|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 7, 2007 18:31:25 GMT -5
what constitutes a fluff? is it ever ok to call someone a fluff? It seems to me that what constututes a 'fluff" is different by everyone's standards, so what is your view on it?
|
|
|
Post by theoccultchrist on Apr 7, 2007 20:57:30 GMT -5
I dont think anyone new to Pagan beliefs should ever be called a "Fluff" just for the sake of just trying to learn....We all had to start off somewhere.
now if Someone reports something as fact...and you give them well researched writing and historian accounts and what not..that says different *Well researched documents that say different* and the people still hold onto their poorly researched works..then I might see them to be a bit "Fluffy".....an out landish example someone just learning about Wicca..and says "im Wiccan I worship the devil".. then you say "Well Wiccan's dont realyl believe in the devil or have them in their theology"..*Reference SRW, Scott Cunningham, Chris Penczak, and other Pagan/Wiccan Authors* ..and if they still say it...then I might consider them a "bit" "Fluffy".....
|
|
|
Post by tanath on Apr 9, 2007 16:59:52 GMT -5
the only people i ever refer to as fluffy are those who are CONVINCED that tv and movie magic is real. that's just rediculous by almost any standards.
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 11, 2007 9:17:12 GMT -5
Hey--watch it with the fluffy comments. I tend to prefer being called fluffy, as opposed to "overweight". Oh wait--wrong context. LOL Sorry--just kidding. I agree with John--one person's description of "fluff" is another persons description of reality. While I tend to not take seriously those who sit home practicing spells they learned from watching "Charmed", I also figure that like everyone else here--they'll eventually learn what is real for them.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 11, 2007 16:23:56 GMT -5
Hey--watch it with the fluffy comments. I tend to prefer being called fluffy, as opposed to "overweight". Oh wait--wrong context. LOL Sorry--just kidding. I agree with John--one person's description of "fluff" is another persons description of reality. While I tend to not take seriously those who sit home practicing spells they learned from watching "Charmed", I also figure that like everyone else here--they'll eventually learn what is real for them. Here's my point...I see plenty of people I know haven't began a truly serious study, yet they still have ideas and preconceived notions of what a Pagan is and isn't. These people come at a host of different levels, from being "Blade" from marvel comics, to an actual applying of ancient, modern, and new knowledge. There is a big difference between not taking someone seriously and insulting their intelligence or their thoughts. Every part of the study leads to the destination, including whats seen on TV. Nicely said btw...
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 11, 2007 17:37:05 GMT -5
Thank you. I do see a problem, though, with those that tend to go into areas without proper study, especially kids--based on what they have seen or heard from so-called Hollywood glamorization. Some areas need not be played with, unless you have the proper knowledge. But I don't want to start a whole debate on that issue. lol
|
|
|
Post by stormcat on Apr 11, 2007 20:09:17 GMT -5
I think I've seen what riles alot of people up, it's the grandiose statements and claims made by some "pagans". I tend to ignore these people or recommend some books, most people who are serious will read. The rest want instant gratification, have no time for study. I think that a "fluffy" is a degrading name, I wouldn't want to be called that. Remember words are power, they cause anger and wars as well as love and peace.>^-.-^<
|
|
|
Post by KittyLane on Apr 11, 2007 20:22:56 GMT -5
I do not use this term for anyone. If I am using the term it is only in reference to say, a "ill-educated" pagan. I would never call some one that because I feel it is derogatory. That's my two little cents. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by tanath on Apr 12, 2007 2:50:15 GMT -5
i met a guy in a myspace group awhile back that SWORE that everything in harry potter was true and that he knew he was a real wizard because he took a test online. after a short time i came to the conclusion that he is more than a little mentally disabled and unable to distinguish truth from reality. i wouldn't call him fluffy because he didn't seem to have the ability to be anything but the way he was. it's people that have the ability to tell the difference and choose not to look further than tv and movies that earn the term fluffy in my book.
|
|
|
Post by KittyLane on Apr 12, 2007 10:29:15 GMT -5
i met a guy in a myspace group awhile back that SWORE that everything in harry potter was true and that he knew he was a real wizard because he took a test online. after a short time i came to the conclusion that he is more than a little mentally disabled and unable to distinguish truth from reality. i wouldn't call him fluffy because he didn't seem to have the ability to be anything but the way he was. it's people that have the ability to tell the difference and choose not to look further than tv and movies that earn the term fluffy in my book. that is so sad. finding a fiction and making it your reality. how bad must your life be, or how boring?
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 12, 2007 13:09:40 GMT -5
Thank you. I do see a problem, though, with those that tend to go into areas without proper study, especially kids--based on what they have seen or heard from so-called Hollywood glamorization. Some areas need not be played with, unless you have the proper knowledge. But I don't want to start a whole debate on that issue. lol I really don't see the student who has without proper study tapped into anything of any significance, but I do see your point. 9 times out of 10 they will try to cast a spell and walk away frustrated IMO. Other times a spell will work and they become overzealous and later end in frustration...Does this make them a fluff however? LoL, again by some standards the answer would be yes. I have seen beginners go on myspace, ask a question about "magick" or spellcrafting...And well...Lets just say I don't expect to ever see some of them post again. Now, with that in mind you ask this to those who have no control (or security, take your pick lol), and ask them why they do it..."Well it's because it teaches them."....Yeah...Teaches them to never come back and give up. Just sticks in my craw.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 12, 2007 13:32:20 GMT -5
I think I've seen what riles alot of people up, it's the grandiose statements and claims made by some "pagans". I tend to ignore these people or recommend some books, most people who are serious will read. The rest want instant gratification, have no time for study. I think that a "fluffy" is a degrading name, I wouldn't want to be called that. Remember words are power, they cause anger and wars as well as love and peace.>^-.-^< But why should one concern themselves with untrue claims and statements? When I come across such things, I offer the people in the thread the right information, and leave it at that. As it is with titles I suppose. I for one am not concerned with who calls themselves Celtic, Wiccan, Druidic, or what ever, if you're a "Wiccan-Druid" hey, lol that's no skin off my teeth, if you're an 18 yr old and cracked a book yesterday, come and tell me you're a Druid..."Coooool!" would be my response. It is definitely a derogatory term IMHO, and has no place within the context of learned, and learning people. It has no function IMO. Now, if one makes a claim that is historically inaccurate, then I have issues, I will debate such things but I try to never resort to flames and name calling as such.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 12, 2007 13:38:27 GMT -5
I do not use this term for anyone. If I am using the term it is only in reference to say, a "ill-educated" pagan. I would never call some one that because I feel it is derogatory. That's my two little cents. LOL. But how "ill-educated" are they? Do we not each work from our one levels and view points? I have seen fluffs flamed terribly for things I knew were indeed possible, though they certainly had the layman's idea of how it worked. Then here come the "educated" masses, flaming them off the boards...Seems like a shame to me.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 12, 2007 13:44:56 GMT -5
i met a guy in a myspace group awhile back that SWORE that everything in harry potter was true and that he knew he was a real wizard because he took a test online. after a short time i came to the conclusion that he is more than a little mentally disabled and unable to distinguish truth from reality. i wouldn't call him fluffy because he didn't seem to have the ability to be anything but the way he was. it's people that have the ability to tell the difference and choose not to look further than tv and movies that earn the term fluffy in my book. Hmm, how real is real? What is reality if not an onion? There are layers to reality which sometimes seem blurred. I have heard it said many times that those of less mental, and physical strength make up for it in other ways. Like the spiritual. Is he a "Wizard?" I suppose it would depend on who's point of view you looked at.
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 12, 2007 16:44:14 GMT -5
"An Irishman is the only man in the world who will step over the bodies of a dozen naked women to get to a bottle of stout" LMAO Sorry--I just now noticed this at the bottome of your comments. How funny--but I'm not sure how true. OK--back to the thread---"reality" is whatever is real to the person feeling it. This person may truly believe he is a wizard--and who knows--could be. Who are we, any of us, to judge what is real to someone. It may not be what we consider in our own "reality"--but then again--what is "moral" to some, is not to others. I have formed friendships online that to me are as real as those who I see in person every day---but others say these "friendships" are not real, because I haven't met the person face to face. Again--who's call is it?
|
|