Otherkin ~ Human but Not

[sprinkles]

Also I'd point out that taxonomy deals with branches. So cats are not just cats, they are carnivores, and Feliformias. Other Feliformias are the Hyena, Civet, Aardwolf, Mongooses, Meerkats, and soforth, believed to be descended from the Proailurus from about 25 million years ago.

 

[Matt3737]

The human imagination is a bit difficult to define as either real or fake as it consists of and delineates both.

It strikes me as identity fantasizing that is likely due to poor social integration though. They feel as outsiders and so identify with and elaborate upon an outsider motif.

 

[Mary Shelley]

The human imagination is a bit difficult to define as either real or fake as it consists of and delineates both.

It strikes me as identity fantasizing that is likely due to poor social integration though. They feel as outsiders and so identify with and elaborate upon an outsider motif.

That seems presumptuous to me. As most of us here are introverts and all of us are forum users, it could be more easily argued that we are the ones lacking proper real life social integration. By contrast, otherkin not only have forums but also have real life conventions and groups. This would be an additional source of socialization that would in no way preclude involvement in any other social involvements.

The us/them thing frequently tries to imagine that "those people" are so alien that they must live somewhere else like Austin or Portland. But like LGBT and most other things we define as subculture, they walk among you. They are your coworkers, your waiters, accountants, and employers. On the weekend, some people play frisbee and some hang out with fellow otherkin. You would find that there are many who define thems es as otherkin, furry, bdsm, and gay. People who belong to all of these groups still have day jobs and are better networked than you may realize.

I had a friend who considered himself a member of all of those groups who hung out with me while visiting Dallas. He travels often and has friends in many major cities around the world. So what brought him to Dallas that time? A bear convention, of course. He was planning to catch up with a number of friends and make new ones. To meet him, you would just think he was an exceptionally intelligent nice guy with a beard, because he is.

 

[Matt3737]

That seems presumptuous to me. As most of us here are introverts and all of us are forum users, it could be more easily argued that we are the ones lacking proper real life social integration. By contrast, otherkin not only have forums but also have real life conventions and groups. This would be an additional source of socialization that would in no way preclude involvement in any other social involvements.

The us/them thing frequently tries to imagine that "those people" are so alien that they must live somewhere else like Austin or Portland. But like LGBT and most other things we define as subculture, they walk among you. They are your coworkers, your waiters, accountants, and employers. On the weekend, some people play frisbee and some hang out with fellow otherkin. You would find that there are many who define thems es as otherkin, furry, bdsm, and gay. People who belong to all of these groups still have day jobs but are better networked than you may realize.

I had a friend who considered himself a member of all of those groups who hung out with me while visiting Dallas. He travels often and has friends in many major cities around the world. So what brought him to Dallas that time? A bear convention, of course. He was planning to catch up with a number of friends and make new ones. To meet him, you would just think he was an exceptionally intelligent nice guy with a beard, because he is.

I think you're focusing on the wrong part of my statement.

Yes, social membership is ambiguous, permeable, and largely arbitrary. People have to self-identify with the group they wish to belong to as well as be included by the rest of the group as opposed to being ostracised. The No True Scotsman fallacy takes its name from a form of this social ostracism in which group membership is attributable to a certain behavior that precludes the person or persons exhibiting such behavior as not belonging to the group despite those members already identifying themselves as members of said group.

The mistake you've made though is these people do not see themselves or identify themselves with any typical group membership. They idealize and identify themselves as being inherently different than other people. They do share in group membership amongst themselves though, similar to how some people wish to be non-conformist and then paradoxically conform to group expressions of what non-conformity should represent. When I said they had likely experienced poor social integration, I was speaking of typical, standard societal expectations.

Everyone, being human, is ultimately a social creature, but there can be large differences in how those interations take place and how they're expressed.

Edit: Also, you are right that they may or may not be very socially-accepted, popular people who engage in these thought processes for reasons other than what I was speculating about. It could be a form of escapist fantasizing from an overabundance of stressing social obligations. That was just my speculative opinion on what might be the origin of self-identification.

I just wanted to clarify that this wasn't a personal judgment, but me hypothesizing.

 

[sprinkles]

The idea that it is escapism is based entirely on the presupposition that such a proposition is necessarily fantastical and extraordinary for the one who holds it.

What if it isn't fantastic to them? What if they hold it to be a mundane fact - so mundane that it's comparable to the fact that I'm wearing a blue shirt?

The proposition doesn't inherently indicate any of this. People only presume it does based on what THEY think.

 

[sprinkles]

Moreover, maybe normalism is escapism. Escapism from a reality that is apparently chaotic and contains many unknowns.

 

[Matt3737]

The idea that it is escapism is based entirely on the presupposition that such a proposition is necessarily fantastical and extraordinary for the one who holds it.

What if it isn't fantastic to them? What if they hold it to be a mundane fact - so mundane that it's comparable to the fact that I'm wearing a blue shirt?

The proposition doesn't inherently indicate any of this. People only presume it does based on what THEY think.

Unless you're insinuating that these people suffer from delusional thought processes, then they necessarily understand and accept that their views are atypical and non-trivially distinct from those typically held views.

They self-ascribe the differential term 'otherkin' to themselves. That is a non-trivial distinction.

So no.

Escapism isn't itself outside the realm of mundane either. Watching TV and movies, playing games (imaginative, video games, board games, sports, etc.), reading books, etc. are all forms of escapism that aren't necessarily considered outside the realm of normal behavior.

 

[sprinkles]

Unless you're insinuating that these people suffer from delusional thought processes, then they necessarily understand and accept that their views are atypical and non-trivially distinct from those typically held views.

This does not contradict what I've said. A nihilist is also atypical and non-trivially distinct but they will still tell you that it's simply how they see things.

They self-ascribe the differential term 'otherkin' to themselves. That is a non-trivial distinction.

So no.

Trivial/non-trivial is irrelevant to my point, so no no.

Escapism isn't itself outside the realm of mundane either. Watching TV and movies, playing games (imaginative, video games, board games, sports, etc.), reading books, etc. are all forms of escapism that aren't necessarily considered outside the realm of normal behavior.

Sure it is outside of mundane.
Escapism by definition is an escape from the mundane and routine reality, often revolving around entertainment. It gets you away from what you consider to be banal or unpleasant.
These cannot be mundane things, at least not from the perspective of the escapist, because if they were mundane they would defy the act of escaping. This is a contradiction.

Edit:
Also 'mundane' and 'normal behavior' don't have the relationship that you're trying to give them here.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

1. Wtf
2. Lol
.

 

[invisible]

i didnt know there was a movement about this but sometimes i have felt like i am an "other" in some essential way. sometimes i find dealing with people to be so demanding that i feel like i dont identify with them, i feel like im from another planet. sometimes i think that ideas of identity, personhood, and existence are so narrow and inflexible and artificial, that i think i dont really belong to them, and i want to somehow get outside of them and find something more authentic.