> "If the OP doesn't want to be associated with them then I think it's reasonable to state he isn't one."
Imagine linking a tweet about a software error message and then making a followup comment "that account posts a lot of baking content. I'm not a baker btw.". Who would think you are a baker just because you linked a tweet posted by a baker? And why would you care if anyone accidentally thinks you're a baker? You wouldn't because there's nothing embarassing for you if people think you're a baker.
So the disclaimer "I'm not a furry" implicitly contains the message "being considered a furry would be embarassing because being a furry is bad". You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad ("that account posts a lot of murder content, I'm not a murderer btw"). You may disclaim things which feel risky if misunderstood ("they Tweet medical advice, I'm not a doctor") but mostly the disclaimers are for tribal declarations of things you would feel embarassed to be associated with ("I'm not a flat-earther like they are"). People who think those things are fine push back "Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind".
It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back.
If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue.
If someone links to an account which is prolifically an X and tweets about X, I would assume that you might be an X. Which is to say I wouldn't treat it as a fact. It might trigger the question, "Are you an X?", simply out of interest, whereas previously I wouldn't have any reason to ask that. That's just me, I'm sure there's people who would just assume that they are an X.
>You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad
Whether you think people need to or not is irrelevant. We know that people do it, so people obviously feel they need to do so.
I've seen people play devils advocate, or joke themselves as an X, and be mistaken for one before. so perhaps you do need to make a disclaimer in order to fully avoid confusion.
>"Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind".
Or maybe it's on the top of their mind because they unwittingly linked an account associated with X.
The whole "if you don't like X you're actually X" is bizarre.
>It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back.
Sure, that might be true, but it's still true the other side is using it as an insult. It's just odd since they're insulting OP as an X, whilst acting as if they're in the position of defending Xism...
>If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue.
It's ridiculous for you to realise it's possible for people to make this assumption and also complain that someone made a disclaimer to avoid the extra discussion you mentioned.
Perhaps these types of disclaimers might not matter much if you anonymously posting on this site, we don't know if OP is or not though.
Imagine linking a tweet about a software error message and then making a followup comment "that account posts a lot of baking content. I'm not a baker btw.". Who would think you are a baker just because you linked a tweet posted by a baker? And why would you care if anyone accidentally thinks you're a baker? You wouldn't because there's nothing embarassing for you if people think you're a baker.
So the disclaimer "I'm not a furry" implicitly contains the message "being considered a furry would be embarassing because being a furry is bad". You don't need to disclaim things which society widely accepts as bad ("that account posts a lot of murder content, I'm not a murderer btw"). You may disclaim things which feel risky if misunderstood ("they Tweet medical advice, I'm not a doctor") but mostly the disclaimers are for tribal declarations of things you would feel embarassed to be associated with ("I'm not a flat-earther like they are"). People who think those things are fine push back "Why are you using X as something embarassing to distance yourself from? You think X is bad, do you? Maybe you secretly are X and hiding it and that's why it's at the top of your mind".
It's those people using X as an insult, in the sense that the original person's disclaimer made it an insult and they are mirroring it back.
If they didn't go out of their way to disclaim it probably nobody else would have commented on it; "I checked out the rest of the account you linked and you read a furry themed Twitter account?" "no, I saw it on a programming meme Reddit" and it would be a non-issue.