The Anti-Fluff Fluffy

[TeaDidikai]

I was thinking the other day how Fluffy Bunny is often applied as an insult- even to those who do not deserve it.

Would it be fair to state that individuals who are merely ignorant, rather than willfully ignorant and are called Fluffies by individuals who wield the term as an insult are not Fluffy- and thus the positive assertion that they are would make the person calling them such fluffy?  

[Mule of Liz Sama]

Hmm interesting logic. But it makes sense in my mind. I really don't like the idea of calling people names before finding out if they are choosing to be that or just don't know how to do things.  

[TeaDidikai]

No real logic here. Just a minor musing.

I see "Fluff" as a spectrum.

Fluff is not a result of ignorance, but a result of being unwilling to learn at best- or being personally deluded at worst.

It's a fine line that I personally use the Socratic Method to avoid when I think on it.  

[JewelWoods]

i see it slightly differently.

Calling someone a Fluff, or Fluffy Bunny is basically calling them a noob. Which, more than likely they are. When, fluffs or noobs make posts that are just flat out stupid, someone will usually correct them. and then they learn or rank up. or whatever you want to call it...it's not really the point.

It's like high school isn't it?

Freshmen are the new scared Bunnies, and the sophomores, Juniors, and seniors are responsible for inducting them into the society, teaching them the traditions. There will always be name calling and teasing...and quite frankly i think it's a natural way of life.  

[TatteredAngel]

But there are people who don't "rank up" in that spectrum. There are people who cling pretty damn intentionally to their ignorance, and don't ever make it past freshman stage. And no, there doesn't always have to be namecalling and teasing. I entered the gaia discussion arena without a whole lot of knowledge, but I didn't parade around what I'd read in a few neopagan books as absolute truth. I asked questions, and admitted gaps in my knowledge. And thus far, I've developed wonderful interactions with the people around here. So I'm not sure it's just a matter of teasing the freshmen. I never got called fluffy because I didn't behave that way, even though I was and still am something of a "freshman" in the scene.  

[miserabelle]

JewelWoods

i see it slightly differently.

Calling someone a Fluff, or Fluffy Bunny is basically calling them a noob. Which, more than likely they are.

Hmm I'd probably compare it to the difference between a noob and a newbie. A newbie is just... new and inexperienced, where a noob is just an idiot who's unwilling to learn/change. That's how I treat fluffs anyway xx  

[TeaDidikai]

In addition to what Tattered said, I also think that people forget what Fluffy means and misapply it.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

Heilsan Allir,

To my mind, someone whom is Fluffy is a person whom has certain beliefs as to the veracity of their belief/magical system which are incapable of being supported by rational discussion or information sources. They tend to quote dubious authors (whose own research is severly lacking), or rely solely on their own thought processes as the origin of their beleifs and practices, and as such, are completely incapable of standing toe to toe in an extended discussion and resort to absolutist statements and ad hominem to divert discussion of their actual thought processes and beliefs.

Ver thu heil  

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Allir,

To my mind, someone whom is Fluffy is a person whom has certain beliefs as to the veracity of their belief/magical system which are incapable of being supported by rational discussion or information sources.

I don't think this as a standalone statement is a fair measure of Fluff.

Quote:

They tend to quote dubious authors (whose own research is severly lacking),

This much isn't always fluffy.
If you don't know any better- it isn't fair to call it fluffy. After someone says "You know, Ravenwolf isn't a quality author because XYZ..." and they continue to maintain the position- that would be fluffy.

Quote:

or rely solely on their own thought processes as the origin of their beleifs and practices,

Again... not really fluffy. If they can justify them- more power to 'em!

Quote:

are completely incapable of standing toe to toe in an extended discussion

I really wouldn't count that one as fair. Let's face it- you could bury me when it comes to Norse Folk trad. That doesn't make me a Fluffy. It just means I don't have the education I would like.

Quote:

and resort to absolutist statements and ad hominem to divert discussion of their actual thought processes and beliefs.

That's not fluff. That's just arseary.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Allir,

To my mind, someone whom is Fluffy is a person whom has certain beliefs as to the veracity of their belief/magical system which are incapable of being supported by rational discussion or information sources.

I don't think this as a standalone statement is a fair measure of Fluff.

Quote:

They tend to quote dubious authors (whose own research is severly lacking),

This much isn't always fluffy.
If you don't know any better- it isn't fair to call it fluffy. After someone says "You know, Ravenwolf isn't a quality author because XYZ..." and they continue to maintain the position- that would be fluffy.

Quote:

or rely solely on their own thought processes as the origin of their beleifs and practices,

Again... not really fluffy. If they can justify them- more power to 'em!

Quote:

are completely incapable of standing toe to toe in an extended discussion

I really wouldn't count that one as fair. Let's face it- you could bury me when it comes to Norse Folk trad. That doesn't make me a Fluffy. It just means I don't have the education I would like.

Quote:

and resort to absolutist statements and ad hominem to divert discussion of their actual thought processes and beliefs.

That's not fluff. That's just arseary.

Heilsan Tea ok Allir,

None of them should be taken as a standalone statement. I tend to view things wholistically, so merely satisfying one statement is only going to make one statement be satisfied, and hence a person is, in that case outside the definition, as the definition takes all the factors into account. It's a pattern thing.

Ver thu heil  

[Ashaelia Caeruisce]

TeaDidikai

I was thinking the other day how Fluffy Bunny is often applied as an insult- even to those who do not deserve it.

Would it be fair to state that individuals who are merely ignorant, rather than willfully ignorant and are called Fluffies by individuals who wield the term as an insult are not Fluffy- and thus the positive assertion that they are would make the person calling them such fluffy?

So then the name caller would be labeled as fluffy? Or would it only apply if they knew that the person they were insulting just didn't know any better but they did it anyway? Or is it that we're labeling someone fluffy because they just go throwing around the insult "fluff-bunny" at anyone they deam "below-them"?

Great, I think I've gone and confused myself sweatdrop  

[TeaDidikai]

Naomi Kuiveya

So then the name caller would be labeled as fluffy? Or would it only apply if they knew that the person they were insulting just didn't know any better but they did it anyway? Or is it that we're labeling someone fluffy because they just go throwing around the insult "fluff-bunny" at anyone they deam "below-them"?

Great, I think I've gone and confused myself sweatdrop

I'm suggesting that the assumption that someone is a Fluffy, rather than merely ignorant is a fluffy assumption because it hangs on the idea that anyone who is ignorant is willfully so until proven otherwise.

It's backwards.

For example, if I look at someone in M&R and see they are claiming Silver Ravenwolf is Wiccan, for me to assume they are fluffy is a denial of another reasonable possibility in favor of an unsupported theory and fallacy.  

[Boadicia]

It's basically about being able to tell, or being willing to find out, if the "fluffy" in question is being an idiot or is just inexperienced and thus open to learning. After all, nobody is born knowing this stuff, and knowledge comes from experience, whether your own or someone else's. Unfortunately, many people clump the two together, which I feel makes some forms of paganism less attractive to some of the newbies and they develop a "what's the point of trying" attitude.

Anyway, I've heard of the term "badger." That may be a more appropriate word, but I'm not entirely clear on how it's used.  

[TeaDidikai]

Oh! I like. Boadicia, do you think it is fair to say there are "Fluffy Bunnies" and "Fluffy Badgers"?

eek