┌─╷─┐ ╵┌┼┐╵ polyphanes.smol.pub ╷└┼┘╷ by polyphanes └─╵─┘
───╢※╟───
Even though the term could arguably apply to much of what I do, I intensely dislike the term "pagan" as a descriptor.
As many already know, the term comes from Latin "paganus" meaning "villager", with the supposed notion of someone being from a rustic, rural area. Although it's usually thought of developing in a religious sense as "non-Christian" (or "non-Jewish") as referring to people out in the country not taking to the spread of Christianity (which was largely a city-based phenomenon before spreading out into rural areas), some scholars argue that it's more likely to derive from Roman military notions of those from the country being incompetent soldiers, thus jargon for a civilian or non-combatant. From this, especially given the heavy military imagery of the early Church (think of how many early Christian martyrs and saints were Roman soldiers!), non-combatants were those who didn't fight for Christ. Either way, there's this latent notion in the term "pagan" that they're uneducated, non-civilized, non-cultured, and non-urban; there's also a similar situation with the term "heathen" (questionably "of the heath"), with similar connotations. But so many "pagans" I know are quite educated, civilized, cultured, and especially urban.
The way I read it, "pagan" being used to refer to non-Christians is like calling queer folk "non-straight" or "non-cis"; it implicitly centers a notion of Christianity being the default, with everything else being collapsed into some otherwise meaningless mega-category. So, please, don't tell me that you're pagan. Rather, tell me what gods you follow, tell me what practices you practice, tell me what culture you serve and preserve. Telling me that you're pagan doesn't tell me much at all, just that you're not Christian. Like, if you're not Christian and don't care about doing Christianity, then don't make the Christian use of a term appropriated by Christianity to describe your non-Christianity the focal point. Make your gods and practices the focal point, not those of a religion you aren't.
To be sure, a word's etymology is not the same as the word's definition. But beyond the connotations of the word that still persist from an older time, I also just don't find it very informative. To me, "not Christian" could mean damn near anything, like saying "misc religion". Like, as a priest in Lukumí, I could certainly be considered pagan, but to most people calling me that would put me in the same category as someone doing Norse stuff or Hellenic stuff, which doesn't really make sense. We don't share the same gods, practices, rites, customs, or worldviews; just being non-Christian isn't enough of a label to be meaningful.
Besides, there's also the issue in using the term "pagan" to describe various non-Abrahamic (and specifically non-Christian) religions that aren't of a particular milieu. Like, the way it often plays out, "paganism" tends to be most commonly associated with the reconstruction or revival of ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or similar religions that generally did not survive Christianity, but it starts to get really complicated (if not absurd) to talk about religious traditions that were never Christian (or Abrahamic), not in a European or Mediterranean context, and have been practiced continuously or otherwise were never impacted by Christianity: a variety of African traditional/diasporic religions, Taoism or various forms of Chinese folk religion, Buddhism and Hinduism and Sikhism and Jainism and other vedic or dharmic religions, and the like.