Jakkal (jakkal) wrote,
Jakkal
jakkal

  • Mood:
  • Music:

A therian rant.

I'll put this behind a cut so I don't have to subject you guys to something you couldn't care less about.

But this is something that's been eating away at me for a long time.



About a year ago, I started a Thread on TO about the terminology problems in the community. Now let me first mention that many people don't like all the terms we have. That's fine, no one makes you use them. We make them so people can better understand the full spectrum of the therianthropic experience. And to be honest, some of the stuff I put on SO was to be used as a writer's resource for shapeshifting information/types, as well as a 'no no' list of what we see, but don't like, in the community.

Moving on, I started that discussion thread because a lot of people were misusing the term Contherianthropy. One of the major problems with this term was that #1. One guy made the term to describe himself. #2. People were misusing it because it was "kind of close" to how they felt. #3. The definition isn't mutable because "one guy coined it" and really if you didn't fit, you simply were not a contherian. That didn't sit well with people.

So I started that discussion to find a new term to fit the people that fell short of Contherianthropy. And people, I've been part of the community for 10 years, I've got A LOT Of experience if anything from just reading the posts that people make and relating how they feel. That's what I do, compile the information at large in the community and post it for others to see and use. I saw LOTS of people, not only misusing contherianthropy, but -describing the same thing-.

After MUCH discussion, arguing, flat out fighting, we finally came to a concensus and a new term.

Enter the rant.

This one guy, ONE guy, that vehemently defended a misused stance on Contherianthropy decided to take it upon himself, jump the gun, and make his own fucking term, despite arguing that these people did not NEED a new term. He went 360 on his argument, and did the EXACT thing we were trying to -stop- with Contherianthropy.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm all for renaming contherianthropy and striking it from the record forever because of the problems it's caused.

But back to the rant at hand. This user went out of his way to stop the creation of a new term, and then, before anyone could compile the information and work TOGETHER on a term that would affect a great many people in the community, he went and made his own term, his own definition, and propagated it throughout the community. Enter Contherianthropy 2: The Headache Ensues.

After all the fighting, and the arguing and the more FIGHTING over this fucking term "Contherianthropy," all *I* wanted was a term FOR the people BY the people. I wanted us to work on it TOGETHER as a GROUP, like everything else that's been built on Shifters.Org. I wanted information from as MANY therians as possible. ANd this asshole has to stroke his ego to make his own fucking term and start the SAME fucking problems as Contherianthropy.

I will NEVER support the term "Suntherianthropy" for that very reason.

This HAS been eating away with me. I sat silent for a while for I didn't want to stop the exchange of information. If he wants to make his own term that's his deal. Yes I am upset that more people are starting to use it. And I ALREADY see Contherianthropy's legacy REPEATING itself.

Here is the term that has a definition created by more than one person, the very name itself was put up for debate. It was NOT made by a singular person. If you want to help the community, work with things WITH the community, NOT for yourself. http://therianthropy.org/so/flavors-v.htm

That is all. From one Ego Stroking Bitch to an Ego Stroking, Flip flopping, Argumentative asshole.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 11 comments