Page 2 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#52875 - 04/13/11 06:47 PM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Tesseract]
Gueheriet Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/11/09
Posts: 23
Sorry for my bad english.
I did the survey just because I also do a lot of field work on social studies and know how difficult to obtain data may be, but the whole rehabilitating Satan thing makes me nervous.
In my opinion Satanism must be dangerous and defiant, we don´t need to be seen as nice people ("oh those funny atheists who like black metal") we must be wolves among sheep. Not because we are gonna hurt their bodies, but because we are the accusers the ones who tell them the truths they don´t wanna listen and the ones who defy their stupids moral and social dogmas.

Top
#52896 - 04/14/11 12:58 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
So say what you want.


Alrighty then.

I can't vouch for her taste in men, but VS isn't that bad as far as dark-pagan internet spokespeople go. She was one of the first people I conversed directly with about Satanism as a practitioner, and I do have a certain amount of respect for her-- poledancing antics nonwithstanding. But neither am I interested in her attempts to present the "Satanic Community" as some sort of minireligion/subculture in want of mainstream respect like every other attention-hungry sect out there.

It's a tight-ass, elitist, and philosophical sort of thing, really. Guess I just have my approach while everybody else has their own.

 Quote:
I am frankly impressed.


I as well. Still haven't seen results for the second survey though. >_>


Edited by The Zebu (04/14/11 12:59 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#52898 - 04/14/11 01:51 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Tesseract]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway

Well, I suppose I should have anticipated these sorts of reactions and not bothered to make this post.

I've spent a large part of my academic career undermining stereotypes, and can't quite get it through my head that certain Satanists prefer to maintain their particular stereotype.

What's useful about the responses this post has evoked is that they provide me with a basis for discussing the reasoning behind why certain Satanists refused to participate.

Top
#52900 - 04/14/11 02:34 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
can't quite get it through my head that certain Satanists prefer to maintain their particular stereotype.


It's not just Satanists; lots of people live up to their stereotype. Earlier today I was almost sideswiped on my way to the bank by an elderly Asian woman who tried to change lanes into me, forcing me into the turn refuge lane.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#52901 - 04/14/11 02:37 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Jim Lewis

What's useful about the responses this post has evoked is that they provide me with a basis for discussing the reasoning behind why certain Satanists refused to participate.



Which is quite unproductive, considering that the number of respondents AND non-respondents would be statistically meaningless, based upon the hyper microscopic view this thread would provide. As the respondents on this site alone, let alone in this thread, is extremely small, I would contend that extrapolation to any meaningful demographic grouping would be "guess work" at best and rank speculation at worst.

There is no documented survey of world wide Satanists from which to draw such conclusions. You've indicated that you receive in the neighborhood of 100-150 responses, which is hardly adequate as a statistical base to draw any real conclusion. For example, here on the 600 Club, we have 4,592 as of today. While surely not ALL will now declare themselves SATANISTS, it is reasonable to assume that many will, or did at the time of their registration. That's THIS SITE ALONE. There are also thousands of others identifying as SATANIST at MCOS, JOS, SIN, LTTD, and hundreds of other "Satanic" sites across the web. Even allowing for duplications in membership, the remaining number would far outstrip your respondent pool.

And even there, one cannot accurately quantify the number of individuals for whom the term "Satanist" is a personal touchstone. How many more slip through the cracks because they simply don't plug in to any of the available sites, have decided they would rather remain anonymous, or any one of a thousand other reasons not to wave the flag and declare themselves for your survey?

At best, what you have is a vocally willing subset of an unquantifiable pool, which provides virtually no useable information for extrapolation to the whole. All you can site is what THIS thread's respondents have said. Each individual in this highly individualistic philosophy/religion speaks only for themselves.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#52902 - 04/14/11 03:03 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: Jim Lewis
I've spent a large part of my academic career undermining stereotypes, and can't quite get it through my head that certain Satanists prefer to maintain their particular stereotype.


With respect, I think you're making assumptions here. What is the origin of the stereotypes associated with Satanism? Not us - not we who seriously living that *way* of life. They're just assumptions made by *the others* based on some -ism or some -ology.

For myself - and I guess many folks here - I don't give a damn about *stereotypes*. We are what we are because for the most part we are diverse very different individuals who follow our own path(s) which can be loosely described as Satanism. Many of us even disagree about what we believe Satanism to be.

Speaking for myself, Stereotypes belong to mundanes and their mundane world - and we often defy them by choice. If others ape some mundane stereotype of Satanism, that's they're choice, but IMO it doesn't necessarily mean they are Satanists.

 Originally Posted By: Jim Lewis
What's useful about the responses this post has evoked is that they provide me with a basis for discussing the reasoning behind why certain Satanists refused to participate.


For myself, refusal because who cares what others think or believe about us? I don't care - in truth, the more misunderstandings about us, the better \:\)

It's not about popularity or image - it's about living a certain way, doing certain things (some magickal, others practical).

Also, many of us distrust such things by nature and intent, especially if they seem *official*. If you do the survey, for example, is the IP address logged? Where is the data kept and how? Encrypted? Available to whom? Etcetera.

Top
#52903 - 04/14/11 05:29 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: SinisterMoon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree here, there are many that care little for the stereotyping and it is only an issue to those and being public about it and preferring to be accepted as satanists by society out there. Others might see the very acceptance of society as rather detrimental. As a result, you'll encounter those who oppose the stereotyping, those who are either not bothered or amused by it and those who deliberately contribute to those public perceptions.

Satanists are a pretty weird bunch compared to other religious or philosophical branches out there and what applies to those, not always applies to us.

D.

Top
#52904 - 04/14/11 06:59 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Tesseract]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway

I left a rather neutral response to this discussion before I went to the dentist this morning, and must have forgotten to press 'submit.'

Anyway, this morning I noted that I probably should have known better than to have posted that link. I also observed that I now have some explanations as to why certain Satanists would not want to participate -- so potentially every post on this forum feeds into my research project in one way or the other.

On the bus and while having my tooth worked on, I had some other, more provocative thoughts.

I am aware that one of the favorite sports in these kinds of forums is to trash other Satanists as being "not really" Satanists -- "pseudo-Satanists," to use CoS's thought-stopping cliche. However, given that contemporary Satanism is an anarchistic subculture with no recognized central authority, there really can be no objective criterion for making such judgement calls.

I mean, no one's seriously going to say, "Well, according to the Satanic Bible, chaper two, verse five, where it says...." in support of some point of doctrine.

Top
#52905 - 04/14/11 07:25 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway

"Which is quite unproductive, considering that the number of respondents AND non-respondents would be statistically meaningless, based upon the hyper microscopic view this thread would provide. As the respondents on this site alone, let alone in this thread, is extremely small, I would contend that extrapolation to any meaningful demographic grouping would be 'guess work' at best and rank speculation at worst."

My statement says "certain Satanists," and does not generalize to make an assertion about all Satanists.

More generally, any study that reaches conclusions based on a sample and not on the entire population is open to the criticism of sampling bias. I raised this issue and discussed it in "Who Serves Satan?"

Over the years, however, I've had numerous Satanists give me feedback on that piece, all positive. The only negative feedback I've ever received is from Chris Mathews in his Modern Satanism book, who trashed me for describing Satanism as a "mature religious option." He was also obviously quite angry that I didn't portray Satanists as a bunch of Nazis.

Top
#52906 - 04/14/11 07:32 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You are right there are no objective criteria for what is satanic but that's the sheer beauty of all this arguing; personal interpretations at conflict. All conflict is beneficial and if a view can't withstand criticism, it is time for a change.

I have my specific views upon Satanism and will express those although I prefer all others, or all new to it, to just make up their own mind, but not assume I will therefor take it serious or not put my foot upon it.

I think you are mistaken about the bible-thumping. It is quite rare now but in the past, it was not that uncommon to invoke the authority of Lavey or TSB in an attempt to establish the real truth.

D.

Top
#52907 - 04/14/11 07:56 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway

"Also, many of us distrust such things by nature and intent, especially if they seem *official*. If you do the survey, for example, is the IP address logged? Where is the data kept and how? Encrypted? Available to whom? Etcetera."

Valid concerns. At present, the only people with access to the Survey Monkey account are myself and Helen Berger (until recently she was at Westchester University; currently at Brandeis). Helen, who is the primary author of Voices from the Pagan Census, is using our joint accout to research Neopagans.

I have never heard of hackers getting into Survey Monkey, though there can be no guarantees. The government, of course, can gain access to any online account - including the 600 Club - if they so wish. I plan to download all of the information and store it offline after my research project is over, and then delete the data from Survey Monkey. At the request of several respondents, the raw data will never be made public.

Survey Monkey is set up so that one can collect or not collect IP addresses. I am not collecting IP addresses.

Thus I have taken reasonable precautions, but not 'secret agent'-level precautions.

As for trusting me: I don't know how "official" I am. I'm employed at a Norwegian university, and my primary audience is mainstream academia. After researching Satanism for a dozen years, the only Satanist group that has ever suffered from my work is the post-LaVey Church of Satan, which I criticized in my online article, "Diabolical Authority" (a long story that I don't intend to share in an online forum).

Top
#52908 - 04/14/11 07:56 AM Re: Stockholm Satanism Conference; New Questionnaire [Re: Jim Lewis]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
This survey asks the wrong questions. I couldn't answer yes or no to many of the questions because I'm not involved in those things which are alien to my lifestyle.

I see the survey as being a mundane society related survey more like a community census form. I could have answered it in many ways and to not subvert the test I'd have to give yes or no answers that would be out of context to say the least. Most of it seems aimed at sensing for propensity of criminality and psychopathy.

Satan is freedom, Satan is not limited to clinical questions that are alien to Satanism. I am not willing to write a block of text in every single "other" or "optional comment" box because I was not compelled to make one dimensional views attached to myself. But here is one set I could answer with a fixed view. Example.

62. What types of violence can be justified?

Physically Punish a Child?
Completely unnecessary as children understand communication. Children learn their own lessons through rough and tumble in the garden and through play about what is hard to fall on, sharp or dangerous. Who hurts a child instead of making communication? It seems to be acceptable among religious cults but they call it corrective discipline.

Strike Someone Who Attacks You?
By default this is self explanatory. Some blows can be shrugged off and the purp humiliated and laughed at. Retaliation is dependent on the severity of the situation, as in, if a friend attacks you from emotional troubles you obviously don't hospitalise him but fight fairly, but why would a friend hurt you anyway? surely over misunderstanding. But all in all I like to make sure a real enemy is crippled, tortured.


Strike Someone Who Attacks a Loved One?
As close to lethal as you can get away with, torture is optional and risky because efficient calculated violence would be the safest way to ensure loved ones are free from threat.


Kill Other Soldiers During War?
By default this is self explanatory as war is war. If it means killing your own soldiers or not is a different matter.


Kill Someone Who Breaks Into Your Home?
Expect to be killed if you are foolish enough to break into another's home.


Execute Convicted Murderers?
Only by ones own hands because the state law of execution is a dishonouring service. To have the naturality of revenge taken away by law officials would be more emotionally traumatising and soul destroying than the loss of ones loved ones alone, being the reason those seeking to execute revenge must do so.

Then the state may say "then you ought to be put to death for taking revenge" then I shall say "who on earth is going to want revenge? Interfering strangers that have feelings of loving protection for those who would kill without reason?"

Anyone who interferes with another's life ought to expect violence or at best make a conscious attempt to explain why it was an accident and apologise with manners. After all Satanism is freedom and with freedom comes ultimate responsibility, to take liberties from others one must either be foolish or just plain stupid.

Respect wild animals (Satanist), or like the dregs feeling protected by society, take petty liberties and infringe others space for petty gain but be prepared to take the repercussions you deserve.

I'm sure mob justice is satisfactory if the perpetrator is a grown male and the victim was a orphan for example. In Venezuela the children join in to burn paedophiles alive. What care do we for that which Nature has turned her face from and forsaken.
_________________________


Top
#52909 - 04/14/11 08:01 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway

"I think you are mistaken about the bible-thumping. It is quite rare now but in the past, it was not that uncommon to invoke the authority of Lavey or TSB in an attempt to establish the real truth."

You're right. I even quote some of these people in "Diabolical Authority."

Top
#52910 - 04/14/11 08:17 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
Jim Lewis Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 32
Loc: Tromsø, Norway
Reply to Svort Verda Solkin:

Many items in the questionnaire are there for the purpose of comparison rather than purely for the purpose of producing a profile of Satanists. Some of the items from the General Social Survey, for example, allow me to compare certain Satanist attitudes with the attitudes of the general population.

Also, Helen Berger included that same violence item in her Paganism questionnaire. It turns out that a larger percentage of Satanists said that one should 'never' punish a child, whereas the larger percentage of Neopagans said that one should 'rarely' punish a child. I know that's a tiny difference, but nevertheless interesting (to me at least). It makes one rethink the assumption that Satanists would be harsher parents than Neopagans.



Edited by Jim Lewis (04/14/11 08:19 AM)
Edit Reason: typo

Top
#52913 - 04/14/11 09:40 AM Re: New Questionnaire Promo Video! [Re: Jim Lewis]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
First off, let me thank you for taking the time and trouble to engage directly with us, and not only respond to our questions/doubts/moans but for doing the survey in the first place.

 Originally Posted By: Jim Lewis
It turns out that a larger percentage of Satanists said that one should 'never' punish a child, whereas the larger percentage of Neopagans said that one should 'rarely' punish a child. I know that's a tiny difference, but nevertheless interesting (to me at least). It makes one rethink the assumption that Satanists would be harsher parents than Neopagans.


Agreed that's such replies are interesting in some ways, but one is assuming, surely, several things here, such as (1) that the answers given are honest; (2) that the people responding are *Satanists*; and (3) that those responding are possibly in some way a representative sample of *Satanists*.

Which again leads one to questions such as - what is Satanism and who are Satanists? In respect of the latter, are they those who describe themselves thus? Or is there some criteria one might suggest and apply to ascertain whether or not such self descriptions are valid?

Having read much of the academic literature on the subject, a lot seems to me rather unscholarly - often mere repetition of what some self-professed *Satanists* have said/written or what has been said/written about them and their writings (such as they are).

Rigorous research, spanning years and involving scholarly minutiae, seems somewhat absent. The formulation of opinion based on hasty or superficial *research* seems to the norm.

I give just one example of the latter. Graham Harvey's opinion - in a rehash of an earlier article by him - in Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology that Anton Long is Beesty Boy (C. Beest) and his reliance on the biased views of a person since disappeared from the Occult scene. An opinion formulated and publicly expressed by Harvey without even bothering to contact the two individuals in question, let alone meet them, and let alone read/study any of their works. Not only expressed by Harvey, but published in a work by a mainstream publisher with the word *Critical* in the title! One seriously wonders about the type of peer review involved.

In that same article, Harvey glibly asserts – without referencing any sources or presenting any evidence at all – that what he calls the ONA’s complexity of cosmology is just some elaboration of ideas that are "common ground to many esotericists and to sci-fi films and books."

Instead of studying primary sources (and individuals) in a diligent manner, over a scholarly period of time, and then formulating an opinion on the basis of such sources, there are hasty conclusions based on limited or shoddy research.

Unfortunately, this example is not the exception.

Perhaps part - or most? - of this is due to this being a relative new area of academic research, and a lack of scholarly definitions.

So, possibly a good start would be for there to be a scholarly study of Satanism by an academic individual - a study which would involve years of detailed research, and which research which would form the basis of a proposed definition of what Satanism actually is, and which study would be *definitive* (at least academically) until replaced by an equally scholarly one, and which research would involve detailed analysis of modern Satanic writings and personal interviews with the principle individuals involved.

Surely this would be much better than everyone writing the same sort of excuses about the difficulties of *defining Satanism* (modern and otherwise)? For wouldn't this one scholarly tome stimulate other academics to agree/disagree and thus move the subject forward in a scholarly way?

/rant \:\)

Top
Page 2 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.