Originally a comment by PatrickG on “Like I actually had a tail”.
Let me try again, since apparently I was unclear (not an unusual experience for me):
1) I consider magical thinking to be harmful in and of itself, whether it be sincerely believing in drinking the blood of Zombie Jesus or sincerely believing that one is not really human. So when you say:
There is no woo in describing how you feel regardless of reality if a person knows that their feelings and reality are not consistent.
We’re in agreement there, but that’s clearly not the case for people who sincerely believe they aren’t actually human, which is the group I’m addressing. Not just “feeling” non-human, to be very clear. If you don’t think that is woo, you might as well just stop reading this comment, because we don’t live in the same world.
2) I am not claiming the non-existence of feelings or sincerely held beliefs, I am arguing against the subsequent claims (e.g. woo-pagan animal spirituality and reincarnation) that are based on those feelings. The fact that someone asserts something is essential to their identity may be a sincerely held belief, but doesn’t obligate me to take it seriously in the absence of compelling evidence or argument. The feeling that someone is not human does not make them non-human, and claiming such deserves no respect. One does not get to hand-wave away basic biological fact on the basis of sincerely held belief (well, unless you’re a Republican Supreme Court justice lying about birth control, but that’s a different topic entirely).
3) When you say:
Because of that society misses the people who meet diagnostic criteria and do just fine with the associated characteristics that we call conditions and illnesses. Many people with Tourette’s Syndrome, ADHD, autism and more are happy to be what they are and are not hurting anyone else beyond giving other people funny feelings that they use for mockery and “jokes” at best. You are taking a very negative stance with respect to people who do not appear to be harming you in the slightest.
I’ll address the TS/ADHD/autism reference in the next point.
The failure of medical science to properly categorize and (if appropriate) treat a specific phenomenon does not automatically mean I have to treat audio-visual hallucinations or similar phenomenon as just part of normal human variation (“No biggie!”). When I read accounts of people who, if I take them at their word, are actually experiencing AV episodes, and wave it off with “but it’s ok, because animals”, I’m appalled. That’s not a good response! When you say:
So apparently most people with audio hallucinations function just fine with them. They might even make reality more interesting.
I’m genuinely shocked at how casually you treat this topic. Sure, this is probably true for certain definitions of “function”, “fine”, “reality”, and “interesting”, but I find this proposition extremely dubious, given our society’s predisposition to miss diagnosable conditions, poor access to evidence-based medicine, and a very attractive network of woo that leads people to homeopathy, psychics, and Dr. Oz. That is what I find so harmful — believing that a possible psychiatric condition can be explained away because of freakin’ mythical animals.
I want to reiterate that I am speaking of people who aren’t making the distinction between belief and reality. Does that mean every Otherkin is in this category? No — but then, most people who use crystal healing or acupuncture aren’t typically suffering from serious medical complaints either, and we all recognize the harm there.
4) Here is the passage that really leads me to believe that I failed to make my point clearly:
MANY cultures around the world have actual respected and celebrated social roles for people whose minds do not function like the norm. You will lose this fight because we are not going anywhere and some of us are even psychologically advantaged when it comes to expressing criticism. I’m perfectly willing to use that in defense of other people like me and the only one that needs to celebrate that for it to mean anything is me.
I’m not talking about people whose minds do not function like the norm — that would be rather silly, since I’m one of those people. I’m talking about people who turn to woo to explain/celebrate their atypical status. This is the difference between the true-believer Otherkin described above and people with TS/ADHD/autism, and comparing the two is ludicrous.
So yeah, the claim that someone is really non-human deserves the same respect from me as the claim that someone speaks to Jesus, regardless of normal/non-normal function, which is a completely different issue.
Adam Douglas, author of The Beast Within: A History of the Werewolf, posits that this particular fantasy/delusion lies at the root of an entire mythology.
He claimed (his book came out in 1993) that a more modern form of the same disorder has people insisting that they are really cars or robots or the like; I haven’t looked to see, but would feel no surprise if someone produces a link* for a “community” defending and support this mindset.
*No Rule 34 examples, please!
It’s point 1 that I have the biggest sticking point with.
Specifically, the definition of the word ‘harm’. I’ve encountered very few self-professed otherkin who are in any way causing harm to others by their belief (bizarre as it may seem to me), and indeed, most of the harm they cause themselves seems to really be a result of the pushback they receive from those around them, and their own efforts to resist that pushback. (The barely-evaded MPD treatment Rowan described would be an example of such.)
Now, if someone is demanding that their identification as otherkin grants them any specific rights not afforded to other religious beliefs, I’d be the first to shoot that down.
@PatrickG
I’m going to try to drop the intensity because we are in the middle of a very common situation on the internet and I think that we are getting somewhere constructive. Ambiguity and intent are not allies. Please let me know if I am successful.
Some context first. Thank you for explaining that you were trying paint all otherkin negatively, but things are not that simple. The reason I have responded the way that I have is that Ophelia’s and your comments are full of the sort of behavior that is commonly used on marginalized communities. You may not have intended to act as if you were speaking of all otherkins and may have intended to look like you were criticizing actions and objective claims taken on based on beliefs, but that is not what you did.
You went to anti-choice people and racism and suggestion of imposition with no reason. Your comments to me implicitly assumed harm to others when I referenced OCD, as if I had anything to forgive. I don’t and did not see you pointing at a single action or objective claim. In fact the article does not even interview a “true believer otherkin” to provide you an example. Everything that could have been responded to was subjective in wording. It made sense for people to make assumptions.
Your comments and the way Ophelia’s post was worded used disparaging humor about the thing most important to otherkins, their very identification with animals. Mocking a whole community because you only see them use some animals and tying that things you portray as rediculous is another drop in the mockery rainstorm. That is a general pattern that more than one community experiences. I cannot accept that you were aiming your humor at some otherkins because the response was to an article describing a community and you pointed at no objective examples. Ophelia used “they” and you used “they’re” which are ambiguous.
(Tangentially I think the choice of certain animals is obvious and unsurprising. Animism and totemism are things for reasons. The point is a felt connection to something you admire to provide emotional benefit. Personally I think it makes us look worse as humans that that they feel they must identify with something other than us.)
Your third comment contained an appeal to consequences plus a naked assertion. Added to the “humor”, fallacious reasoning and an assertion about reality allows some assumption of bad intent. Just because amputees might feel insulted does not mean people are not having their internal self-reference imprinted with non-human information. The brain stores both self-reference information and non-human information. Mixing them is a conceivable reality.
I could not tell by your comments that you, Ophelia or others were referring to individuals within a group or the group itself. Given the functional similarity to behavior used to dominate down communities I acted. If I missed something that should have indicated you meant a subset and not a whole please point it out to me.
Now on to #62 from the other post.
It’s not that I don’t think what you just described is woo. It’s that I responded to mockery just as others friendly to harassed and mocked otherkin are. I also gave information about reasons to take this stuff seriously AND allow room for people to express what they experience WHILE allowing room for criticism of actions taken on beliefs like objective claims about reality. I did not see you criticizing any actions and objective claims. The article was full of nothing but subjective feelings.
Also when I said,
…you responded with,
You seem to be saying what they feel is bullshit. That article was full of people saying “connected to” and “identifies as”. Subjective things that do have to do with expression. Until one of them tries to maul you I’m chalking this up to paranoia from being challenged (seriously, racists?)
Where are the subsequent claims that you were responding to? I saw you mocking a community, not pointing out examples of these subsequent claims. Maybe that is something you would have done, but I did not see it anywhere in the comments in that post.
“Biological fact” includes these sorts of personal identification complications because sincerely held beliefs and feelings are biological. “Identify as” and “objectively is” are not the same thing. In this context it means they identify as something despite not being it physically. I have no problems with challenging objective claims but we are not in objective content. It’s literally subjective.
Since “identifies with” and “connected to” does not necessarily mean someone objectively believing that they really are something they are physically are not, and you did not actually do any criticism of something on the level of an objective claim, it’s reasonable for someone familiar with otherkins to think you were painting them all since that is a common experience (it’s the experience of that community with respect to mockery that is my concern).
Consider a contrast with #yesallwomen which described objective experiences of women. The reason that #notallmen was fallacious was because women were not saying “all men”. Your wording indicated you were giving your subjective impressions of a community (which is often a fuel for “humor”). Since otherkin tend to experience a lot of group-level mockery, seeing the nature of the “humor” like yours and Ophelias you got an understandable reaction.
I do not see my treatment as casual. Given the care with which I try to treat these issues I’m fine standing in the uncertainty until I see more. Especially when I did not “explain away AVH with mythical animals”. I used it as an example of a phenomena that culture associates with mental illness leading to us to avoid honestly talking about these things as a society. I specifically talked about the people who are fine with AVH. Since I am a person who has experiences like that and I am able to use them creatively I’m fine speaking of their existence. Creating a context that allows people like those experiencing AVH and otherkin to express it lets us figure this stuff out and that should obviously been my point if you read my comment for comprehension.
Uncritically letting objective statements inconsistent with reality stand is not part of that context. Since you did not do that in the other post and what you did was mock what was most personal to otherkins based on what reasonably looked like impressions of a community, I’m finding your appeal to people taking actions or making objective claims to be a defensive means of avoiding your rudeness.
Remember that bit from my post in the Lounge? Let me post it again.
So objective claims like knocking something over with a tail or a wing is certainly criticizeable. You did not need to reiterate anything at that point, but it honestly looks like you are getting defensive over acting like a jerk towards a community.
Damn it. My second paragraph in #3 should read
“Thank you for explaining that you were not trying paint all otherkin negatively…”
@ freemage: The comment is unfortunately somewhat orphaned from the original thread. In context, I was effectively told to demonstrate harm or STFU, so I thought I should make it clear that I think evidence-free beliefs are harmful in and of themselves. Cognitive health and critical thinking matter!
Beyond that, there was also some discussion about neuroatypicality, psychiatric disorders, A/V hallucinations, phantom limb pain, etc.. Approaching these issues with the mindset of “because I’m nonhuman” seems to present the same possibility for harm of, say, faith healing, homeopathy, or acupuncture, if only because appropriate treatment may not be sought. This is certainly not going to be the case for the vast majority of Otherkin, but I don’t think it should be discounted.
Well, apparently on an FTB blog we’re supposed to treat their religious beliefs with the respect that we don’t show other religions. I’m still baffled by the human/person parsing conversation, that was truly weird.
I’ll reiterate that the topic at hand here is people who actually, literally believe they are non-human, with totem animals, reincarnation, astral travel, and the like. Fantasy/role-playing/metaphorizing/etc. — not what I’m talking about. I think I was unclear about that in the last thread.
Brony to PatrickG:
Hopefully, what you meant to express is that it seems so to you; because it doesn’t seem so to me.
Seems to me it acknowledges a categorical distinction between objective and subjective identity, and claims that the bullshit is the conflation of the two.
@ Brony:
Don’t have a lot of time right now (partner glaring at me for being on blogs), but a couple quick responses:
First, yes, my go-to comparison was over the top. I was moderately taken aback by a ‘so people believe things that are wrong, what’s the harm’ argument, and I could have handled that better. Consider the specific examples withdrawn, but not the general point.
Second, I just can’t:
Animism and totemism are things for reasons, but they’re not good reasons. People feel connection to the Trinity, to the Buddha, and to Mohammed, too. Doesn’t mean I have to respect that. Even if it’s a marginal group. Even if human beings suck in general.
Let me demonstrate the basic incompatability we’re having by re-quoting what you emphasized, with different emphasis (for reference, you quoted the first sentence):
I don’t. I think religion in a naturalistic sense is a monstrous fallacy that impairs critical thought, whether it be Drinking The Blood, waiting for your next Turn On The Wheel, or identifying as non-human. Of course it’s tied up with experiences that matter — we obviously all need to contextualize our experience and lives. But we should not do that via stories that do not reflect reality. Incidentally, this was actually the basis for my racist/anti-choice comments — they have naturalistic stories that don’t reflect reality, too — but I could have found better examples that didn’t poison the well.
Finally, if you’re trying to tone the intensity down, you might want to avoid describing me as paranoid, defensive, and ashamed of being rude (because, yeah, that’s something I’m worried about). I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that I’m not a clear writer, and I did my best with the second comment to avoid my faults as an internet interlocutor.
@John Morales 6
It would have been worded better that way. I’ll think about what you are saying about the conflation.
@PatrickG 7
I’m sorry. I’ll try to think of a more effective way of getting things across. De-escalation is challenging.
I’m not asking you to respect the specific beliefs. I’m hoping you can respect the fact that a feature of human cognition that strikes people so deeply can be addressed in terms of specifics without culture pressuring these people to stop talking about they way that they feel about themselves( I care about the racists et al too, they are feeling about other people and that is a useful distinction). There is something serious and powerful going on there and if we are going to take the thing that produces religion (and racism, I’m not trying to ignore your larger point) and figure out how to curb it’s excesses we at least need to let people express the emotions that are making the connections. That’s part of how therapy works anyway. I’m sure there can be a social correlate. It seems to me that the people in that article knew they were not what they felt like and statements of feelings are things that reflect reality.
Otherwise I agree that we should talk about the stories that do not reflect reality, when we see them. I was fine with criticizing reincarnation.
Ack…
Should be “…and statements of feelings about themselves are things that reflect reality.”
I’m done for the night.