Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Temple BINGO Creation

Page: (1)2

19:34 / 12.06.07

This thread is for, hopefully, making a Temple version of one of these;

Feminist Comics Reader Bingo Card

Basically this is a card with arguments on it that have been successfully, or at least extensively, argued over already here, that keep coming up.

Rules of thread;

1. Write a sentance summarising a badly thought out argument often encountered in Temple.

2. Write a paragraph debunking said argument.

3. Discussion ensues over disagreements... nicely please.

4. We either stop when we have enough, or when we have more than enough and vote via PM on the ones to be included.

5. Someone that is not me volunteers to make good with the web-fu and turn this into a useful card to stick in the wiki and direct newbies, 'tricksters' and silly people to. Or people who just haven't already gone over these arguments a thousand times!

Questions? Comments? Reasons why this really won't work? Any constructive criticism would be appreciated.

I put this in Temple because I anticipate discussion and it may turn out that the thread itself becomes a useful place to point people towards.

Mako is a hungry fish

08:04 / 13.06.07

Heh... you actually read my mind on this one, though I was going to present it differently - still, I rather like your approach.

I'm going to start first with: -

1. Tricksters smash reality tunnels.

2. Tricksters don't always have the power to smash reality tunnels - quite often their actions reinforce them. For example, no matter how many times Coyote fucks around and gets himself skinned, Fox comes to the rescue and brings him back to life even though he knows that the same thing is going to happen, again and again and again, and he has to debate whether or not the world really needs Coyote in it; Coyote is still Coyote, Fox is still Fox, the World keeps on spinning and the reality tunnels remain.

Who came up with the term "smashing reality tunnels" anyway?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:16 / 13.06.07

1. Tricksters smash reality tunnels.

Has anyone actually argued that?

09:43 / 13.06.07

Hasn't it been argued that someone is being the trickster/taking the trickster role by smashing reality tunnels? Didn't *p*p say that? Or did he avoid explicitly calling himself 'trickster'?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:06 / 13.06.07

This is not a regular argument being put forward in the Temple and being refuted ad nauseum. It is a straw man.

People who have, in the past, claimed to be fulfilling a Trickster role on Barbelith have also made claims relating to the rigidity of certain emic reality tunnels around here, and the smashing of same. Enough people have done this that it's become a running gag; when someone turns up claiming to be manifesting some variant of Trickster, people now make jokes about the smashing of reality tunnels.

I'd have to comb through the stupid questions thread again but I don't think anyone has ever actually made the assertion that unless reality tunnels are getting smashed the Trickster is not present. I'm happy to be corrected; if someone can find me a link to a post where this argument was ever actually put forward, I'll admit my error cheerfully enough. Till then... Like I say, straw man.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:09 / 13.06.07

I think the nearest thing you're going to find is the assertion that one important function of the Trickster to undermine, subvert or otherwise attack a stagnant dominant structure. Not the same thing.

11:11 / 13.06.07

So is there a way to edit Mako's suggestion? Is it worth blending the two ideas... For example;

1. One important function of the Trickster is to undermine, subvert or otherwise attack a stagnant dominant structure.

But then the response would presumably be to agree... and then to point out that this isn't their only role and that they aren't always successful in this role, which I think was Mako's point?

or unpacking it into more than one point... like;

1. Your(the people on Barbelith's) reality tunnels are rigid/viewpoints are narrow/minds are closed, I know this because you are being PC.
- Barbelith is not 'PC', it is a place where people are encouraged to look at what they are saying and challenge racist, sexist, etc. mindsets which may otherwise remain unquestioned.

2. I am taking a Trickster role by 'smashing your reality tunnels'/subverting the norm/shaking up your narrow views on reality.
- How best to respond to this? 'You are not a trickster, you're a very silly boy.'? sorry. Umm; behaving in an offensive way does not serve to open people's minds, especially in a place dedicated to discussion where the majority of active members are involved in activities outside of 'the norm' anyway.

3. X archetype/type of deity's role is Y.
-And then response is explaining that one limited role doesn't really cover it... and this works for Trickster, Death, Love, etc. Examples are probably useful for this one.

I'm sure people will feel free to pick these apart... I'm happy to correlate responses to this and make it more coherent.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:13 / 13.06.07

Could we just all stop talking about tricksters for a bit?

13:46 / 13.06.07

Who came up with the term "smashing reality tunnels" anyway?

I blame RAW mostly, although Robert Shea bears some of the burden.

Okay, for the Bingo card,
1. The world will be destroyed in 2012 by fire
2. No it won't. Go and read the threads or wikipedia on Mayan prophecies, eschatology and Jose Arguelles, and Gilbert & Cotterill's book that started it all.

Mako is a hungry fish

15:10 / 13.06.07

Could we just all stop talking about tricksters for a bit?

I'm going to respect rule #4 and stop, though point out tha Haloquin's unpacking of my point is incorrect - I'm not suggesting that Barbelith is rigid, nor that I'm a Trickster, nor that an archetype can be defined.

18:13 / 13.06.07

Mako, I wasn't saying you were saying that was the case. I was just unpacking the argument that "tricksters smash reality tunnels" into other arguments that people may have made that were related. Such as arguments on the nature of tricksters, or the argument that one's obnoxious behaviour is justified if one can relate it to an arhcetype's behaviour.

I didn't think you were arguing that any of these were the case!

18:18 / 13.06.07

Bingo?

19:08 / 13.06.07

1. Lapsing into incomprehensibility as a response to challenges, either in the form of glossolalia, strings of arcane initials or frankly bizarre pseudo-technical jargon.

2. In the sense of quantum aetheric strings, a.a.e.e., BYOB!

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:15 / 13.06.07

Could we all stop talking about a) Tricksters and b) Mako for a little while, please?

Bingo:

1) You have to descend to the darkest depths of the human psyche to understand the darque majicks.

2) This may well be true. However, you, Sonny Jim, have not descended to the deepest depths of the human psyche. You have sat in a room and surfed extreme sites on the Internet, then had a wank. The darque majicks remain largely untroubled.

19:30 / 13.06.07

1) You have to descend to the darkest depths of the human psyche to understand the darque majicks.

2) This may well be true. However, you, Sonny Jim, have not descended to the deepest depths of the human psyche. You have sat in a room and surfed extreme sites on the Internet, then had a wank. The darque majicks remain largely untroubled.

Also;
Not everybody wants to play with the 'darque majicks', there are other things to do magic-wise that are just as valid and useful, and perhaps more so if you are implying that you have to be messed up to do what you are defining as such. So, whether or not I, personally, consider myself to have 'descended to the deepest depths of the human psyche' does not mean I can't do magic or that your magic is better than or invalidates mine.

19:43 / 13.06.07

grant's expanding into behaviours rather than statements which is a whole can of wyrms...

Bingo-

1. My system of magic is right and yours is wrong.

2. Do please fuck off.

Mako is a hungry fish

08:00 / 14.06.07

1) You have to descend to the darkest depths of the human psyche to understand the darque majicks.

2. Whilst "as above, so below" is a useful tool in magic, exploring one level does not mean you fully understand or have fully explored that level, or its corresponding levels - i.e watching the history channel does not mean that you were in 'Nam and have accessed Geburah, having sex does not mean you appreciate union with the devine or conversed with a Water Elemental, and using east-siiiide hand gestures does not make you a Gangsta or one of the Devils minions.

Mako is a hungry fish

08:23 / 14.06.07

2. Do please fuck off.

Lol... to expand on that (whilst echoing the sentiment).

Magic is a soft science, and entirely subjective. Whilst there are some forumla's that tend to work, such as taking LSD to receive visions, the results of these formulas are unpredictable - for the most part, the formulas themselves are unpredictable and few people know exactly what's placebo and whats not. Just as you're able to study and practice and experience and come to what you believe is a truth, so too is every other sentient being on the face of this planet - your truth and their truth will often disagree, even if they're of a compable skill, understanding, and experience level to yourself.

Chances are that if you think that your system is the one true system, than your skill, understanding, and experience level, arn't quite as high as you think they are - at best magic works because we tell it to work, so there can't be any one true system, though this is of course my subjective truth on the issue.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:41 / 14.06.07

Related to My system of magic is right and yours is wrong:

1) My system of magic (usually HCM) is the ONLY system of magic. Any element from any other system can be appropriated and shoehorned into it without apology, and certainly without thinking very hard.

2) Your system of magic is complete and beautiful in its own right. However, it is not a universal truth of which all other systems are a pale reflection, with anything that doesn't fit being an error and easily discarded. Thor is not Mars is not Chango.

Mako is a hungry fish

09:50 / 14.06.07

1) My system of magic is complete.

2) Not its not, you're still here and you still have a lot to learn - even if you can teleport by changing your physical matter to pure thought and back again, or whatever you think it is that makes your magic the bomb digiddy, there's still more to learn. At best your system of magic seems more complete than others, however chances are that others go into greater depth on specific subjects whereas yours glosses over them with cryptic remarks that you don't really understand.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:55 / 14.06.07

My post above was not intended to imply that any individual's system is ever complete, in the sense that there is always more one can learn. I would call certain broad structures complete in the sense that they include sufficient complexity that you can find a lifetime's worth of work within them. A complete system can still be developed, but it can be developed from within using elements already present.

11:04 / 14.06.07

My system of magic (usually HCM) is the ONLY system of magic. Any element from any other system can be appropriated and shoehorned into it

My draft post was what TtS wrote, but I decided on the shorter version for comic brevity.

Bingo-

1. My magical practice is powerful enough to peel the paint off walls and I am a ninth-grade Adept with acolytes and everything and my mum is an Ipssissima.

2. We don't care. You're judged on your behaviour here, anybody can say anything on the internet, and anyway even if your claims are true your system is not the only system. Do please fuck off.

Mako is a hungry fish

18:31 / 14.06.07

My post above was not intended to imply that any individual's system is ever complete

I don't think it did, especially when you added "in its own right", however it brought to mind a poorly thought out arguement I've encountered elsewhere that may have occured on Barbelith - if not, then at least we've covered it in the event of it happening in future.

19:03 / 14.06.07

I'm trying to keep a record of these offline so we won't have to sift through them later. My plan will probably be to attempt to collate things as we go and then share it in-thread in a little while and then let/encourage people to pick it apart until we've something we're happy with. Does this sound ok? Does anyone object to me altering and mixing posts as we go?

19:04 / 14.06.07

In an attempt to keep the essence of meaning of course, not for my own dasterdly plans! Mwah ha ha... ok, I'm done.

Mako is a hungry fish

19:23 / 14.06.07

Are you sure you're done? Can't have a good evil laugh without petting your familiar, followed by a thousand mile stare over steepled fingertips with an enigmatic smile.

Sounds like a good idea by the way... it'll help to direct people if needed (i.e "hey interesting idea about how you're the reincarnation of one of histories most noteable figures... go check out the Temple Bingo thread, page two, arguement three, explanation four")

Mako is a hungry fish

19:31 / 14.06.07

1. My magical practice is powerful enough to peel the paint off walls and I am a ninth-grade Adept with acolytes and everything and my mum is an Ipssissima.

2. In reality the paint peels because of your poor personal hygeine, you're a ninth-grader who thinks they're an adept, your acolytes are actually aquaintances who happen to share the same classes with you, and you don't want to know what your mum gets up to when you're at school as even Crowley would blush, and your reality tunnel would be well and truly fucked.

19:56 / 14.06.07

and you don't want to know what your mum gets up to...

That bit's not really necessary, is it? I think this bingo card idea is meant to attack posts, not posters. "Your mum" jokes fail to accomplish this and, indeed, drag the thread down to the grade-school playground level. Please find some other way to express your distaste.

*

19:59 / 14.06.07

I would love to post to this thread, because I really enjoy the feminist BINGO idea. It accomplished some interesting things—it was funny, and also it was educational, and also it was a good release for people who have been faced with the same bad arguments too many times to count and who have good reason to be sick and tired of same. I've been having a hard time posting in that same spirit about stupid arguments we have really seen in Temple.

Here's an effort:

1) I can do my moojix all on the astral, and this makes me vastly cosmically powerful, even if no one can perceive any results in the lower planes. I'm doing work where it counts.

Responsorio: Sadly, no; if only magic were that easy. If you are making any real change on the astral, the theory goes, the results WILL be perceptible in the physical world—to someone, at any rate. If not, you're just engaging in fantasy. "As Above, So Below" means also that work in the physical world is equally "where it counts." After all, we live here.

2) The moojikal tradition of X culture is devoted to EVIL INSECTOID ALIENS, not real GODS at all!

Responsorio: Happily, no; as it turns out, apprehensions of a different culture's Gods as EVIL INSECTOID ALIENS or similar are one known symptom of a disease called "racism." Racism is curable, but the cure is somewhat rigorous and many people choose not to undergo treatment. That's as may be, but the minimum ethical behavior required of an infected person is not to spread the disease to others, or act on the delusions it produces in a harmful way. If a certain set of Gods appears to you through the filters of your racism as EVIL INSECTOID ALIENS, you can choose not to work with them, but you have a duty not to try to persuade the gullible that that's what they actually are. You also have a duty not to attack people for having good relations with those Gods. In short, if you're wedded to your delusions, fine, but it will help you to behave in a responsible manner if you are able to recognize that they exist only in your own head.

20:06 / 14.06.07

Addendum to the above:

And if you can't accept that all the evl insectoids are in your head and that we are all deluded, please shut up anyway. Because we don't care. And we tend to believe the UPG that sounds most like a valid magical practice and least like a b-movie written by the Klan.

20:21 / 14.06.07

1. My magical practice is powerful enough to peel the paint off walls and I am a ninth-grade Adept with acolytes and everything and my mum is an Ipssissima.

2. In reality the paint peels ... etc - Mako

Its also worth bearing in mind that some of the people being directed to the Bingo card will not be complete idiots or out to cause trouble, but will be just ill-informed and unused to rigorous arguments. So, while people do come here to cause trouble perhaps responses that offer the benefit of the doubt would be best, and save what we might actually want to say to them for a more viscious version... and I do extend that to the 'now fuck off'* line as well. Idiots, the deluded and newbies can learn, we can swear at trouble makers later, once they have proved themselves as such. Unless you think someone couldn't claim that without being deliberately malicious?

Admittedly if we get enough of both nice and nasty responses we can make two cards, and direct individuals as we feel fit, although I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with making that.

Key idea for this was education... rather than simply responding as though a newbie is a troll that has already been shouted at.

*although the expanded version is cool.

Mako is a hungry fish

16:47 / 17.06.07

That bit's not really necessary, is it?

Quite right, I do apologise; if I had put it in a more constructive way that wasn't designed at my own amusement, it probably would have come out as: -

It's pretty easy to mistake coincidence for cause - many things that seem like the direct results of magic are actually the direct results of ordinary occurances, however if you're able to initiate those sorts of chain reactions with knowledge of what will happen in the long run, then let me know.

Being really high up on magical ranking doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, and even less if you treat it with so little irreverance that you're willing to use it in an attempt to gain popularity - you don't get points because you claim to have visited Kether, and even if you have you're more likely to have been humbled by it and realised that it's not the top of the ladder and that being a few rungs below isn't that bad anyway.

You may very well be the direct descendant of a master, but that doesn't automatically reflect well on you - becoming a master isn't a birth right and involves a great deal of insanely hard work and difficult times; the higher a tree grows into the light, the deeper its roots sink into darkness.

Bingo.

1. Practicing X results in abomination Y - I know because I've met someone that it happened to, or it happened to a friend of a friend of mine.

2. At best, you met someone who was an isolated case - even the humble spork can poke out an eye, however using a spork does not mean this will happen; if it does, then it's spork malpractice.

11:04 / 18.06.07

Haloquin- I think the best actual use of these responses would be to copy them into a thread as and when required, responding to a post. Directing people to other threads doesn't often work, especially if the thread is marked 'BINGO' and is explicitly about rebutting common stupid arguments.
IMO, most people would say that their argument was somehow different to the one we'd pointed them at, and resist taking any lessons on board. Better to speak directly to them I think, and use this thread as a shortcut to avoid typing out the same things all the time, or perhaps steal some good phrasing like 'spork malpractice'.
Also it's a good place to vent at stupid arguments without people thinking it's aimed specifically at them because they wrote them. (Except anti-pope, the paint peeling was directed at him)

11:09 / 18.06.07

I was thinking we could include here the common responses we find useful in lots of situations;

"What does that actually *mean*, though?"

"Have you tried it?"

"Do you find that useful?"

"Says who? What are your sources?"

"Have you thought about a more compassionate option?"

"Why, for the love of creation, would you do that?"

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:13 / 18.06.07

"You don't know many women, do you?"

"You ever think about going outside of your bedroom for half-an-hour now and then? Just to see if you liked it, I mean."

Okay, I'll stop. But maybe more compassionate versions of the above might be helpful.

Page: (1)2