This is the DE-ENABLE thread concerning buying and reading of tarot.

[katrinka]

13 minutes ago, frankie said:

😭🤣 How many artistic injustices can one innocent dog take?!

 

😳💀😆 I'm dying! So who's going to leave a review on Amazon? 🙃 😈 Oh wait. Seems like the dogs in this deck can't catch a break.

 

Yikes. This alone is reason not to buy her decks.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3F8679WM2V28/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0764354558

 

[fire cat pickles]

13 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 

Yikes. This alone is reason not to buy her decks.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3F8679WM2V28/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0764354558

 

This is terrible. Definitely de-enabling!

[Petalene]

What I find oddest about this deck - and there’s a lot of oddness - is the green glow around the people. Are they aliens? Is that their aura? If yes, why is everyone’s green? Something about the perspective and coloring just puts me off. The cards are too busy and too much wtf-ness for me to like this deck. However, YMMV and I’m sure I like at least one deck you don’t. 😉 

[frankie]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

Yikes. This alone is reason not to buy her decks.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3F8679WM2V28/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0764354558

 

 

2 hours ago, fire cat pickles said:

This is terrible. Definitely de-enabling!

Terrible, indeed

[Raggydoll]

20 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

Yikes. This alone is reason not to buy her decks.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3F8679WM2V28/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0764354558

 

😕 Ideally I’d like to read the whole guidebook entry for that one, I want to see the full context to see the extent of it all. What is quoted there is really bad and I want to see the rest of it. I wonder if anyone here has it and would share that particular page with us? 
 

Also, if I am not mistaken, that deck is published 2018? Aspergers syndrome is an older term, it was in 2013 that they included it into the Autism spectrum. So unless I got the year wrong for the deck, she even used outdated terminology. I have been supportive of this deck for its inclusiveness in the past, so I want to know. I have zero tolerance with ableism. 
 

[gregory]

I have it. Laters. (Such a shame - Waking the Wild Spirit was lovely !)

[gregory]

OK. Not good. But I have to say that the term Asperger's IS still used a lot - occasionally by medics and certainly among the general public - which Poppy is as far as I know.

 

[katrinka]

I know a couple of people who refer to themselves as "Aspies", since it was called Asperger's when they were diagnosed as kids. I'm sure they're aware the term has fallen out of favor, but it's acceptable for members of a group to reclaim words. It's not OK for the general public, if they're not aware of that then it needs to be pointed out. And casual conversation is not the same as a guidebook, which is supposed to be researched. This reads like the author had a bad experience at the salon and she's using "Aspergers" as an epithet.

[gregory]

Sorry - but actually the term is still in MEDICAL use, and therefore people can't really be taken to task for using it.

 

https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/conditions/aspergers-syndrome

 

https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/mental-health-aspergers-syndrome

 

https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/what-is-autism/asperger-syndrome

[katrinka]

It's a grey area, then.
But she's still using it as an epithet. She's spitting nails at someone she doesn't like - which is OK, though not a balanced or accurate description of the Knight of Swords essence - and she uses it in much the same manner as people use the term "re****", which is NOT OK. It's intended to insult, not convey a qualified diagnosis.

[Petalene]

The author doesn’t explain what they mean by that. I kind of sort of know what the term means, but not really. I’m more familiar with autism being a spectrum and I don’t know where exactly where Aspergers falls (or would have fallen when that word was more widely used) on it. My cousin is on the spectrum and the way it manifests for him is very different than the way it manifests for my friend’s son. If I say that something is like illusion knitting a blanket, and you don’t knit and don’t know what than means, then that example is meaningless. Illusion knitting (if anyone cares) is twice as many stitches as a “regular” blanket and on top of that, it’s complex and complicated so it’s time consuming and can be incredibly frustrating. The finished product is amazing and has occasionally been worth the effort. 
 

But my point is, I’m not clear on what they mean by this. This makes it sound like he’s all talk and no action and that’s not typically how I see the knights. The proportions of the faces seem off in this picture and is there a naked fairy trying to climb in his ear, because what the what? 

[Raggydoll]

Yes, sorry if I was unclear. ‘Aspergers’ is a term still referred to by patients and doctors since those who once were given this diagnosis has not had their diagnosis altered. Their papers still say Aspergers. It’s that they don’t diagnose people that way anymore. At least not here they don’t. So that’s what I mean by it being an outdated term. But that’s not the core issue here so it was more of a side note. 

[Raggydoll]

1 hour ago, gregory said:

OK. Not good. But I have to say that the term Asperger's IS still used a lot - occasionally by medics and certainly among the general public - which Poppy is as far as I know.

 

That guidebook entry is worse than I imagined, to be honest. Very disappointing. 

[katrinka]

37 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Yes, sorry if I was unclear. ‘Aspergers’ is a term still referred to by patients and doctors since those who once were given this diagnosis has not had their diagnosis altered. Their papers still say Aspergers. It’s that they don’t diagnose people that way anymore. At least not here they don’t. So that’s what I mean by it being an outdated term. But that’s not the core issue here so it was more of a side note. 

 

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
 

32 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

That guidebook entry is worse than I imagined, to be honest. Very disappointing. 

 

Indeed.

[fire cat pickles]

There are many medical terms that are still in use that clinicians and professionals use that are harmful when used out of context: AIDS, profoundly retarded, moron, idiot, to name a few.  

 

Does she use to term Asperger's' to describe any positive traits? Or is she fixated on the negative ones? How many times does she mention it in the LWB?

[gregory]

You mean I have to read MORE (I rarely bother; I look at the pix - and as you will have gathered, this deck is not a favourite...)

[Petalene]

5 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Yes, sorry if I was unclear. 

You were clear and thanks for the additional information.

 

I think I was unclear. I meant that I find it bizarre that the author of the guidebook assumes that everyone knows exactly what a medical term like Asperger's means to the point that this can be used as shorthand for the message they want to convey. 

 

On a side note, I showed my husband a couple of the cards. He did graphic design for years. He said that the line work is too heavy, the images are oversaturated so the shadows are too dark and the bright parts are too bright. That coupled with the weird perspective makes the oddities more noticeable. He also wanted to know what the demon fairy bug things were and why the green glow. Although he suspects the green glow is designed to attempt to soften the heavy line work.

[TheFeeLion]

Been a while since I've needed to use this thread but I figured I need to narrow down my list of prospective buys somehow (I've also posted in the enabling thread to try and get both sides of the coin).

 

Here's my list. Which ones should I remove from it?

 

Ethereal Visions

The Cheimonette

The Arcana Tarot

Cosmos Tarot and Oracle

The Bottanical Deck

Dreamkeepers Tarot

Dark Wood Tarot

[euripides]

Let's be gentle and kind, though.

Edited May 31, 2022 by euripides

[Petalene]

2 hours ago, TheFeeLion said:

Been a while since I've needed to use this thread but I figured I need to narrow down my list of prospective buys somehow (I've also posted in the enabling thread to try and get both sides of the coin).

 

Here's my list. Which ones should I remove from it?

 

Ethereal Visions

The Cheimonette

The Arcana Tarot

Cosmos Tarot and Oracle

The Bottanical Deck

Dreamkeepers Tarot

Dark Wood Tarot

If it’s the Arcana Tarot by Dead on Paper, I have both the dark and the light versions and I adore those decks, so I’m not the one to de-enable those. I like using them together in a duel spread when I’m reading for an issue with two clear sides. The pips are playing card suites, but they are unique enough that I don’t feel like I’m using a standard Bicycle deck. (I can read with almost any cards, even ones not intended for cartomancy, but I really struggle with a “standard” playing card deck.)
 

I also have the Dark Woods Tarot, but I don’t use it often. Sasha Graham created the deck, so the guide books is well written and it has detailed upright and reversal meanings. It’s billed as a good deck for shadow work. Overall, I like the art, although it’s not as diverse as I’d prefer. I tend to go for the spooky but no gory decks, so this is my style. 
 

if you have specific questions about theses decks or want to see pictures, let me know.

 

 

[gregory]

• Ethereal Visions - I have a number of major issues with this, not least the attitude of the artist when some issues were pointed out. I can't recall the details now, but... And - well, there are others in that style. Why that one in particular ?
• The Cheimonette - the art is very much a "if it's to your taste" thing.
• The Arcana Tarot - LOVE them. (But I note you refer to a different one, so I don';t have to say that now !)
• Cosmos Tarot and Oracle - nah. Imagery is too much like adverts.
• The Bottanical Deck I don't own this. I can't remember why I don't, but that says something, I suppose, as I am well known for buying stuff.... Wait - Which One ???
• Dreamkeepers Tarot - BUY DEES ONE !!!!!
• Dark Wood Tarot - excellent book; art work OK but not outstanding.

 

@euripides this isn't a gentle thread. Do you recall the day Julia Cuccia-Watts dissed her own decks on AT ? If a deck doesn't cut it, we can say so. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

Edited May 31, 2022 by gregory

[Eno]

De-enabling doesn't seem to work for me ... This thread just ENABLED me to buy the Dreamkeepers Tarot. Probably I need to go to the Betty Ford clinic to get rid of my tarot addiction.

[gregory]

I cannot say this in this thread - but....

 

Well, do NOT buy the Cosmo ! It could even serve as random imagery in their magazine and no-one would notice,

[Eno]

"The Bottanical Deck" (that on Etsy) is one of the ugliest decks I have ever seen. It has 130 cards and is advertised as "A combined 130 card tarot and oracle super deck of all plants! The perfect choice for a plant loving tarot reader." I can't even imagine how it's images are supposed to work as tarot. It just depicts random plants from carrots to cactea.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Eno

[gregory]

Oh my - that isn't very lovely at all.... Not the ugliest I have EVER seen - but pretty bad.... And confused; trying to be all things to all people rarely works.