People tend to think that something being "metaphorical" (like furry/kin identity, or mysticism stuff, or lots of other things) makes it less real.

That's kind of deeply missing the point. Our brains are *entirely* metaphorical. Our perception of the world passes through billions of years of evolutionary processing and filtering, and is only tenuously connected to a deeper fundamental truth. Approximations are all we have.

@starkatt It's fine with me if someone wants to self-describe their mysticism/furry ID, etc, as 'metaphorical', but the word is still used often enough to delegitimize such things that I'm really uncomfortable with it getting presented as the default or base-case for them.

@indi I can see where you're coming from. I want to push back against that delegitimization, because so many people come from a framework where "literal" == "objectively, externally, and empirically verifiable"

@indi I remember getting into an arugument with a friend once because he was conflating "god literally exists" with "god materially exists", and that definition of "exists" is so boring and limited.

@starkatt I agree with you there, but in that case, maybe a good focus here is broadening the definition of 'literal' rather than reclaiming its antonym?

Maybe it's just me but:

When I hear "You're not literally a coyote" I tend to want to say "Okay let's talk about what you mean by literal"

When I hear "So you're metaphorically a coyote" I tend to want to say "Why the fuck did you need to put that extra word there."

@indi If someone asked me that last thing, I'd respond with "yes, metaphorically, but that doesn't make it any less real." Maybe that's me implicitly respectability politicking...

Feeling that invalidation is definitely understandable.

I feel like no matter what, we're gonna get dismissed as irrational and misguided by a lot of people. The dichotomy between "literal" and "metaphorical" is a crock of shit, and I fully think it should be broken down from both directions.