No no, that's not my reasoning at all.
Yeah I didn't mean to direct it towards you, it's just a point in general, there definitely are people who do follow this logic, I've seen it happen
the ones who are "obnoxiously furry". I'm sure you could pick a few out of the group here.
Depends on your definition of "obnoxious"
Some people just don't want to see furry research plastered everywhere, and that's completely fine, i don't either. But some people throw a fit and complain over 75*75 avatars of completely innocent cartoon animals, or anything anthro posted relevantly in creativity. And then others are in between
And again, the behavior you were complaining about was mostly committed by non furries. And they weren't "attacking" him for disliking furries, they were "attacking" him for stuffposting and trolling.
Sure it might be a one bad apple spoils the bunch scenario, but I tend to be no nonsense so my leniency is as flexible as uncooked pasta.
Yeah, every fandom has their "bad apples"
But saying you hate them is kinda wasting your breath cuz it kinda goes with saying; even the people in that fandom don't like them. When you say to do, it's easy to twist your words (intentionally or not, by yourself or other people) to sound like you hate them all and generalize, and then other people overhear, make a decision on that, and then hate a group that they really don't know.
I can see why you think that though. I was using that scenario as an example of people taking stuff too far. If somebody goes out of their way to say "I don't like _____.", it tends to fall in the same group. "Obnoxious". Bashing them is normally justified.
Are you talking about furries, or the people complaining about them being annoying? Both options are confusing to me, if it's the former it's confusingly worded and would mean you completely ignored my point, I'm leaning towards the latter but it seems like too much of a 180 from your previous stance