Talk:Fluffbunny

	This Paganism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

So, what, you have to belong to a tradition to be a good Wiccan? I didn't know we could so easily define other peoples' religions. Perhaps I'll make a list of who I don't think is a real Muslim, Christian, what-have-you--"Shut up, Brx." 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is (and it's not really made by this point... yet) is that there's a distinction between, say, a believer in theistic evolution whose beliefs are largely nontoxic, and a young earth creationist. We criticize S.E. Cupp for not being a real atheist. For another perspective, this article could easily be the way in which enterprising neopagans like Silver Ravenwolf take advantage of impressionable, disaffected teenagers for their own material gain. Which is qualitatively different than saying these people aren't "real" whatevers. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 04:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is toxic about a Wiccan? Unless it's a condition of induction for these people to sell snake oil and charge for palm readings, then the tone of this article is incorrect. Instead, it should simply be a description of the attitudes of some Wiccans towards others.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Wiccans believe in weird things and Fluff Bunny Wiccans believe in silly weird things. They are silly and weird as opposed to being just weird because they a modern.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Three words sum up what seems to differentiate Fluff Bunnies from other forms of Wiccan: not even wrong. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What I've still got problems getting my head around is the idea that there are more or less inane ways of thinking about, for example, living on a magical plane. It's "not even wrong" whether it comes from an old venerable magical tradition or a pop culture magical television programme.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who pushed several people out of this garbage, it's not so much that 'they believe silly things' but that Fluff Bunny Wicca is very much like New Age bullcrap in that the problem lies in how it's marketed and served at a demographic, ESPECIALLY adolescents that are looking for affirmation in the world. Unfortunately, a lot of fluffy bunny stuff does this by 1) peeing on already established traditions, and 2) insisting that their book is the true and easy way to power, causing people who read it to get an impression of what the larger community is from that one book, when really it's just a sham edited to cut out all references to stuff that could possibly freak out a 12 year old. It often has an oppositional tone ('Your parents will never understand, don't bother trying to connect with them over your spirituality') to please the consciousness of people who feel outcast to reinforce their suspicions that everyone is against them and can even encourage people to cut loose all their friends that don't think that spreading glitter around attracts faeries and shit. It ends up by being anti-science by emphasizing the 'mystery' of the world and that rituals we don't understand have power; where a more reasoned wiccan might be able to separate science and their faith, fluff bunny stuff is peddling a feel-good worldview: 'You are Powerful, You can do things other people cannot (many fluffy bunny things may even have contempt for "mundanes") and you don't need participate in the world around you and the people that force you to do so with school and work just don't get it, duh. It is not mature and is not set up to be a sustainable set of beliefs; it's there for the money, just like New Age crap. Basically, we laugh at New Age stuff because it's silly and varies so much and that any two Alt-Medsters can have vastly different personal fixations, but that's not why New Age stuff can be dangerous. New Age stuff is dangerous because no matter the specific goofy fixation, it encourages a worldview that's anti-science and also detrimental to one's health, safety, and wallet. Fluffy Bunny crap is similar: whether copied from Harry Potter or sold as Secret Unicorn Fairy Magic, the material available can be harmful, and it's really just an escape from reality. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Another reference could be made to Cafeteria and/or Fast food Christianity. From my perspective, there are three or four really problematic strains of cultural thought that coincide to create the fluffbunnies, things that have been mentioned above as well as heedless cultural appropriation. (From my perspective, the neopagan community in general is doubly guilty of this, but most of the more mature neopagans in my experience are at least aware of the problems of removing cultural context. Fluffbunnies think it doesn't matter.) — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

With more orthodox Wiccans you can point to and argue what they believe in (of course you're not actually allowed to read their genuine sacred texts unless initiated as it's a mystery religion). And I spent some time dealing with the premises of Wicca (both Gardnarian and Alexandrian) and why although the founders might not quite be bare faced messiahs but aren't far off for this reason. They are like honest Christians in this respect - a few bad premises but often ultimately honest and open to reason, and where they aren't they are at least willing to stand by their words. With bad cases of Fluff Bunnyness or New Agery you might as well be discussing matters with a cloud of fog with a persecution complex; the ways in are completely different and almost entirely indirect and there's no reason there. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You should add this to the page: that while the bad ideas of the general fluffbunny community are endorsed and sold by cruft writers, it's the inner persecution complex of the practitioners that drive the movement, not any one dogma. This distinguishes it from wicca as a whole, in the same way that floaty chakras-and-rainbows nonsense is easily distinguished from the premises of any one sect of Hinduism for example. So it's less 'wiccans hate their teenage demographic, try to disown them' and more 'wicca is defined by its precepts and structure of rules, fluffbunny is defined by the complexes and emotions of its practitioners.'±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 17:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Party pagans

Would a section on party pagans go here, or in some nother snartical? Are circles meant to hold only the Right Sort of People, or is hedonism itself a dedicated craft? So many questions, just asking... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably. If you know enough, write a basic article or put it somewhere? We can merge/split later. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not know squat. Neither am I an earnest practitioner of anything but leave-me-alone-and-stay-off-my-lawn-ism. My questions were based on a usenet post I saw many dozens of moons ago. Mrs. Cogswell, having been an ardent musician in the sixties, in the clubs of Cambridge (maybe also Somerville and Boston) has been heard to say that pagans know how to party. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There was definitely a movement for alternative faiths in the 70s through the 80s and into the 90s due to the free love, hippie movements etc., which then burrowed into arts circles. Party Pagans partially come from the fact that most mainstream religions mark some aspects of parties (drinking, not working, fornication, having a good time, eating food, tying your shoes...) as sins, so faiths that restricted the lifestyle that people wanted to lead were often similarly discarded or at least held in contempt.So it's not so much that pagans are inherently good at parties, it's that people who were good at parties often tended to not be a religion that left their ability to party alone. Which was often paganism. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 00:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Playgans vs Fluffbunnies

Not all fluffs are young and ignorant newcomers who like make believe. A lot of them are actually older folks who do not want to learn anything and tend to reject science. Lewellyn publishing isn't even mentioned, and they were a major contributor to the movement. (Not so much now, but they were back in the day.) They usually aren't into Harry Potter and the like, I think it's inaccurate to assume that is the cause of fluffy bunnies. For example, some would consider Scott Cunningham part of the "fluffy bunny" problem and he was around for years prior to Harry Potter and Ravenwolf. There is not one part of the "fluffy bunny" groups, there's multiple aspects. Most of what this article is talking about are people the community calls "playgan" and they may not even be Wiccan. ChaoticBlue (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article claims that Fluffbunnies are ignorant newbies, rather that they're traps for ignorant newbies because, from the outside, it's all warm and fluffy. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

... either fluff fiction or plot bunnies. Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)