Talk:Otherkin/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 September 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wingnuttery

If you want this removed, I want the same standard of evidence that we tend to have in all of our articles--a peer-reviewed study, or some other body of objective literature that makes reasonable arguements supported by evidence. Therian chat-boards don't count...TheoryOfPractice 21:44, 22 January 2009 (EST)

As I suspect most of these people would have left of centre view shouldn't it be moonbattery? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:14, 22 January 2009 (EST)

This is crazy enough that it might be both--look, you're right, the template is more political and not really appropriate. But I didn't want the edit war king to start another round of HCM a la "the copyright images" incident... Do we have a more suitable one? TheoryOfPractice 22:17, 22 January 2009 (EST)

How about we create a "special peoples" template for people who have a special and unique view on life? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:20, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Don't we all have a "special and unique view on life" to some extent? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 22:27, 22 January 2009 (EST)

We could just replace the wingnut with a screw & make it a "screwy" template. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:28, 22 January 2009 (EST)

☠

Arr! Avast, ye scurvy rats, can otherkin be includin' pirates in human bodies? ☠ 10:05, 31 January 2009 (EST)

No, that's "career dysphoria" - the belief that someone's job is much more fun than your own. Most people get that. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 10:08, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Mocking the believers?

Hi, I'm a newcomer to the site. Maybe this is just bias on my part, but the articles on Therians and Otherkin come across as overly harsh to me. Sure, mocking the idea is fair game, but a lot of it looks like it's mocking the people who believe it, which seems kinda uncool. 173.64.166.55 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured, RationalWiki would never mock people for believing something ludicrously silly.^{Do You Believe That?} - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee...thanks a ton for clearing that up. 173.64.166.55 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think David's got a word wrong there: for "never" read "always". 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For an example of what I'm talking about, the phrase "...whenever otherkin show up and their presence is not wanted, which as a rule, is all the time." seems to cross the line into just plain mean-spirited. I understand that my objections might be unfounded, but are they really so far out there that I can't even be taken seriously? 173.64.166.55 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think they're getting off rather lightly. Look around, you'll find other loonies beliefs treated far worse. 17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah, Jesus, CUR, is that you again? DarkStar (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? No, I'm not. I'm merely putting forth a tentative criticism of the article's tone. I've enjoyed reading this wiki so far, but this article bothered me a bit. Again, this could merely be bias on my part. Please understand, I'm not trying to start a big argument here. If my criticisms are really that far off base, I'll just drop it and find some articles I like better. 173.64.166.55 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think our friend has it backwards. For instance the ideas of a perpetual motion machine or that the Earth is the center of the universe are interesting, especially to work out clear disproofs for them, and the ideas themselves don't really need to be mocked. However, the people who believe in them are fully deserving of mockery since they are displaying wingnuttery. ħuman 21:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to mock the ideas and the proponents, particularly the ones that actively go about trying to spread it or try to back up the assertions badly (*cough*RayComfort*cough*). But the day-to-day believers I sometimes give the benefit of the doubt to, they could just be unintentionally ignorant or unaware or a bit dim or just needing something to cling to, so they may be mostly blameless; it's the wilful ignorance that's the one really deserving of mockery. ^narchist 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is kinda my point...and maybe it's not so much that they're being mocked, as it is the sort of mocking that's going on. Comments like the one I pointed out seem like they're just pointing and laughing at people whose beliefs are silly but more or less harmless. It's the sort of thing that could easily give a believer the impression that their presence here would be met with hostility - and given what I've read on the debate page, I can see that that isn't the case. 173.64.166.55 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the "believers", even in their "unintentional ignorance" (whatever that is), support the charlatans and the con artists. They also support stupidity by not understanding, or trying to understand, what it is they "believe". ħuman 03:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Er...was that a response to me? Because it didn't really address any of the things I said... 173.64.166.55 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't you just stay on topic? I have right here a picture of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake. What do you have to say about that? - π 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, fine. One way or another, it looks like I'm not going to change anyone's mind, so I drop my criticism. 173.64.166.55 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism is good and yours was constructive. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Bestiality is appropriate.

Setting aside the intended double-entendre, I must suggest a change.

The segment labeled Bestiality specifically references furries, but not Otherkin. Without digging on the issue deeper, I hypothesize that the Otherkin, Therian, & Furry articles were once one and the same, and what remains is a psudosegment.

If we are to have separate articles for each, the segment should be corrected or relocated or both. There is a minor, less funny mention of bestiality in the Furry article, but it shouldn't be hard to rephrase this segment to fit. Similarly, one could just replace the references to furries with otherkin, though the tone of the joke would render either Furries or Therians a better target; the making of a half-elf is not generally considered beastiality. (Now, minotaurs on the other hand...) SardonicMouse (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the section, I say. The first line is a pretty silly joke about the wrong topic, and the second just sort of trails off. The furry fandom article seems pretty well-rounded, as far as it goes, so I don't see much of a need for these one-liners there either... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

I changed some basically assholish/meanspirited language, and around two seconds later got:

13:51, 19 February 2012 Reckless Noise Symphony (Talk | contribs) (3,301 bytes) (Undo revision 972689 by 99.26.120.175 (talk) RationalWiki is NOT neutral point-of-view) (undo)

The fuck! Why are you doing this? I'm just making you guys sound a tiny bit less like a bunch of meanspirited douchebags. I used to really think this site was a good idea, but, well... science doesn't work this way. If you're wrong, you admit it; if you're right, you don't rub it in people's faces.

--the Seraph

Lol! Wow, someone's a bit more dramatic than required. If we are so wrong, then please enlighten us on this here talkpage how we are wrong. Otherwise, radical changes which claim to "eliminate bias" are always suspect and subject to being reverted. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have some fucking fairywiki that needs editing?--Brendiggg (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fucking fairywiki? Nice homophobia, asshole.—69.145.153.248 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, given the subject matter, Brendiggg probably meant a wiki about literal fairies. And you are answering a post made two years ago.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a nice attitude. You'll hurt the feelings of their animal spirit ^theist 14:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. It's funny because I'm not kin, nor do I think that they are real. I just think you guys are a bit too assholish. --The Seraph

Whatever. Citation needed on pretty much everything you added. Like what is "hyperinstancing" anyway? ^{d hominem} 14:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend. As is Wikipedia. --The Seraph

Lol, the first googe result for it is in reference to Star Trek. You mean to tell me you believe Star Trek is real life or something? The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

FYIAD

"seems like a pretty well-known otherkin-related meme" -- So? I didn't know RW collected or cared about internet memes that much? There's plenty of actual information that can be written about in this article, the confusing and unspecific and potentially inaccurate paragraph about a meme doesn't seem very necessary to me. — Haamer (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki. Please see the newcomers' guide & what is a RationalWiki article?. If you've got information to add, go for it, but I'm putting back in the stuff you took out. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already read the guides, thanks. "but I'm putting back in the stuff you took out" -- I figured that much. But why? — Haamer (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Those who would refer to themselves as otherkin tend to believe they are spiritually beings that have verifiably never actually existed. - Because it's true. Elves, unicorns, etc. do not exist. Identifying oneself as one of these is a pretty bizarre claim on all levels.

Otherkin.net - Because it's one of main sites, probably the most popular; no sign of any reason for removing the link.

FYIAD - Seems like a pretty well-known otherkin-related meme. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiples

The stuff about multiples which was removed should be included somewhere on the wiki. If not here, then in the dissociative identity disorder article. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Otherkin and Autistic Culture

I've noticed a lot of Aspies are Otherkin. It's almost like a part of Aspie heritage, to me. I don't really think I'm Otherkin, as in, strictly believing myself to be something spiritually Other, though I have a strong connection with toads and other amphibians, which would make me Therian if I were sure such things were possible, but I'm Aspie definitely, and I've observed this Aspie tendency toward being Otherkin. Aspies like to cite references to medieval changeling myths, where apparently it was believed that some being such as a fairy or demon would switch "normal" babies with their own offspring, which was a way of explaining and coping with having a disabled child. It's not a very "nice" example of a myth, of course, but I'm just using it as an example to show that the idea of Otherkin has always had a place in Autistic culture, starting from this myth. And being Otherkin clearly serves a purpose for Aspies. I like having Otherkin as part of Autistic culture, even if it's woo, because it's really pretty neat. Otherkin could be real, even if just imaginary, because our imaginations are very real to us all. Even if Otherkin is just a lifestyle, it's real. I like that it's a way of transcending what it supposedly means to be human, the artificially imposed "identities" and behaviors and limits which most humans are taught from birth. I think it's beautiful, really. Bumpy Toad (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If otherkin are "part of Aspie heritage", I'm embarrassed to have been diagnosed with Asperger's. If you want neat stories, go read/write a novel or something. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 07:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That was kind of mean of me. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 07:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was kind of mean. Oh well. I guess I'm used to it. Bumpy Toad (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyposcirsy

Article says that transsexuals are supported by science and this isn't, when this is a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_dysphoria You are part of the problem with your cis-species privilege! Thedoctor81 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The page lacks any credible sources ^{— Unsigned, by: 49.213.19.128 / talk}

DSM Manual

Does it say anything about this? I don't exactly have a copy of one. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This page needs more critical analysis

The article does a fine job of documenting otherkin culture, but not enough [1] criticizing how truly irrational otherkin are and [2] explaining why the constant comparisons between otherkin (and more extreme -kin, think the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" parody) and trans people are flawed. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That, and it obviously needs a psychiatric angle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This be some woo nonsense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

My critical analysis is that with our identity being little more than a convenient mental and social construct, both otherkin and anti-otherkin are not even wrong when making absolute essentialist claims about their and others' 'innate' identities. Personally, I think sexually identifying as an attack helicopter sounds awesome. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I sexually identify as the jet from Count Zero book.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, hearing this stuff about "sexually identifying as weapons", I can't help but be reminded of George Carlin's "Rockets and Penises in the Persian Gulf" routine.24.61.154.51 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did we think it was a good idea to add an image of a man who committed suicide?

[[File:StalkingCat.jpg|thumb]] This man committed suicide in 2012. The image was added in 2016 by BoggleYourMind. We really should remove this image from this wiki if all we are going to do is snark at a dead man; who isn't even otherkin.

Source of suicide.

Maybe someone tell BoggleYourMind "How in the world did you think that this was a good idea???".

ClickerClock (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe BoggleYourMind didn't realise he'd committed suicide, I've deleted the image. Christopher (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I going to have to inform BoggleYourMind to be more careful. ClickerClock (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering the last edit BoggleYourMind made was in March, he may not respond. Christopher (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. It would be quite a shock if he does return. ClickerClock (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that Trans and Otherkin section...

It reads like an AltRight seminar. Holy shit. It reminds me of how TERFs dismiss trans people, and how certain gay people denigrate trans people as drag-queens. I smell far right tampering. I'm going to remove that section for now to draw attention to it. It's borderline TERF-esque hate speech. Is that okay to have on RationalWiki?

Plus, on top of that, it cites the trans-misogynistic pseudoscience as a way to validate trans above otherkin. However, that pseudoscience makes my trans partner deeply uncomfortable as it pushes heteronormativity which is anti-trans by its very nature. That section doesn't make RationalWiki look good, and if we are going to keep it then can a good argument be made for a section which promotes both trans and otherkin prejudice?

Like I said, I smell AltRight trolling all over this.77.107.172.208 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the section. What are the specific sentences and words that you find denigrating? I can't check the source, though: the link is broken. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)