Good definition of fluffy bunny

[Dulliath]

My son's girlfriend asked me what "Fluffy Bunny" meant last night, and although I could tell her "willful ignorance" and play a spiritual version of Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a Redneck If...", it became obvious that I did not have a comprehensive definition of the term.

Any suggestions on a good definition of fluffy bunny?  

[CuAnnan]

Dulliath

My son's girlfriend asked me what "Fluffy Bunny" meant last night, and although I could tell her "willful ignorance" and play a spiritual version of Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a Redneck If...", it became obvious that I did not have a comprehensive definition of the term.

Any suggestions on a good definition of fluffy bunny?

Somebody who, when presented with Scholarly facts as to why their opinions about their Gods/Religion/Spiritual Practices/Whateve-you-like is wrong pulls a "la la la, I'm not listening".

For example.
Me: Wicca was created in the early to mid 1900s by Gerald Gardner and bears no resemblance to any ancient religion, as indicated by Ronald Hutton in "Triumph of the Moon", Doreen Valiente in most of her books and pretty much any respectable Wiccan author.
Fluffy: No, Wicca is the ancient religion of the Celts.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Don't forget that it doesn't just apply to pagans, either. I'm getting reminded of that with the following exchange:

Me: At least two well-known and trusted Hebrew dictionaries give the translation of "charah" as "wroth/angry", not "hateful".
Her: Find a better dictionary because yours doesn't have the true definition.

I don't know if my other criterion is used by more than just me, but I also tend to go more for someone who is not only willfully ignorant, but attempts to spread that ignorance. The difference between someone who says "I think X, no matter what you say" and "I will teach other people X even though you've clearly proven it wrong because I don't believe in reality".  

[Deoridhe]

Hallmarks of a fluffy are also a distinct lack of details and specifics and the use of many buzz-phrases like "the law of three" and "an it harm none".  

[Pelta]

Often also a willful wallowing in unresearched facts because they want them to be true.

This manifests a lot in fluffy "white lighters" who ignore dark/serious/difficult sides of a faith to pretend that all is happy and light. Ie. wilfully blinding themselves or refusing to see.  

[Starlock]

A wannabe who isn't willing to do the actual work neccessary to be what s/he wants to be, which can manifest in any of the following:

1) Adopting a given path as a fad because it's "cool"

2) Adopting a given path because it's "controversial" and "rebellious"

3) Adopting a given path and proclaims oneself on a higher level of expertise than appropriate after reading only one book on the subject abd having no intention of looking elsewhere

4) Adopting a given path and not bothering to interact with others who also follow the path (self-validation is the only validation of their practice and possibly a book or two)  

[jaden kendam]

Starlock, you used to argue with me when I made the Fluffy Bunny thread. Have you seen the *cough*light*cough*?

I agree with HDC and Reagun. I think it is one who despite facts, still believes the way they say they do. And they also teach others the falsitudes. Ravenwolf and Sylvia Brown are good examples of fluffy teachers. As well as Van Pragh.  

[Starlock]

deadmanjake

Starlock, you used to argue with me when I made the Fluffy Bunny thread. Have you seen the *cough*light*cough*?

I agree with HDC and Reagun. I think it is one who despite facts, still believes the way they say they do. And they also teach others the falsitudes. Ravenwolf and Sylvia Brown are good examples of fluffy teachers. As well as Van Pragh.

If you're insinuating something, just come out and say it.

The trend of defining fluffy as "willfully ignorant" frankly, frightens me. It speaks of intolerance of other ways of thinking, be those thoughts deemed truthful or fallicious by others. It supports one-true-wayism and strikes me as counter to the very ideals it wishes to support (which is skepticism, open-minded conseration of new information and possibilities, etc). You could claim anybody is "willfully ignorant" of your own supposed truths, regardless of what it is based upon. That doesn't make it so. A Fundamentalist Christian would say that we Pagans are "willfully ignorant" of the truth of God. Most ordinarly people would say anybody who believes in magic is a wishful thinker, if not willfully ignorant or dismissal of reality. This is the sort of problem I see with this definition. It is too easy to misuse this definition on some crusade to prove one's own (or a group's) self-righteousness.

Extreme care must be taken in establishing precisely what the 'facts' are, especially if you are not dealing with the hard sciences. People use different sets of facts (or even the SAME sets) and do not weigh them in the same way. Conclusions are only ever as good as the information you have, and none of us ever have all the information. And then, our minds are subject to our own personal biases and idosyncrecies. We all believe we have the best truth; we're prisoners of the way our own minds operate. So who is right? Who decides the criteria? Who has the one-and-only-truth?  

[jaden kendam]

Starlock

deadmanjake

Starlock, you used to argue with me when I made the Fluffy Bunny thread. Have you seen the *cough*light*cough*?

I agree with HDC and Reagun. I think it is one who despite facts, still believes the way they say they do. And they also teach others the falsitudes. Ravenwolf and Sylvia Brown are good examples of fluffy teachers. As well as Van Pragh.

If you're insinuating something, just come out and say it.

The trend of defining fluffy as "willfully ignorant" frankly, frightens me. It speaks of intolerance of other ways of thinking, be those thoughts deemed truthful or fallicious by others. It supports one-true-wayism and strikes me as counter to the very ideals it wishes to support (which is skepticism, open-minded conseration of new information and possibilities, etc). You could claim anybody is "willfully ignorant" of your own supposed truths, regardless of what it is based upon. That doesn't make it so. A Fundamentalist Christian would say that we Pagans are "willfully ignorant" of the truth of God. Most ordinarly people would say anybody who believes in magic is a wishful thinker, if not willfully ignorant or dismissal of reality. This is the sort of problem I see with this definition. It is too easy to misuse this definition on some crusade to prove one's own (or a group's) self-righteousness.

Extreme care must be taken in establishing precisely what the 'facts' are, especially if you are not dealing with the hard sciences. People use different sets of facts (or even the SAME sets) and do not weigh them in the same way. Conclusions are only ever as good as the information you have, and none of us ever have all the information. And then, our minds are subject to our own personal biases and idosyncrecies. We all believe we have the best truth; we're prisoners of the way our own minds operate. So who is right? Who decides the criteria? Who has the one-and-only-truth?

I did not insinuate anything. I merely said that you used to tell me that it was a bigoted term, and frankly, I do not consider it to be so. I mostly use it to define wanna-be's who think that Ravenwolf is the be all Wiccan, disregarding historical fact, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition as well as not bothering to learn what the Celtics believe and how that is very much different that what Wicca is.

As far as spiritualism is concerned. The fluffy bunnys are the ones who after a one hour class are called Master Mediums or Master Healers. When, the religion is about the progression and proof of spirit. To say one is a master is a slap in the face of all the Spiritualists that have been doing it for a long, long time, possibly five generations, and would never say in all seriousness that they are masters. I know I still have a lot to learn, and most of it will probably not be learned until I pass from the physical.

A far as Christiand goes, we do not have to look hard to find someone like Fred Phelps. He and his "sheep" speak of nothing but hate, when the teachings of Christ, Mathew and Luke are not about hate or condemnation. Of course, since the religion was based on Christs teachings of the Law of Agape, I would think that his teachings would be the trump card against that sort of crap.  

[Pelta]

Starlock

The trend of defining fluffy as "willfully ignorant" frankly, frightens me. It speaks of intolerance of other ways of thinking, be those thoughts deemed truthful or fallicious by others.

No. It speaks of intolerance of those who do not look at facts or reality to back up their assertations. That seems perfectly acceptable to me in Pagan circles.

Quote:

It supports one-true-wayism and strikes me as counter to the very ideals it wishes to support (which is skepticism, open-minded conseration of new information and possibilities, etc).

Willful ignorance implies that the perpetrator is basking in inexperience - not that the experienced or wise are composed of one mode of thought. You are using a term to imply restrictions on a contrary mode of thought.

Eg. Fluffy is stupid. That does not mean there is only one way to be smart. wink

Quote:

You could claim anybody is "willfully ignorant" of your own supposed truths, regardless of what it is based upon.

You are confusing willful ignorance with true inexperience. Just because someone doesn't know something doesn't mean they're going out of their way not to.

Quote:

A Fundamentalist Christian would say that we Pagans are "willfully ignorant" of the truth of God.

False analogy. Several pagans often have studied Christianity and the Bible before rejecting it. Understanding and rejecting is different from childishly turning a blind eye.

EDIT: And for that matter, many fluffy pagans are willfully ignorant about Christianity. Those who lump it into the caste of the "ebil Xians" often overlook the bits in the Bible about, you know, caring about each other and being kind to people. They see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

Quote:

This is the sort of problem I see with this definition. It is too easy to misuse this definition on some crusade to prove one's own (or a group's) self-righteousness.

Say a person is well read and understands most aspects of their faith, whilst always attempting and working to broaden their knowledge. Said person is confronted with someone who wilfully has not done as much research yet professes to know more. Yes, the person who knows what they're talking about does have the right to point out and even be insulted by someone who scorns the time and effort they have put in to their work. Why should anyone have to put up with having their hard work undermined by ignorance?  

[Starlock]

deadmanjake

I mostly use it to define wanna-be's who think that Ravenwolf is the be all Wiccan, disregarding historical fact, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition as well as not bothering to learn what the Celtics believe and how that is very much different that what Wicca is.

Thank you. I think this is a bit better description than "willfully ignorant" as now you're being specific as to what exactly you're considering people to be ignorant OF. It's important to set up those criteria or else this label could be used willy-nilly (which is what I was trying to get across... did that point get lost?).

missmagpie

Quote:

You could claim anybody is "willfully ignorant" of your own supposed truths, regardless of what it is based upon.

You are confusing willful ignorance with true inexperience. Just because someone doesn't know something doesn't mean they're going out of their way not to.

Was I confusing it? I think the main point I was trying to make (which may have gotten lost) is that what one considers the facts needs to be qualified. Instead of throwing out a vague term like "willfully ignorant" one needs to be specific as to what this person is ignorant OF.

How do we know if someone is going out of their way not to, out of curiosity? How do you know what someone knows and how much work they've done? What if the person truly believes they're correct (whether they've done the work or not); it isn't that they're going out of their way not to be educated. Again, this is why it's vital to qualify what exactly a person's being ignorant OF. Sorry for making this complicated... xd  

[Pelta]

Starlock

Instead of throwing out a vague term like "willfully ignorant" one needs to be specific as to what this person is ignorant OF.

True, but that is narrowing the definition that will then not encompass all fluffies. For example, saying that being fluffy is believing in Ravenwolf's drivel leaves out Asatruar fluffies who say that Frigga is a moon Goddess. Conversely, there are dark fluffies who believe that Chaos Magic is about feeding off people or that the Necronomicon is authentic. How can you group these people into a specific definition without examining the one thing they all have in common: Willfull ignorance of the facts behind what they profess to practise.

Yes, it is important to define what someone is being ignorant of. But that is done on an individual basis in isolated cases. A definition is designed in order to encompass all that fall beneath it.

To think about it further in an analogy, pagan is an umbrella term that covers many religions and concepts that have one thing in common: Not following the Abrahamic God. Fluffy is a similar umbrella term for a vast group of people who have one particular trait in common.

Quote:

How do we know if someone is going out of their way not to, out of curiosity? How do you know what someone knows and how much work they've done?

This is why people invented those qualifier questions like the hackneyed elemental weapon of Ether. When someone states themselves to be an authority or professes to have some knowledge of the subject, they can be tested. There is not necessarily any instantaneous labelling without any evidence on their part. Someone proves themselves to be fluffy in some aspect of their life with their words and actions.  

[Dulliath]

missmagpie

True, but that is narrowing the definition that will then not encompass all fluffies. For example, saying that being fluffy is believing in Ravenwolf's drivel leaves out Asatruar fluffies who say that Frigga is a moon Goddess. Conversely, there are dark fluffies who believe that Chaos Magic is about feeding off people or that the Necronomicon is authentic. How can you group these people into a specific definition without examining the one thing they all have in common: Willfull ignorance of the facts behind what they profess to practise.

Yes, it is important to define what someone is being ignorant of. But that is done on an individual basis in isolated cases. A definition is designed in order to encompass all that fall beneath it.

To think about it further in an analogy, pagan is an umbrella term that covers many religions and concepts that have one thing in common: Not following the Abrahamic God. Fluffy is a similar umbrella term for a vast group of people who have one particular trait in common.

You know, I think the bolded bits of your post are at least a very good start to a good, broad definition.

What would you add to this?

Fluffy is an umbrella term for a vast group of people who have one particular trait in common: Willfull ignorance of the facts behind what they profess to practice.  

[jaden kendam]

I was going to name some fluffy bunnies, but I might get in trouble for that, so instead, i will just give two of them, but only certain letters of thier names.

TM-She is a troll, a manipulator, and a pain in the a**. I call her a fluffy bunny because she uses internet sources and Ravenwolf to back her assertions, eventhough some of us have counter used Gardner and internets sources that debunk Ravenwolf. She then turns around and says that second hand knowledge and the internet are not reliable, but she will not quit in hammering us with site after site that proclaims Ravenwolf to be a Goddess. Plus, she says that she has been to a huge pagan festival in which everyone thought that Ravenwolf is authentic. She would never name it.

EE-Though she seems to get suspended or just disappears every once in a while, she is a fluffy of the Christian faith. She reminds me of Phelps, in that almost everything she says is hateful and about how everyone will die in the Armegeddon and Rapture stuff. She finds the loosest biblical references to support herself, even when faced with the words of Jesus.

Another one, because he is very annoying in the threads about homosexuality, would be VHG. Even when shown the verses of the New Testament that say the Old Laws are gone and replaced by the Law of Agape, he still preaches them. He is not the only one, but he has been a major one.

BTW: D, thanks for stealing my topic. It was my baby, and now sad  

[Dulliath]

deadmanjake

BTW: D, thanks for stealing my topic. It was my baby, and now sad

D as in me?... Oops, sorry. redface burning_eyes redface