|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:41 pm
 |
|
|
 |
To start out, I want to examine what responses to honest challenges look like-
Example 1 I saw your nice comments on the group. Don't bother replying, you are on my ignored list where you belong. You all come out with hateful comments then dare to call me immature! Pot calling kettle black. I dare to have a view that is not that of your approved consensus. Boo f**king hoo! You are none, of you pagans, you are all little sheeple, conditioned by misinformation. You are new agers dressed up as neo-pagans. You call me out in an unfriendly manner and I am not allowed to dare comment or have my own opinion, without the bitches of Eastwick on my back. I have been pagan most of my life and I am sure as hell more knowledgeable in the area then the lot of you little kids put together. You have all contradicted yourselves numerous times in your nasty bitchy comments which just goes to show your age. Right back’atcha on all your hateful comments: I find YOUR wilful ignorance irritating enough to not be the epitome of courtesy and want to hug you. I honestly don't give two flying ******** what is "nice" in your book, either. I'm just astounded by YOUR immaturity. “I have a feeling that you only don't like it because it impacts your image:” Well, do’h yeah! Are you really all that dumb. Who doesn’t care about having the finger pointed at them when they are trying to establish themselves with a new service in mini-shops? Wake up! “Not all pagans are the same. “ No s**t sherlock, thanks for enlightening me, now I can go join the Illuminate. Forget paganism what about being a just down right decent human being, with some consideration for the person on the other end of the keyboard you’ve just objectified in your abuse. Hummm. Too above your neo-pagan ways is it? “Justify this with outside reliable sources as I do not find a person established to be a willfully ignorant child a credible source.” After you! LOL at this comment. I have a degree with history I don’t need to justify my knowledge to a bunch of little kids on a “pixel related forum that has no bearing on real life.” Who believes scholars that use conjecture and modern merging of religious beliefs to re-write a countries history. "The road to hell is paved in good intentions" Sorry you said you were pagan or was that Christian, are you confused? YOU PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS. My thread was never up for discussion, it was a promotion, plain and simple and you all went a sh*t all over it. I mostly started the service because I didn’t like the homophobic wedding service and wanted their to be an alternative with some depth and history. Simple. Still think your nice people now? Butch of bitchy little hormonal conditioned sheeple, the lot of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:43 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Hi, im here cause my guild has next to no members. I know of almost every system of magick all but african, egyptian and some of the asian magick. I'm Nordic by blood and I am a godi in my following. I'm here to meet new people and to find people who can shaare their experinces with magick and just good stories in general. Mial me if you want to talk. I'[ll be on here in anycase.
This example has several flaws in it. For a start, last I checked, genetic ancestry doesn't really mean a whole lot as far as credentials. The only situations where it is really important are Closed Traditions that have a "metagenetic" bent to them, and even then- not in all cases.
Second, the responses to challenges need to be thoughtful.
Take a look at this example:
Quote: Quote: Quote: I'm Nordic by blood and I am a godi in my following. By what authority are you a godhi? Who are you a godhi to? Show me an instance where it was only to one god or goddess. This isn't Greece.
This doesn't really address the question. It's important to read the questions and address the challenges. If all people do is nod and agree with you, you'll not learn.
Likewise, making assumptions as to what religion someone is based on a person's position about a matter of theology is often in error- especially in a guild dedicated to scholarship and understanding of numerous religious traditions.
Quote: No every aspect of Wicca has to do with sex, you're jsut horny and looking for an execuse to sleep around without being called a slut. Goth Craft is a very good book, and I'm allowed to believe that.
A great deal of this kind of thing can be avoided by admitting that it's possible, even likely that people may have better source material than you do. By allowing for that possibility and then examining the source in question, you'll progress away from Fluff and towards being a responsible thoughtful person. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I quit before I got your first message. I'm not the only one with a poor attitude. At least I don't pick on individual people, I go to the source of a lot of problems to let my frustrations out. ....but in this specific case you *were* the source of the problem neutral Oh well. Very christian of you. Erm....I'm not Christian so I guess that's a good thing? I guess I just assumed from you sending me all the notes. And I do consider not being a christian a good thing but I still don't like people harassing me.
Quote: Quote: Quote: I guess I just assumed from you sending me all the notes. And I do consider not being a christian a good thing but I still don't like people harassing me. So because I urge you to 'fess up to being rude to someone, I am a Christian? What kind of Pagans do you hang out with IRL? None of this is harassment. It started out simply wanting to get things set straight in a thread neutral I see the issue though, really. You don't wish to be responsible for *anything*; not your words, much less the work involved in walking and building your path. So it is a bit easier to see why being in the guild did not work out for you. May whatever is to happen to you, happen. Wow, you got it all figured out. *one handed clap*
This example is one of what we see amongst a lot of Fluffies. They brand those of other religions, especially the religions they are leaving, as being inferior and use the religion as an insult or insult it directly.
Quote: to all you who don't listen to others like me who can't get it into their heads that they might not be right... i don't believe i'm always right but i follow my heart and not my head... it was a mistake to join you... while i follow the path of light, go ahead, find your place in the darkness.. things will shift... this is goodbye
This is pretty much one of the most common examples of Fluff I can think of.
First, it proposes a false dichotomy.
Thinking and feeling as a means to reach a conclusion are not mutually exclusive and being rational is an important way to keep the more extravagant expressions of non-falsifiable reality from drawing a well intentioned pagan like a moth to a flame.
The second common error is that it suggests that simply disagreeing with delusion is just cause to make someone as "bad". Not only does it indulge another false dichotomy, but it clearly isn't reasonable. There's no demonstration that the person who is challenging the offender is dark/evil etc. It's basically an Ad Hom.
Folks are welcome to PM me with other PMs from this person in complete context.
I'll add them to the project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:43 pm
|
Violet Song jat Shariff Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:52 am
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'll bite, how much attention do we really want to give to the ...how to recover part.
We've got some examples and specific suggestions, but is that focusing more on symptoms than causes?
I'll throw something else out there...
The truth is often far less comfortable and less popular than whatever someone has wrapped themselves in. However, the turtle doesn't come out of it's shell when it senses danger. We can't force feed anyone the truth... or deny it from them.
But we can make it seem more or less appealing.
Logical fallacy or no, there is a tendency to judge an arguement based on who is making it, and how they are making it. If a person feels threatened, it is only natural to either bare teeth back, or run away. Dialogue is like any other encounter. Without the benefit of your scent, your posture, and your voice, I can't tell in what manner you are presenting your points. Internet culture, as it is, has become a more hostile thing than the waking world has ever seemed to me. The default assumption seems to be that a comment, unless otherwise qualified, should be taken as Mocking, Hostile, or Sarcastic, first and foremost.
Emoticons only go so far to ameliorating this communication disparity.
This, of course, exasperates the problem of defensive and confrontational interaction... reinforcing the conceits that there is no real point to dialogue over this medium, and all positions positted online can be disregarded out of hand.
Now, if this seems like an evolution of my glue material carrot-stick arguement... well, it is. On some small level. However, my purpose in this is not to chastise, but rather, to see if my observations have counter or correlative points. I wish that this post be taken with the spirit of: I observe this, what do you observe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:54 am
|
|
|
|
Fiddlers Green Okay, I'll bite, how much attention do we really want to give to the ...how to recover part. We've got some examples and specific suggestions, but is that focusing more on symptoms than causes?
Quote: I'll throw something else out there... The truth is often far less comfortable and less popular than whatever someone has wrapped themselves in. However, the turtle doesn't come out of it's shell when it senses danger. We can't force feed anyone the truth... or deny it from them. But we can make it seem more or less appealing. Logical fallacy or no, there is a tendency to judge an arguement based on who is making it, and how they are making it. If a person feels threatened, it is only natural to either bare teeth back, or run away. Dialogue is like any other encounter. Without the benefit of your scent, your posture, and your voice, I can't tell in what manner you are presenting your points. Internet culture, as it is, has become a more hostile thing than the waking world has ever seemed to me. The default assumption seems to be that a comment, unless otherwise qualified, should be taken as Mocking, Hostile, or Sarcastic, first and foremost. Emoticons only go so far to ameliorating this communication disparity. This, of course, exasperates the problem of defensive and confrontational interaction... reinforcing the conceits that there is no real point to dialogue over this medium, and all positions positted online can be disregarded out of hand. Now, if this seems like an evolution of my glue material carrot-stick arguement... well, it is. On some small level. However, my purpose in this is not to chastise, but rather, to see if my observations have counter or correlative points. I wish that this post be taken with the spirit of: I observe this, what do you observe?
My experience is that no amount of politeness changes this- hell, some of the PMs and IMs I get are about how uncomfortable people are with folks that are polite. ~shrugs~
In the end there are people who are quite delusional, there are critical people and there is a spectrum. Most folks on the spectrum eventually realize that there are other applications for myth and that critical evaluation helps them.
I can't count the number of people who remember my first interaction with them as being some form of harsh, only to end up being active participants in the guild and contributing some amazing arguments and positions.
Maybe I'm in the minority. I remember my initial contact with Cu, Nuri and Deo very fondly- even if it were challenging. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:25 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai I'm not sure we can't work at treating both symptoms and causes. Symptoms to reduce the annoyance Fluff inflicts upon the rest of us and the cause to help the individuals grow.
How do the fluffs inflict annoyance upon us?
Quote: My observation is that no amount of qualifiers soothe people's ego when it comes to being questioned because no matter what medium we are taking part in, people confuse questioning the validity of the position with debasing the value of the person. My experience is that no amount of politeness changes this- hell, some of the PMs and IMs I get are about how uncomfortable people are with folks that are polite. ~shrugs~
So being polite, you observe, is a detriment to dialogue?
Also, do I read that, you do not observe that the loss of contextual signals matters much?
Quote: In the end there are people who are quite delusional, there are critical people and there is a spectrum. Most folks on the spectrum eventually realize that there are other applications for myth and that critical evaluation helps them.
Interesting choice of spectrum.
Do all delusionals share a commonality, or is it more of a multi-direction deviation from a core of critical thought.
Quote: I can't count the number of people who remember my first interaction with them as being some form of harsh, only to end up being active participants in the guild and contributing some amazing arguments and positions.
Can you count the number that had the opposite reaction?
Or is that relevant?
Quote: Maybe I'm in the minority. I remember my initial contact with Cu, Nuri and Deo very fondly- even if it were challenging.
We like someone for their positive traits. We love someone in spite of their negative traits.
To address the point of focusing on the boundaries of this guild... This is going to work against goals. If our actions and expectations are contrary to societal expectations, it will not be an environment for interaction save in very special cases.
We cannot use a language that does not exist on the outside, nor can we ignore the social conventions that will be producing the standard from which the reactions of the uninitiated are drawn. We could try to make this into a monastery, but that seems beyound the scope of this guild. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
