I have only ever heard bad things about unions when people talk about when they were in a union

When I got an envelope telling me how I could sign up for the union at my work and read the cost I threw it in the trash.

well you would have to define what a union is.

if a group of people team up in a company, is that not a union? You have to be very careful to define what and what is not considered a union. Any group of people usually form a structure of leadership.

it is not

teaming up for the sake of negotiation is collective bargaining

Union is an organization

and when is the line crossed?

when the group teaming up gives itself a name?

Have administration and charge members

what if they didn't charge members, but accepted donations?

In that case would depend but leans away from being a typical Union

this is why i say you have to be careful what is and is not considered a union

Course, if it is something that accepts donations, sounds like it is highly susceptible to corruption

Isnt a Union just like an Alliance?

a group formed by individual units working towards a common goal?

any power structure is highly susceptible to corruption.

hence why people should be allowed to leave, and not forced to pay things if not involved.

in a workers Union, the goal is for fair treatment etc

European union has a goal of working together to improve overal status

etc?

Generally when people talk about unions they are talking about the ones with administrations and cost of admission

workers unions that is

and that is why they currently suck, at least in america.

but the idea of what is a "typical" union is probably different depending on cultures.

I'm talking about American

so, if you define a union as a collective of workers banding together in a group that expands outside any specific company, in an effort to remain connected and informed so they are not taken advantage of by their employer, then i say there can be times when they are necessary, but they are not always necessary.

however, if you are talking about what is especially legal mafia's, which is what current unions in the US are like, i agree they are not necessary.

yes I am talking about the legal mafias

yes, i agree. hence why i said they have too much power

The first one I might call collective bargaining

I think social media would be better if users hosted their content on their own platforms and third party apps could inject user content into their feeds instead of platforms like YouTube controlling all of the data and forcing users to comply with their restricting terms of service

you'd get the same issue,

the app could block the feeds/links/content from being sent over

Apps could still restrict content from their feeds but they couldn't monopolize the content and would allow for dozens of apps being able to share the same content.

the clips would still have to be hosted from somewhere, which would be susceptible too

There are hundreds of hosting companies world wide, it's unlikely all of them would activity sensor clips and even if that were to happen, creating a new hosting company is trivial compared to creating a new social media platform.

This idea however, would not be able to prevent ISPs or dns registrars from sensoring. You'd need a lower level solution to prevent that. But this would at least help remove links from the chain of sensorship

That’s called google

I propose a gaming debate. Legend of Zelda's Rito and Zora are not anthropomorphic (furries). Change my mind. <@&464233153654030360>

Fuck you you're just a furry in denial

define furry

accept that you want to fuck the anthro fish

hello?

Uh, scalies

oy vey, don't disturb me when I'm palying Crash Bandicoot

no

bad

mee6 keeps on supressing my posts

I can accept the Zora being alien and unique enough not to count as furry, but the Rito definitely are unless you're arguing that birds don't count because they lack fur

like wtf

I'm arguing that they're not human-shaped birds.

antros are antros

they are not human

BY THE WAY

Rito are actually evolved Zora.

is mee6 supressing you too?

What makes a fantasy race not an anthro, in your opinion?

i seen that blip off for me

You can say that they're their own race, but from a design standpoint they're absolutely anthropomorphized birds

they are literally a different intelligent species

In my opinion, they would be, by all definition, a form of x animal.

if a furry is a "anthropomorphized animal" then it would logically need to have a real-life counter part for this definition to work, i.e., fox-furry, horse-furry, etc

Hylians arent even human, they are more akin to elves

doesnt need to exist in real life to count
See: Dragons

but then it leaves out shit like dragons

it's all semantics

what is a furry even?

I actually associate Hylians more as humans, and the Zora as a type of sea elves.

OK, but that doesn't mean they aren't furry.

@Schedrevka define furry

anthropomorphized animal

Are Ewoks furries?

so it needs a real life counterpart?

different species imo

So, would you argue there's a distinction from an animal with human qualities

Ewoks are a different species imo

And a human with animal qualities?

Their real life counterpart is bird

as are Zora and Rita

They don't have a real life counterpart. They're given their wings by magic.

If you just took a picture of a rito and divorced it from its context in Zelda they would fit in perfectly well within furry shit

So if I took any furry character and gave it lore it would stop being furry?

humans dont have to be the only default intelligent life

If an Ewok is into humans and dresses like a human is that Ewok the equivalent to a furry?

at what point does something become furry? using rito as an example

is it the feathers, the beak, the talons on the toes

Furry defines a fetish isn't it?

They also absolutely have human form, not chicken legs or anything like that

Including hair.

Some of the Ninas from breath of fire are directly related to birds, are they furries?

The intent is what matters

More a subculture based on a common interest than just a fetish

There's lots of furry shit that isn't sexual, even if there is a TON of sexual furry shit

Unless the question is what are furries into

are humans furries because we're anthropomorphized monkeys?

That is why I say intent

Humans are already an animal

But you can't know the creator's intent

Two people could create the exact same thing and one could say 'it's furry' and the other not

yes

like mascots

Let's take it from a different angle, one of evolutionary development.

so what happens when the author never tells you? Is everything in a constant state of quantum furry because it's rarely explicitly stated?

How is it being used rather

schrodingers furry