Are fluffy witches bad?

If you've been on this site for awhile you've probably have heard the term fluff, fluffy, fluff witch, fluffy witch. You may have also noticed most likely that this term is used in a derogatory term ,or seen as negative thing but why? Most may argue that it is not traditional. Or a legitimate study in whatever case my question to you Why do most witches do not except this concept, are fluffy witches bad, and should they be tolerated at all? I'm eager to see how people respond for I do not seem to get why many people on this site try to avoid these individuals please post your opinion down below. Lastly have a fine day or night

Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Well either they don't like to talk about it or its because of the rules on the site. But really its like "its impossible period" kind of thing so that's probably why as my opinion.

No, fluffies are not bad. They just haven't learnt yet.

While the tern "fluffy" is generally considered an insult, it basically means that the person is untrained and does not know what they are talking about. From my experience, the term generally falls on younger people and those that have a "Hollywood" take on magic. Sometimes these people stay ignorant of how magic actually is and live in their delusions of what they wish it was. It does not mean they are a bad person, just a little low on the knowledge pole.

I see I guess a new question arises where did the term fluff originate

I think that fluffy witches aren't bad, but they can test my patience.

Fluffy, as defined by the site's administrator, is someone who is shown to be ignorant (to the point of refuting knowledge) or are deluded into thinking things that break the laws of physics are real. The term itself, in this context, applies to "fluffy little bunnies"; people who think everything will go their way even if all logic points otherwise.

Beginners are the ones who are truly unlearned about things in a way that they don't have a firm grasp on what is real and what is not. While this is a stage for many in our spiritual lives (and it is naturally so; after realizing something previously thought unreal actually is real, many people are almost too open as to what else may be real. Media does help the cases of these people).

According to the definition above, true Fluffs are bad for the community as many new folk are susceptible to anyone who carries themselves as a knowledgeable person; this is why validation and cross referencing of sources are a good idea for everyone.

As for the folk who are truly mentally ill, to the point where they can't tell reality from fiction, they are not "bad" as they cannot control their perception. However, they have the potential to mislead just as much as the ignorant do.

The point of it all is that misinformation is bad. I hear a lot of cries to "Let them be! They aren't harming anyone" and that's not entirely true. For a person to claim they can grow wings or become a mermaid, they are leading gullible newbies to believe they can fly or stay underwater without consequence and that can be fatal. Most cases aren't as severe, but it proves the point I am trying to make.

Fluffy Bunnies (or alternatively, white lighters) tend to be misinformed, although some grow to stay that way.

For one, the biggest contributor to it are wiccan authors (notably, Llewellyn publishing) like Silver Ravenwolf who make broad claims over what witches are or are not, are chalked full of historically incorrect information (burning times, goddess cult), or use witch and Wicca interchangeably.

I believe the term evolved from the earliest internet forums for witchcraft.

But fluff really is someone who is shown to be ignorant when it comes to knowledge?

There are two basic forms of ignorance; simply not knowing and refusing to learn. The former is akin to Beginner and the latter is akin to Fluff.