Talk:Fursecution

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is pretty weak and definitely needs some work to be any kind of funny. The whole "furry = sex with animals" thing is old meme and disappointingly uncreative. I'd suggest rewriting with an eye toward the suggestions in Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, paying close attention to the section on avoiding cliches and bias not being a replacement for humor. —Mad Anthony Wayne 09:01, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, other people have thought it was pretty funny. Maybe you're not completely understanding its point, though; it's meant to mock furry bashers who don't really know anything about furries (which seems to be a lot of them), not the furries themselves. - Mandaliet 20:05, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Have you considered discussing Republicanism with Nerd42? I'm sure you'd get along famously - David Gerard 01:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
One would hope there's enough creative folks here to bring Uncyclopedia some higher quality humor instead of just trying to be another lame-ass Encyclopedia Dramatica ripoff, which totally fails to be funny at all. —Mad Anthony Wayne 06:22, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss this in much greater detail. I need material for the "furries" section of my planned Cat Piss Man article - David Gerard 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconded MAW. I get the impression from Un- that it's a lack of content, not that the content is satire... - ME2
It may seem on the surface to be a ripoff of Encyclopedia Dramatica, but it's actually a parody of it. The obvious sarcasm is there for anyone to see. As for it being done before, it may have but I haven't seen it personally and so it's still funny for me. 8) -Kotra 07:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals?[edit]

There has to be more to work with here than just the "oh, it's about sex" angle. Perhaps take the position that furries actually are whichever animal they seek to personify. Have PETA try to save them as poor defenseless cute li'l animals, or go with something related to the fr:chasse au phoque and the seal-hunt protests. That innocent-looking baby seal? A deadly armed terrorist in a fursuit.

Another possibility is to go with the Little Red Riding Hood angle - that's no lady wolf, that's a mean old grandma in a fursuit, trying to lure some poor defenseless critter so that he can end up as her new fur coat. Or that the Three Little Pigs are undercover secret police in fursuits busily engaged in some heinous form of entrapment. Or are they not kosher? Or, if that's been done to death, build a guerrilla army attired entirely in gorilla costumes and let Darwin decide their fate. --Carlb 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

External links, but not lynx...[edit]

Not lynx? Does that mean the links are OK to follow if I'm using firefox? Or is that a furry creation too, brought aboard the ark by none other than Joan of Arc herself? Verily, the furries doth pair by pair stow away upon the Ark by disguising themselves as Unicorns, and upon realising the Deception, the Lord in His infinite anger doth run the Ark aground upon the Mount of Ararat, whereupon the furries escaped by fleeing into the woods and disguising themselves as other animals. They dare not show their true faces for fear of the Lord's wrath...--Carlb 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

heh, well that was funny but lynxes are a kind of wildcat. The browser was named after them I assume. As far as I know lynxes aren't common animals for furries but there probably are lynx furries somewhere. I mean, there's freakin SLUG furries, if that makes any sense. -kotra 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again, perhaps a parody should use choices which aren't common animals for furries... maybe even a few bizarre choices. For instance, a furry appearing as a mosquito would probably turn out to be your ex-spouse (and would suck all of the lifeblood out of you!)

Furries throughout history?[edit]

What are famous animals throughout the ages? And are they all members of a furry conspiracy?

  • The snake from the Garden of Eden. Not only a furry, but (ewww...) an Apple user.
  • Jonah, assuming the whale costume was actually an oversize fursuit borrowed from a big beautiful woman friend.
  • Hannibal's elephants, part of a furry conspiracy to trample the masses.
  • Mrs O'Leary's cow. Definitely a terrorist from Al-Cowda, cleverly disguised in a fursuit.
  • Jaws. Definitely a lawyer. In a fursuit. Ewww.... --Carlb 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be more subtle.[edit]

It's pushing it's sarcasm in your face.69.160.28.78 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, it's already too subtle for some people (see the first comment on this page). -kotra 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

...This is just mean[edit]

I myself am a furry, and find this article offensive... ITS NOT TRUE, NOT ONE BIT OF IT!

Nothing on this website is true. We aim to be not true about everything. (Between you and me? Furries are kinda cute. aww, lookit the lil' cartoon character...) Contestant buzzer.JPG Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Except the whole article was based on the freakin persecution of furries. What did you expect this to be? A furry recruition article? A article defending furries?. For gods sake it said Fursecution in the name it should have been obvious what the article was about.

This article makes fun of fursecution. It is satirical. It takes all the stupid ignorances people have about furries and wraps them all up into an exaggerated, sarcastic package. This is a common type of humor here on Uncyclopedia, and it shouldn't have to be explained over and over.... -kotra 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible.[edit]

This entire article is the same joke recycled over and over again. And its this self-righteous victim act that makes people hate furries in the first place. That's what should be satirized here, not the plot to murder you all in your sleep that you like to pretend exists.

Hi, I wrote the original article a long time ago. Naturally I don't think your version is as good as mine, but oh well; I don't do much with this site anymore. I'm not a furry, or at least I don't think I am. I wrote this out of annoyance at people who hate something so strongly yet haven't bothered to learn much about it. In my experience, that kind of furry hater is much more common than the "we hate you because you're too full of yourselves" kind. Anyway, I think that's a really lame reason to hate a whole group of people, and only a small minority of furries I've come across are actually like that. (Your mileage may vary.)—Sir Mandaliet CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely due to the fact that most furries will erupt into the stereotypical hissy fit far easier when goaded with "furries are sick fucks are should be shot". Most people don't hate them per say, but they are the most easily trolled targets who ever existed. People troll them for the same reason that people argue with fundies. Reactions are quite easy to be had. In reality, the vast majority of furries really are complainers, unless there's this huge city of furries who are entirely unlike the majority hiding behind a curtain. The "minority" argument I've heard far too often, but unless all the good furries are avoiding me somehow, I don't see the validity in that statement. I believe it stems from the fact that when you're on someones side and their trolled and made a fool of, you don't really see it.


The current version that MahdiSujjivan has written is just like the rest of the Internet. The old version had something original: it put a new twist on the continuously rehashed Encyclopedia Dramatica-style stereotypes. But now, it's just the same as ED, SA, etc. At least the old version an original joke to recycle over and over again, instead of a bunch of predictable jokes based on stereotypes that have been repeated constantly since 2003. Disappointing. -kotra 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what "twist" you're talking about in regards to the original article. I only saw one joke in the whole thing, "omg furries are disgusting lol." There is absolutely no comedic value in repeating the same joke over and over again. Frankly, the few of you who have complained about my article(far fewer than who complained about the original) are proving that a very small and vocal community is highly defensive and fond of playing victim under any circumstance, which was the point of my article in the first place.-MahdiSujjivan

Fork[edit]

I've put the new article under a new title - David Gerard 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)