Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/29/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Good morning to all of my beautiful friends
  2. 1 point
    Hello, I'm new, and I'm fictionkin.
  3. 1 point
    @Amber Well, you're definitely right about it being complex. I'm thinking of trimming it down a bit, somehow, but everything I've included seems really relevant and important to me. Maybe I could try to mention some things briefly rather than going right into them. My target audience would mainly be people who are questioning a 'kin identity themselves, but I feel like some of the stuff I want to talk about would probably be relevant for other people as well. I mean, I'd love if I could write an article that, in a more passive way, helps communicate to non-kin/non-community members that we are serious and sensible about this. Helping other people understand our weird little community is something I'd love to do. In terms of how I'm going to write it, it's definitely going to be framed in terms of my own experiences - i.e. from spending so long questioning, this is what I've learned and this is the advice I'll give to you, things I wish I'd been told at the start. I don't believe there's any rules that could be 100% useful to everyone. But I also think a lot of what I have to say would be useful to most people, since it focuses on things like self-acceptance, dealing with mistakes, how to be sceptical without being harsh to yourself, etc. I'd also say... what you wrote under that article reflects a lot of my own opinions about it. Like, scepticism and questioning are good, but there's a point where you have to accept your identity and experiences for what they are, even if it doesn't entirely make sense to you and even if there's still some chance you're wrong. We can never be "sure" of our identities. We can never be sure that what we feel is anything more than some weird part of our imaginations, but remaining in that constant state of self-doubt isn't productive. So I think it's important both to be sceptical, but also to recognise when scepticism stops being helpful and to instead focus on your present feelings and what those mean to you, regardless of why you have them.
  4. 1 point
    I've always interpreted Yoshiko/Yohane from Love Live! Sunshine as angelkin of some sort. I'm aware that she is supposed to be a sort of parody of those who never outgrew their "edgy" phase, but it's not done in way that's too disrespectful imo. She shows a lot of signs of being otherkin including expressing that she is an angel since she was a child, insisting that her friends refer to her as an angel. It's really cute when they do recognize her as having her own beliefs because it makes her really happy and it just fills me with so much joy There is also a wolf therian in the Netflix original show "Glow." I haven't watched it yet myself, but I found this nice interview with the therian character's actress where she is pretty respectful (albeit uses some kinda off terminology) in regard to the character's identity:
  5. 1 point
    I would have a suggestion for the footer banner; I think it's a bit weird if it's only shown for unregistered users. If, it should be shown to everybody and if you don't want to see the ad, you have to pay a little sum, but maybe not as recurring cost. A lot of sites have a "donate once, get premium forever" system. And well, I could imagine that the people who are online here, are willing to donate a bit from time to time anyway. But I also like the idea with the goodies. While not necessarily a plush or something, but for my part, I'm a huge fan of stickers and other printed goodies. Maybe you could "sell" stickers or prints which were donated by users? They're rather cheap to dispatch and since it's not directly selling them, but rather a thank you for a donation, you should be able to legally send it as a gift. (But I think that was already discussed once? I'm not too sure anymore tho) Another idea would be to just make the donations button more apparent. Until now I actually never saw that there was an option to actually donate money.
  6. 1 point
    You're absolutely making sense, Charias. You're rationally and seriously addressing a very fair and complex question. I'd also like to second the statements made by @Cipher. However, let me try to add my own peak to that "philosophical hill" - for anyone willing to follow me up there: Correct. But I think we can safely formulate an even stronger statement: none of us can know for sure exactly how any other being thinks, including other humans or other animals. That means: if I would claim to you that I would think like a human, you could still ask me to prove it and I... couldn't. Neither can you. Because there is just no standard pattern of how a human is supposed to think; even if there were such pattern, I still wouldn't know exactly how you think, so I couldn't verify that your thinking actually matches the pattern. Hence, neither of us can prove that they're thinking like a specific animal, or a human; and still, neither of us can disprove an according claim. In other words, we have to trust that everybody thinks just like they do. And that "paradox" imo leads to exactly three viable options to handle personal people's beliefs which can not be scientifically proven, e.g. the otherkin belief. I'd like to point out that I only refer to beliefs which are reasonably, consistently and persistently taken, and that are not used to reason any violence against other beings, be it mental or physical. This includes, but is not limited to, the belief in the existence of god, the belief to be transgender, or the belief to be otherkin, but e.g. excludes beliefs taken temporarily for sheer fun. Having said that, the three options are as follows: 1) We call all of these beliefs wrong 2) We trust only part of the believers, i.e. we accept only a part of the beliefs and call every person who believes otherwise either wrong or even mad 3) We trust all of the believers, i.e. we accept all of the beliefs, regardless how strange or impossible they might seem Now, in my opinon, only option 3) is acceptable. Let my try to outline why I think so. First of all, taking option (1) would essentially mean to call most of the world population wrong. Also, I think it would consequently lead to accepting only things that can be explained by science; however, science fails to explain phenomena we constantly experience. This would e.g. include the phenomenon of conciousness, or feelings like e.g. love. These things would break down to be sheer consequences of electric signals in our central nervous system, the emergence of such would be mostly unknown. In some cases, e.g. the phenomenon of "phantom limbs" as consistently reported by otherkin, not even the biological use would be known. Now, to be honest, this is a fair assumption, but it is one that I just don't want to take because it leaves far too many effects unexplained, including those I'm constantly experiencing myself and can not deny. Coming to option (2). Now, first of all, because none of the beliefs can be proven better than another, there is no rational reason to accept only part of them. For example, there is no physical observation that verifies the existence of god; on the contrary, current physics' state of knowledge rather indicates the opposite. The same is the case for a person claiming to be transgender: the physical observation indicates the opposite. And yet the same is the case for otherkin. Hence, none of these beliefs is generally more or less provable than another. Secondly, the approach of accepting a specific belief just because the people taking it are in the majority can also be no rational reason, but would simply be unfair. Finally, I'd like to point out that history shows that taking option (2) was used to reason wars against believers who were classified to have the "wrong" belief. People have died in these wars. All in all, this makes option (2) completely inacceptable for me. Which leaves only option (3): accepting all of such beliefs. Now, what does that mean? It essentially means to take a "working assumption". In science, this term denotes an assumption that needs to be taken although it can not be proven. I will make the implications clear. For example, if a person consistently and persistently claims the personal belief that god exists, and names reasons for this belief, I have no other choice but to accept the working assumption that god actually does exist for that person. If a person likewise claims to be a man in the physical body of a woman... I have no other choice than to accept that this person really is a man in the physical body of a woman. If a person likewise claims to be a wolf in the physical body of a human... I consequently have no other choice than to accept that exactly this is actually the case, as unlikely as it may seem. Now, many otherkin perfectly match the criteria of consistently, persistently and reasonably taking their belief; the previous post is a good example: @Charias explicitely names the reasons. The motivation for this belief is oftentimes not even externally triggered; many otherkin take their belief although nobody has ever explicitely told them to do so (which is, by the way, a general difference to a religion). Hence, I have no other choice than to accept that this perception is actually accurate: a person who rationally, consistently, and persistently believes to be non-physically a wolf.. is actually non-physically a wolf. As for how this can be, there are multiple explanation models. The concept of reincarnation is one of them. There are others, e.g. the multiverse hypothesis, but this is not the place to discuss them. I'd finally like to point out that the above is a personal opinion of mine which admittedly could be called quite extreme. Maybe I've made a logical mistake. Hence, I'll be more than happy to enter a discusson about it. For the time being, I wish you all the best for the treatment of the headache which emerged by studying this text !
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00