Worst Things You Can Ever Say As A Pagan

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

LadyBanhammer

Ultraviolett1127

Ugh, those types rub me the wrong way too stressed .
A few months ago (I think it was August) I went to a local Pagan M&G and the folks there just couldn't wrap it around their glitter-filled heads that not every Pagan faith required drawing of the quarters and circle casting, that it was irrelevant to me which way a banishing pentagram was drawn, and of course, how dare I not have a Lord and Lady?
Then after the general M&G part was over, the person who had headed it up had the nerve to pull me aside and basically tell me "Look I appreciate you're beginning and trying to learn, but we just can't teach you all of this stuff here right now." stressed stressed stressed . I wanted to say "No worries; I shoot bunnies. I don't try to learn from them."

Oh I would have torn people brand new superfluous a**l cavities if I had been told idiotic stuff like that.

I was in too much shock. I had explained to this person not once, but twice that I am Asatru and what it entails. And this was someone who supposedly had 20+ years experience in Paganism. It made me question what exactly they were experiencing.  

[Pativ Asa]

LadyBanhammer

But wouldn't someone with a real knowledge of the symbols within pagan and non-pagan realms realize that a pentagram used that way and structured in that way would not denote pagan but instead Satanism?

It's a little bit unreasonable to assume that a symbol used to denote a nonpagan religion would be worn by a pagan and to use that as a basis to give an invite.

And this thread does include unreasonable fluffy or ignorant actions regarding paganism and other areas, so I think this really does fit.

Would that not of course depend on a number of things- not the least of which would be the scope of the group in question? While I am aware that not all Satanists and Pagans enjoy each others company, not all pagan groups would exclude a Satanist from participation, and may include them as an alternative faith (a term I am using loosely).

This does not address what you or I might call "real knowledge of the symbols within pagan and non-pagan realms" and how they differ as there are some paths that include a degree system wherein the inverted pentagram shows a person of second degree.

"Real Knowledge" or definitions of pagan aside- if an invitation is suddenly unreasonable or ignorant merely because it is extended to someone who may decline for any of a number of reasons, I am afraid I will not be able to agree with your understanding of unreasonable or ignorant.

In much the same way this invitation was extended to Mr. Error, I may inquire of which church a person wearing a cross attends should I wish to make casual conversation with someone (likely not in my case- as I tend to keep to myself). They could be wearing it as a fashion statement, because it is an heirloom or for other reasons (they may even be non-denominational and not attend church at all) that have nothing to do with their faith. That does not mean that the visual cue, a symbol that is commonly associated with any number of alternative faiths leads one to an unreasonable assumption. I believe the sum of humanity will implode the day that incorrect and unreasonable become one and the same- the learning curve of humanity shall be shot.

That being said, I would say that I found Mr. Error's refusal of the invitation to be reasonable as well. How does one know what will and will not be accepted until one asks?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Ultraviolett1127

LadyBanhammer

Oh I would have torn people brand new superfluous a**l cavities if I had been told idiotic stuff like that.

I was in too much shock. I had explained to this person not once, but twice that I am Asatru and what it entails. And this was someone who supposedly had 20+ years experience in Paganism. It made me question what exactly they were experiencing.

Prolly a particularly fluff filled experience.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Pativ Asa

Would that not of course depend on a number of things- not the least of which would be the scope of the group in question? While I am aware that not all Satanists and Pagans enjoy each others company, not all pagan groups would exclude a Satanist from participation, and may include them as an alternative faith (a term I am using loosely).

I'm basing it more on the fact that the person immediately noted the pendant verbally (if I remember error's more detailed story of this correctly) and then gave the request.

But this angle alone sort of takes away from the alleged reasonable nature of the request. After all how many pagan meet and greets are inclusive to all "alternate faiths" even those outside of the pagan scope and still possess the knowledge necessary to recognize what Satanism is and how it works?

Quote:

This does not address what you or I might call "real knowledge of the symbols within pagan and non-pagan realms" and how they differ as there are some paths that include a degree system wherein the inverted pentagram shows a person of second degree.

I have heard of that mentioned for only one path, Wicca actually, but since I was unsure of the information I didn't mention it.

This raises the question again, how receptive would an initiated Wiccan be to a pagan meet and greet when they (generally) tend to be inclusive to the accidental culture rapists who use Wicca's name for their own eclectic paths?

Inviting someone out of recognition for their initiation by that symbol to a place that likely has culture rapists would be even more insensitive than inviting a satanist. And therefore even more unreasonable a request.

Quote:

"Real Knowledge" or definitions of pagan aside- if an invitation is suddenly unreasonable or ignorant merely because it is extended to someone who may decline for any of a number of reasons, I am afraid I will not be able to agree with your understanding of unreasonable or ignorant.

It isn't unreasonable because the person may decline. It is unreasonable because the very basis for offering it is flawed and most likely arising from ignorance regarding certain symbols.

Obviously error didn't give the full story here so a misunderstanding is expected. But the full story, if I remember correctly, had the girl responding to seeing the pendant slide out of the shirt as error leaned over and extending the invite because of the pendent specifically.

The person essentially assumed that this was a pagan symbol and a pagan symbol of someone receptive to meet and greets. Since the only two usages of this specific orientation of pentagram are two types who seem extraordinarily unlikely to want to come to a Pagan M&G, it seems ignorant to assume from the pendant that they would want to come.

If I had been in error's position I probably would have let it go had the person said, "hey you probably don't want to come to this, but I wouldn't mind extending an invitation to my pagan meet and greet at Denny's".

Or if they played up the non-Abrahamic angle, like "hey you're non Abrahamic! My pagan meet and greet is open to anyone outside of that zone if you'd like to come. We're open to non pagans in that area too."

Those are reasonable because they aren't based on ignorant assumptions but are simply an attempt to be super inclusive and inviting. They are also good ways to gloss over ignorance in case you did misinterpret the symbol you saw, because they include numerous possibilities.

Quote:

In much the same way this invitation was extended to Mr. Error, I may inquire of which church a person wearing a cross attends should I wish to make casual conversation with someone (likely not in my case- as I tend to keep to myself).

And yet would you ask the same question of someone wearing an upside down cross?

Quote:

That does not mean that the visual cue, a symbol that is commonly associated with any number of alternative faiths leads one to an unreasonable assumption.

Two alternative faiths? One that is not pagan and the other which is a closed religion and is regularly culture raped by people who often go to Pagan Meet and Greets?

It's like asking an initiated Wiccan (I know it was redundant of me) to visit a "Wicca Earth prayer sisterhood" slumber party.

Quote:

I believe the sum of humanity will implode the day that incorrect and unreasonable become one and the same- the learning curve of humanity shall be shot.

Incorrect is not automatically unreasonable. Just as incorrectness is not automatically still within reason. They simply merge here for reasons specific to this situation.

Quote:

That being said, I would say that I found Mr. Error's refusal of the invitation to be reasonable as well. How does one know what will and will not be accepted until one asks?

I never thought you did.

And there are many cases of when you can make an accurate assumption of what will be refused.

Like asking a southern baptist to a LaVeyan Satanism Mass. Or a Wiccan being asked to visit a bunch of fluffies at their "binding circle party"  

[Pativ Asa]

I am afraid your response to the question I posed: "How does one know what will or will not be accepted" does not truly address my query. One may make assumptions- accurate and otherwise, but until one asks and receives a reply, one does not know. Most ironically, I have been approached by individuals of different faiths who were looking to attend pagan celebrations that were open to non-pagans.

I have also known Wiccans who have attended open circles of people they were unfamiliar with- placing them in a situation where they may well have found themselves attended a "Fluffy binding circle party".

You pose a question- were I to see an inverted cross, what would I say? As I mentioned before- likely nothing. I am not in a habit of making conversation with strangers over religious iconography. If pressed- I would inquire if they are a Satanist, a devoted follower of St. Peter or seeking to make a fashion statement.

I completely agree that being incorrect does not automatically mean one's assumptions are within reason, I merely have seen nothing to suggest that a casual invitation would be in the realm of the unreasonable unless there are internal psychological justifications that one is holding to. To be frank good Lady, I find the mocking tone of this thread to border upon the unreasonable in several places- Mr. Error's post amongst them. Like my cookie example, while the refusal of a diabetic to indulge is perfectly reasonable- for the person to turn to his friends after I have left and say what is tantamount to "Can you believe that? She was trying to kill me! I'm diabetic!" is unreasonable in my opinion. I feel it was making a mountain out of a mole hill- though it is clear that my commentary upon such has compounded the matter.

You seem most interested in using Wiccans as an example. With no disrespect to those Wiccans on this forum, not all behave in such a way. I personally know Wiccans who were initiated personally by Mr. Saunders, Ms. Saunders, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Valiente and others who would never treat other people as I have seen individuals treated here on this forum. That is their prerogative. Here it is justified in the name of their oaths and I would never expect a High Priest or Priestess to act against their word. With that said, their behavior is not practiced or even condoned by all Wiccans.

You have issued two examples of ways such an invitation could be posed that you would find acceptable. My participation in the pagan community has never produced someone who speaks in such a manner and both you and Mr. Error seem to have completely ignored the spirit of the invitation. My question to you would be this:
Prior to your participation on this forum, had you come across anyone who would have phrased the invitation as you would expect them to?

There is a fine line between elitism and condescension. It is one thing to have certain expectations of those around you that you interact with on a regular basis and standards for your continued participation within such a group- it is another thing completely to snub total strangers and mock them behind their backs because the phrasing (without a thought of the kindness of the intent).

I apologize if my choice of words betray my feelings on this matter, but I do believe I have come to understand why the positions touted in this thread have rubbed me the wrong way. The whole of the human population is ignorant of something- and many more compound their ignorance with a little bit of knowledge, thinking they know everything there is to know. The description of the interaction does not suggest that the woman presumed to tell Mr. Error what the symbol means, she did not presume to tell Mr. Error that he must be worshiping the Earth or be Wiccan or anything else- merely that Mr. Error would be welcome to join them.

We do not know if they are a very inclusive group or not. All we can say is that based on a symbol that often has religious connotations, an individual decided to hedge their bets and extend an invitation. (It may be worthy of note that some Muslims wear it as a symbol of the pillars of faith in Islam and some Christians use it as a sign of the five wounds of Christ).

At this point, I am confused as to why a person would consider it unreasonable. The number of non-Abrahamic people who wear it far outweighs the number of Abrahamic followers who do. Are not both of you engaging in assumptions about the nature of the group in order to deem the invitation unreasonable? The invitation was not to become the Meet and Greet's leader based upon the necklace- merely participation.
Another assumption on your part is that it is only Wiccans who use the inverted pentagram as a sign of degrees (it may also be of note that some Wiccans would hold that having a symbol that would denote one's degree to outsiders may be against their oaths).

When you ask "how receptive" a Wiccan would be to participating in an open group- I would caution you against making assumptions based on your perception of Wiccans here- especially if you have not taken the time to speak with them about their participation in the pagan community outside of their obligations to their covens. Many Wiccans I know participate in open circles, moots and meet ups that do not limit the participation of non-Wiccans to those who would emulate the positions that are commonly expressed in this forum.

I am unaware of any statistics as to how many Pagan Meet and Greets are all inclusive. My assumption based upon my participation is that when it comes to extending invitations- more are inclusive than not unless they are a group that is focused on a specific tradition, something which is not implied in the title of "Pagan Meet and Greet".

Has your experience been to the contrary?

I suppose I do have an other question:
At which point did an honest mistake make a person worthy of mockery on a forum such as this? When did it become acceptable to insult someone who cannot defend themselves for a simple assumption?

Is this truly the spirit that the Rehabilitation Center wishes to foster?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Pativ Asa

I am afraid your response to the question I posed: "How does one know what will or will not be accepted" does not truly address my query. One may make assumptions- accurate and otherwise, but until one asks and receives a reply, one does not know. Most ironically, I have been approached by individuals of different faiths who were looking to attend pagan celebrations that were open to non-pagans.

That was sort of a roundabout way of telling you the question was irrelevant. I apologize if that was unclear.

We make assumptions to save time and effort and to avoid offense or issues. What you are condoning is to ask every single person you think might have a snowball's chance on the sun of going. This is neither prudent nor wise and quickly approaches unreasonable.

If you have reason to believe they would want to come, then ask. Otherwise it is probably a good idea to not ask.

Quote:

I have also known Wiccans who have attended open circles of people they were unfamiliar with- placing them in a situation where they may well have found themselves attended a "Fluffy binding circle party".

Actual Wiccans? Initiated? Second degree even? How common is it for a second degree initiate Wiccan to go to a Pagan Meet and Greet?

If it is exceptionally rare then asking someone when you see the second degree initiate symbol is probably the wrong call.

If it is simply rare or uncommon then asking this given person is probably okay provided you add a qualifier like "hey you probably won't want to go to this but..." That is a lot more intelligent and reasonable.

If it is relatively common or very common then it would be a reasonable request to levy on a second degree initiate Wiccan. It would be a little rude and insensitive of you to not warn them that fluffies could be present however.

Quote:

You pose a question- were I to see an inverted cross, what would I say? As I mentioned before- likely nothing. I am not in a habit of making conversation with strangers over religious iconography. If pressed- I would inquire if they are a Satanist, a devoted follower of St. Peter or seeking to make a fashion statement.

The query was based on the fact that if you saw a cross you would ask what church they went to. It was a correction to your analogy (which I felt didn't adequately show the situation) by denoting two different but highly similar symbols that have different meanings and usages.

This is not a simple pentagram, used for wide varieties of things. This is a form of the pentagram that is used for only two subsets of non-Abrahamic faiths, one of which is extraordinarily small and both of which are unlikely to get along with many of the attendees of a Pagan M&G

The analogy you gave didn't really do that situation justice as in most cases the wearer of a cross wouldn't be offended at an assumption related to Christianity. However the wearer of an upside down cross only fits into several important subsets, one of which would be extraordinarily insulted to be asked what church they go to (the third may as well, since a lot of the people who make such fashion statements aren't on great terms with Christianity).

A person who's likely to mistake the pentagram we have discussed may also mistake an upside down cross and so the same faux pas is made in this situation too.

You'll have to explain the St. Peter thing to me as it relates to upside down crosses. I wasn't aware that symbol linked to him.

Quote:

I completely agree that being incorrect does not automatically mean one's assumptions are within reason, I merely have seen nothing to suggest that a casual invitation would be in the realm of the unreasonable unless there are internal psychological justifications that one is holding to.

That's where we disagree. I've explained in full why it is highly unlikely that such a symbol would be good reason to invite someone and the qualifiers one could add to their invitation to make it reasonable.

I can't say much more on the subject and am as unconvinced by your stance as you are by mine.

We may be at an impasse. *shrug*

Quote:

To be frank good Lady, I find the mocking tone of this thread to border upon the unreasonable in several places- Mr. Error's post amongst them.

There has been mocking tones in some parts of this thread that were unwarranted.

However as I'm aware of Error's issues with communication and getting across concepts and tone, I can assure you that he was not applying a mocking tone. I could see how you would misinterpret it to be mocking and wouldn't hold you to fault for it.

Quote:

Like my cookie example, while the refusal of a diabetic to indulge is perfectly reasonable- for the person to turn to his friends after I have left and say what is tantamount to "Can you believe that? She was trying to kill me! I'm diabetic!" is unreasonable in my opinion. I feel it was making a mountain out of a mole hill- though it is clear that my commentary upon such has compounded the matter.

This I feel is a sort of poor analogy too, considering error recounted the exact lines as they were, not really as an exaggerated mockery. If I remember correctly, she asked him and then he just sort of stared at her in surprise for a few moments.

Hence the "dot dot dot".

Quote:

You seem most interested in using Wiccans as an example. With no disrespect to those Wiccans on this forum, not all behave in such a way. I personally know Wiccans who were initiated personally by Mr. Saunders, Ms. Saunders, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Valiente and others who would never treat other people as I have seen individuals treated here on this forum. That is their prerogative. Here it is justified in the name of their oaths and I would never expect a High Priest or Priestess to act against their word. With that said, their behavior is not practiced or even condoned by all Wiccans.

If you can actually establish that the likelihood of a Wiccan declining an invitation to be around fluffy individuals is low based on a comparison between the individuals you know and this forum, more power to you, but in the end only actual statistics would back such a claim on your part.

Needless to say our experiences are different and that is what we have both formulated our impressions based on.

To me, based on my experiences with the individuals that would bear such a symbol, such a request would be unreasonable without qualifiers.

To you, based on your experiences with the individuals that would bear such a symbol, such a request would be perfectly reasonable without qualifiers.

Unless you have some means to show me that my experiences are some sort of exception to the rule, we are at a serious impasse and your criticisms of regarding the invitation as unreasonable fall under the heading of fully subjective.

Quote:

You have issued two examples of ways such an invitation could be posed that you would find acceptable. My participation in the pagan community has never produced someone who speaks in such a manner and both you and Mr. Error seem to have completely ignored the spirit of the invitation. My question to you would be this:
Prior to your participation on this forum, had you come across anyone who would have phrased the invitation as you would expect them to?

Yes actually. It may simply be my area but many of the people I know use qualifiers as a just in case method. Because there's such a wide diversity of situations where I live, you really can't make assumptions regarding someone's faith just from a symbol so it is very wise to make such a qualifier unless you have some really strong evidence you don't need it.

I suppose once again we run into the issue of your experience versus my experience, and frankly, neither sets of anecdotal evidence are more valid, as anecdotal evidence is (generally) rated on the same level as countering anecdotal evidence.

As for the spirit of the invitation, how can you really know? Were you there to catch body language, facial expression and tone? I certainly have made no assessment on the spirit of the invitation since I wasn't there and I will ask you not to make assessments that can't possibly be accurate except by blind luck or without further description from Error (which I'm sure he'd be happy to provide)

Quote:

There is a fine line between elitism and condescension. It is one thing to have certain expectations of those around you that you interact with on a regular basis and standards for your continued participation within such a group- it is another thing completely to snub total strangers and mock them behind their backs because the phrasing (without a thought of the kindness of the intent).

Kindness of intent rarely has bearing on offensiveness of a statement just as intent rarely has bearing on the effects of the action.

I would ask that you justify both of your claims of elitism and condescension. Simply moving forward as though they already apply is the begging the question fallacy.

I'd also like you to show me exactly where error snubbed this individual.

I feel as though the one making a mountain out of a molehill here is you at this point.

Quote:

I apologize if my choice of words betray my feelings on this matter, but I do believe I have come to understand why the positions touted in this thread have rubbed me the wrong way. The whole of the human population is ignorant of something- and many more compound their ignorance with a little bit of knowledge, thinking they know everything there is to know. The description of the interaction does not suggest that the woman presumed to tell Mr. Error what the symbol means, she did not presume to tell Mr. Error that he must be worshiping the Earth or be Wiccan or anything else- merely that Mr. Error would be welcome to join them.

If you have an issue with the thread overall and feel the need to vent, please do that in a more general sense. Zoning in on a situation that isn't nearly as big as you make it doesn't really help your point.

As for simply welcoming him, I believe you're making a bit of an assumption about the way she phrased it and whether it got across the spirit of simple welcoming.

Christian church communities can be extraordinarily welcoming and the spirit of a Christian asking you to their church often meets that element of their faith.

But there are some really assuming and offensive ways of expressing that welcome that obfuscate the spirit of the message. I'm very glad for you that you can see through things like that and rise above them to find the welcoming undertones, but it is a bit unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to possess that same ability.

Quote:

We do not know if they are a very inclusive group or not. All we can say is that based on a symbol that often has religious connotations, an individual decided to hedge their bets and extend an invitation. (It may be worthy of note that some Muslims wear it as a symbol of the pillars of faith in Islam and some Christians use it as a sign of the five wounds of Christ).

If it was a hedging of the bets (especially with the Christian and Islam angle, that would make it even less likely to be an acceptance of the invitation) adding qualifiers would make even more sense.

Quote:

At this point, I am confused as to why a person would consider it unreasonable. The number of non-Abrahamic people who wear it far outweighs the number of Abrahamic followers who do. Are not both of you engaging in assumptions about the nature of the group in order to deem the invitation unreasonable? The invitation was not to become the Meet and Greet's leader based upon the necklace- merely participation.

I already explained why the groups in question were unlikely to accept such an invitation. You yourself even admitted it would be a "hedging one's bets" situation at best.

I'm not really sure how else I can put it. Either you understand what I mean or you don't.

As for the assumptions regarding the group? Yes, one would make an assumption to decide that the invitation is unreasonable. The assumption tends to be a pretty good one though based on the information I'm aware of regarding Pagan M&G's.

I already explained previously how one can make reasonable and unreasonable assumptions based on the commonality of certain aspects of a given group.

Quote:

Another assumption on your part is that it is only Wiccans who use the inverted pentagram as a sign of degrees (it may also be of note that some Wiccans would hold that having a symbol that would denote one's degree to outsiders may be against their oaths).

Who else uses it? A counterexample is a wonderful means of showing someone that their stance is inaccurate or off but you actually need to provide a real example.

If you were to give me an example of another group that uses it as a sign of degrees I would take that as a perfectly reasonable counterexample and would probably concede the point, as my point is based almost entirely on the symbol only connecting to two groups that would not commonly be receptive to that sort of meeting.

(Your note reduces the number of subsets linked to this symbol and provides further evidence convincing me of the unreasonable nature of her request.)

Quote:

When you ask "how receptive" a Wiccan would be to participating in an open group- I would caution you against making assumptions based on your perception of Wiccans here- especially if you have not taken the time to speak with them about their participation in the pagan community outside of their obligations to their covens. Many Wiccans I know participate in open circles, moots and meet ups that do not limit the participation of non-Wiccans to those who would emulate the positions that are commonly expressed in this forum.

My perceptions are based on my experiences within and outside of this forum with Wiccans and neo eclectic pagans who co opt the title of Wicca, not just on this forum.

Out of curiosity why are your personal experiences being treated as automatically more valid than mine? Please clarify if my question is arising from a misunderstanding of what you're saying.

Quote:

I am unaware of any statistics as to how many Pagan Meet and Greets are all inclusive. My assumption based upon my participation is that when it comes to extending invitations- more are inclusive than not unless they are a group that is focused on a specific tradition, something which is not implied in the title of "Pagan Meet and Greet".

Are they inclusive to Satanists?

Quote:

Has your experience been to the contrary?

It has been mixed. Some against some for. I'm not sure how this has bearing on the fact that the assumption the request was based on was still insensitive to the individual it was given to had the person had knowledge of what the symbol meant.

I'm going to answer your final question in a separate post since this one is sort of ridiculously long.  

[Deoridhe]

Pativ Asa

There is a fine line between elitism and condescension. It is one thing to have certain expectations of those around you that you interact with on a regular basis and standards for your continued participation within such a group- it is another thing completely to snub total strangers and mock them behind their backs because the phrasing (without a thought of the kindness of the intent).

Except the original example, the people weren't total strangers.

Also, the entire purpose of this thread is to vent frustration and annoyance. There is a fine line between the appropriate use of a medium and the inappropriate use, and castigating people for venting frustration in a thread designed for venting frustration crosses that line.

Pativ Asa

I suppose I do have an other question:
At which point did an honest mistake make a person worthy of mockery on a forum such as this? When did it become acceptable to insult someone who cannot defend themselves for a simple assumption?

At the point where we decided that venting frustration to strangers and supporting each other in our frustration was important and remains important.

Pativ Asa

Is this truly the spirit that the Rehabilitation Center wishes to foster?

Yes.

We are not legion. We do not demand people be perfect, exist in "perfect love and perfect trust", or hold to your moral standards.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Pativ Asa

I suppose I do have an other question:
At which point did an honest mistake make a person worthy of mockery on a forum such as this? When did it become acceptable to insult someone who cannot defend themselves for a simple assumption?

Is this truly the spirit that the Rehabilitation Center wishes to foster

While I can't confirm if error actually does view this person in a mocking light, I do have something to say on mockery in these situations.

Mockery can be a form of venting when it is done privately or among friends. When you're subjected to the same irritating behaviors over and over, no matter how reasonable they might be if they only happened once, it really does wear on a person. It's good to vent that irritation, especially in reasonably private places like this so you don't vent that irritation out on an individual when they do that same action. Especially one who has no clue how many more individuals have done the same thing to you over and over until you're driven batty.

One particularly good example is how many people feel the need to ask me how far along I am with my sexual transition as a male to female transsexual or ask me if I like men. The former is a breach of my privacy and sort of offensive in that questions about genitals and medical stuff really isn't something you ask strangers or acquaintances. The latter is irritating because it is an assumption regarding my sexuality based on the misconception that all male to female transsexuals are attracted to men.

Both could be completely reasonable based on context if they only were done once. Like if I was a very open person and didn't mind sharing stuff about my medical history or body or if I saw through the offensiveness of the sexuality assumption to the "spirit of the question" (which is generally benevolent curiosity).

But the fact that nearly every single acquaintance and stranger who finds out asks me these two questions really wears on my patience with them. So in a few TG threads I frequent, I rant and mock the people that do this as a way to vent out my frustration with the sheer numbers of people that subject me to those questions over and over. That way I won't flip out at someone for asking them when this is probably the first time they've ever met a trans woman and don't mean anything by it.

This thread has a similar purpose. It is a place to vent about the annoying questions, assumptions and actions that people do when meeting pagans or pagans do to each other, that aren't irritating because the person who did it was malicious or awful but because of the sheer volume of these things levied on individual pagans.

So I would suggest not seeing this thread as an elitism factory to mock individuals and hate on them like you have so far. Instead see it as venting about the same old s**t happening to us over and over again because too many people have the same assumptions and misconceptions.  

[maenad nuri]

In this particular topic -- yes, this topic is about frustration and venting, hoping that it doesn't spill over for the rest of the guild, which it mostly has. Much as the chat topic reduces the amount of chatter in other topics, this reduces most of the actual mean spirited snark and bitching.

It also serves the similar purpose of .pagan_snark on LJ, or even fandom_wank. Sometimes the only way to deal is to mock.

Mock. Mock mock mockitty mock.  

[Autumnal Light]

When I was talking to a Mormon missionary, he told me about a girl who claimed she had control over wind.

Girl: Can you feel the air rising around you?
Missionary: ... No.
Girl: *insert lame excuse about being 'off' that day*

Since this was one of his very few encounters with neopagan types, I felt compelled to assure him that not every pagan was quite so fluffy (I was tempted to say "********" but refrained since Mormons tend to frown on such language).  

[Pativ Asa]

Lady Bannhammer, I do indeed condone asking every single person who may be interested in attending. It is their prerogative as to how they extend their invitations. She clearly had a reason to believe Mr. Error may be interested in attending, how flawed that reasoning is in practice does not make their behavior unreasonable.

As to how common it is for a Wiccan to attend a Pagan Meet and Greet, such would be completely dependent on the Wiccan in question. I am sure if you inquired after the Wiccans on this board, you would likely find out that their participation within the pagan community is not limited to their coven. Most of the Wiccans I know personally I met at open events through mutual friends. I would be interested in hearing your experiences if they differ.

Other witchcraft traditions have used the inverted pentagram as a way to denote a second degree. Still others have viewed it as a "grounding" tool, suggesting that the point down represents the phase "So Below", a portion of a Hermetic turn of phrase used in mystical philosophy and some pagan traditions and I am afraid you are misinformed if you believe that there are only two groups which use an inverted pentagram as a religious icon.

I believe my cookie example is perhaps the best analogy.

Saint Peter, when crucified, asked to be crucified upside down as he felt he was not worthy to be put to death in the manner Christ was. As someone who is not Catholic, I happen to wear an inverted cross that was given to my Great Grandfather by his father before he left for war. My understanding is that it is a third class relic.

I have been mistreated for wearing it in public. I have been accused of being a Satanist. I believe I have pinpointed where I find the schism between what you and I find reasonable. I find asking questions reasonable, I find being told I am something unreasonable in such circumstances. To those ends, I find being asked to attend an event reasonable and had the person said to Mr. Error, "You are pagan! As someone who worships Mother Earth, you will love my Meet and Greet at Denny's."

When you set conditions on phrasing and not intent when it comes to acceptable ways of extending such an invitation, some of which seem highly dependent on being exposed to a specific webforum, that strikes me as unreasonable- as it requires a person to be familiar with something they may not have been exposed to in order to quell personal issues rather than understanding the spirit of such an invitation.

While I understand your desire for such phrasing- but it would seem that you have been afforded a benefit that many others have not- familiarity with this community online which has developed it's own vernacular and social expectations.

While I understand why it is appealing, I have not been able to fathom the leap from the appreciation for such to the expectation of such from complete strangers.

I searched this thread for a clue to it's purpose. I even found other discussions where some of the statements were questioned or explained by other members as not being inappropriate.

I am coming to view this thread as a means to mock- perhaps as others have suggested, to use such as a means of venting frustrations- but that does not change the fact that it is indeed mocking and perhaps insulting without educational value.

I was under the impression the goal of the Rehabilitation Center was to provide a place where those "afflicted with the curse" to learn and grow. I am sure that not all of the thousand users post, I would imagine many lurk. How does it benefit them to see a mere phrase without an explanation as to why it is inappropriate?

I understand that our experiences are different- I am hoping that you may be willing to explain your experiences with Wiccans in order for me to better understand your position.

For my part, of the ten Wiccans I know personally and well (as opposed to covenmates I am not as familiar with), all of them were introduced to me at festivals, open circles and such Meet-Ups. They belong to Alexandrian, Kingstone, Gardnerian and Algard traditions. They participate in a number of local festivals, offer open classes at bookstores and one is a treasurer of one such Meet Up group.

I am afraid we are both aware that there are no statistics to verify. I am not claiming to have the only valid understanding- merely suggesting that if I can feel it is reasonable based on my personal experiences with Wiccans, then what is to say that someone with similar experiences is unreasonable?

I fully acknowledge that this is completely subjective, I am suggesting that in such cases that the intent behind the action be the guiding factor.

With that said, I am taking into account the very nature of what an invitation is when it comes to a meet and greet. It's a welcoming action, one that wouldn't be extended otherwise.

When it comes to elitism, it is something that I have seen reaffirmed and even boasted of in the claims of those who participate within this guild. I noted it while lurking, that it is accepted that elitism is condoned here. I would be willing to link you to such posts by guild members if you require it of me. I do feel that elitism has it's place- the condensation is what I take issue with. The theme of this thread does not express an understanding of how someone could be so misinformed, but instead stands as a testament to how much better those who vent are than those who are ignorant and annoying.

There are links from some of these pages to other portions of this site. How hurtful it must be to join this guild after loosing a debate to see that someone has pointed out the faults and others have laughed at it.

I do not suggest that my personal experiences are more valid than yours, merely that as an alternative to your experiences I would suggest that it is better to give a person room to demonstrate their intentions or look for them best in them.


Ms. Deoridhe,
I saw nothing to suggest when I began looking at this thread that it existed solely to "vent frustration". The opening post says nothing to that extent and when I reviewed other posts, I saw laughing, jeering and condescending attitudes.

In Ms. Ultraviolet's own response to Mr. Error, the same condensation that others display within the way this thread is made a target.

There are also those who have challenged the assertion of something belonging in this thread without those people meeting the same response you have given me.

If such a double standard is acceptable, I shall be silent on the matter and offer all involved my sincerest apologies, for I did not mean to be disruptive- I merely thought that I was entitled to offer my position as others have.

Please do understand, I have sincere respect for those of this Center and you who put your time into making this place enjoyable.  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

Erm, where did I ever reply to Error? I thought I was mostly talking to Lady Banhammer Oo.  

[CuAnnan]

So anyway back on topic:
"Yes like the Bean sidhe. Or others. in Scotland they separated it into Seelie and Unseelie courts. But the Irish have mainly the sidhe or Tuatha de danna "  

[error-dot-tar]

CuAnnan

So anyway back on topic:

I was wondering when that was going to happen.

Quote:

"Yes like the Bean sidhe. Or others. in Scotland they separated it into Seelie and Unseelie courts. But the Irish have mainly the sidhe or Tuatha de danna "

And I was wondering when you were going to come across that thread.

It's a shame I didn't keep an eye on it like I planned on doing.