journal, I'm glad that I only host people's websites, not run an open gallery.

I've been involved with and still am involved in enough fandom politics. I don't need to saddle myself with more.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

That's the way to go: your own world, where you have absolute control over the place. I'm guessing that the popularity of public sites like FA is the community: a clearinghouse where people can go to see stuff in one place. Also many artists have the programming skills of a beagle: these places are usually easy to use.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

...so ya' wanna open up a gallery and do it right?

[theassassinnox.livejournal.com]

I was going to make an account there as it seemed like a decent place. No more.
Hopefully artists will leave the group and perhaps the site owners will see that they are driving people away.

Yuck on the whole issue.

~S

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've thought about putting up some art at one of those places. I technically have a deviantart site, because I signed up in order to view some stuff, and it is a good way to get traffic. But I just would rather have full control of things. (And really, learning enough html to have a gallery doesn't take much work...)

[skiefire.livejournal.com]

Making it public served the "democracy!" part while setting themselves up for a fall. Once you ask peoples opinions, especially on the internet, everything becomes polarized and you lose any chance at a quiet decision. Especially when its about a touchy subject such as this.

Personally I would have set up another domain for anything more risqué than standard porn and have it as a separate sister site (Fur Deviancy?). Similar to how ytmnd dealt with their issues of not safe for work material. It dosent quite fix the issue, but it means FA is no longer hosting things that make people scream 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' while also allowing a place to have that sort of work in the FA style of free expression. Of course, you'd have to make sure it didn't become solely dedicated to cub art.

Good thing I didn't have to make that decision, eh Comrade?

[frysco.livejournal.com]

Heck no! :>

[desertcoyote.livejournal.com]

Well said. Personally, I still can't believe they even questioned whether they should allow child porn, much less vote in the end that it is tolerable, but that's my (strongly held) opinion, I suppose. I had been considering joining that site but not anymore, obviously. (Like you said, Jaxpad/Artspots will probably benefit from this- I just signed up yesterday, in fact! ;))

[westly-roanoke.livejournal.com]

I signed up for Jaxpad/artspots.

But I'm still on FA. I don't have a snowflakes chance in hell at getting a gallery on ArtSpots...and, I want to host somewhere.

I've got my own gallery at my own website. Does it see any traffic? Ever?

No.

Does my Webcomic see any traffic? 3,500 hits a year is...probably me checking to be sure the HTML hasn't screwed up.

That's what these types of sites are for. To get seen, to get comments, crits, help, encouragement.

So I'm going to stick my shitty art wherever I possiably can.

And hope Prefar comes around, realizes it's NOT a democracy, it's a fuckin' Dictatorship, and what he says goes.

[westly-roanoke.livejournal.com]

To those artists who have the programming skills of a Beagle...

Hire me!

http://sacred-sites.sacredgroundscomic.com

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

extremely well-put posting, all-in-all.. wows.
I barely ever went there, for the same reasons I don't go to VCL... always too much keeerap to wade through before seeing worthwhile stuffs. Hopefully Jaxpad will take off where Yerf ended, if the latter doesn't return.

And your words "the best-run sites seem to be those who have benevolent tyrants running them" rings true oddly enough, isn't that strange? Democracy was designed to avoid the periods of non-benevolent tyrants, but when the King is good, it's pretty darn great.

and oh... I might substitute something like Patriarch/Matriarch/Ruler instead of tyrant, since a singular guiding hand doesn't necessarily mean it's tyrannical.. heh... in fact, probably isn't benevolent if it's a tyrant... ;>

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Yeah-- much better to be in the audience than a participant in that mess.

The problem with creating a new domain (and I -do- think that's a good idea/solution) is that a big reason Cubbers want their art on a "mainstream" gallery is the ironic complaint that, "...but no one goes to the XXX site!" Those artists want attention and viewership-- regardless of the fact that most of that audience is unappreciative or actively hostile towards it.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of problems today that could be solved if certain people were made King of the U.S. for a day. The first thing -I'd- do is enact laws and give directives to all judges about "personal responsibility/stupidity is no excuse". Make this a less litiginous society. I envy countries where judges kick out people with stupid lawsuits like spilling hot coffee in your lap (while driving!).

[furtech.livejournal.com]

It's one thing to "do the right thing" and a totally different situation when you forget what that right thing is. Like many politicians, the FA folk embraced the banner of personal freedom while ignoring the issue of how it affects the group. The opposite extreme happens quite a lot as well (look at the smoking/no-smoking legislation).

[furtech.livejournal.com]

3,500 hits a year is...probably me checking to be sure the HTML hasn't screwed up.

That made me laugh-- sounds like something -I'd- do...(except I'd be checking to see if anyone else had even looked at the site/pic).

Good point on why public archives vs. personal ones. So much easier to go to one site and check up on hundreds of artists than to even hit a couple of dozen personal sites to see if anything new has been added. That makes a lot of sense.

re:Preyfar-- it's too late for changing their decision. While reversing it might bring back a few artists, the momentum they had is gone (mostly swinging to JAX). And changing their minds would lose them the only thing they think they've won: their integrety. At this point they just have to live with the result, unfortunately.

[westly-roanoke.livejournal.com]

The other good thing about having galleries is, well, I'm lazy when it comes to the internet. I want updates delivered *to* me. When I sign on FA, all I do is check the upper right hand corner and see if anyone's updated. If not, I move on.

It's not so much about bringing the artists back. I couldn't care less if people left due to their own personal views. I'm just still there, and I personally don't want to see it. (And you know that these people won't be able to figure out how to filter correctly...) It's mostly now for the people who haven't left.

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

So tell me how all the artists who were previously hanging their artwork next to pieces depicting rape and other non-consentual acts (such as murder) are acting morally by leaving now- or is it just another case of furry drama?

Or for that matter why a site that is for the promotion of art (as much as furry stuff can be called art) should censor certain acts but leave other equally morally abhorrent acts in place?

Guardian-ward

[furtech.livejournal.com]

The key difference is that children (and pets for that matter) are wards: they have-- and require-- guardians. The duty of a guardian is -not- to exploit a ward that does not have the ability or experience or thought processes to understand the situation fully. The duty of the guardian is to protect their ward until such time as society or law declares them knowledgeable or experienced or mature enough to be responsible for their own actions (in the case of pets, that's never).

-That- is the reason that I (and I think many others) believe there is a critical difference between unpleasant subject matter and morally reprehensible subject matter.

Re: Guardian-ward

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

I definitely accept and agree with that definition- but the question still stands as to what sets depictions of acts with children aside from depictions of acts with animals or of rape or murder? All four are exploitative in nature. To me it seems that the artists who were aware that this other subject material was present on the site and are just now up in arms because of the ToS change are saying they were tacitly accepting the other material.

Then there is the discussion that artwork is not reality, that a depiction of an act is not the act itself- though that does seem obvious to anyone who watches any R-rated gangster movie with people being killed left and right... that's a whole other dimension itself.

Please don't misinterpret my aim- I'm not looking to convince you or any of the artists who left that your decision was wrong. There are plenty of options available to artists in terms of hosting work for people to see, and I support anyone who wants to leave. I understand some artists aren't going to want to have their artwork on a site which allows provocative works - I'm just curious as to why *now* versus before, especially by artists who create art within the other 3 genres I outlined above.

FA is in a nice little predicament over this situation. FA doesn't want to dictate morality to its membership, but by doing so is going to upset those with stricter moral codes that what is permissible by law. It'd be nice if they could have programmed the site correctly from the outset (which I suppose would be to have the highest level of filtration applied to each image, and the artist responsible for lowering the rating- and the users be defaulted to having to opt-in to whatever rating they were comfortable with.) That still is not going to go far enough for a lot of folks, though.

Re: Guardian-ward

[furtech.livejournal.com]

I can't speak with authority because I haven't been following this from the beginning. I believe that there had always been a grumbling about the pedo stuff both because those artists disliked the subject matter and because some believed it violated the original ToS. What brought the debate to the for (read: flame way/drahma) was the admins addressing the issue and allowing for public comment and polls and such. Suddenly all of those disgruntled users had a focus and the pedo-artists saw a threat, the result being *boom!*

discussion that artwork is not reality

That's a HUGE philosophical debate that even the Big Boys couldn't settle, so I'll pass on this aspect.

FA's predicament is of their own making: they lost sight of their goals, got caught up in all the attention of the ensuing drahma, and forgot that they can make the rules because it's their site! If they had quietly said, "No more pedo art" or "We hear your complaints about pedo art so we're making better filters," the whole issue might have just died out. Instead they opted to build barricades and wave big red flags and revel in the moment. At this point it's too late to change their course (IMO).