Extreme Prejudice and the power of labels

Nothing makes you more prejudice than giving someone a label. Once you label someone they will never be anything more than the label you give them.

Snowflake, Liberal, Democrat, Black, Jew, Heathen, Goy, Infidel, Republican

Labels are like a road-map. Road-maps have some detail. But when you are driving on the road reality has a lot more detail than anything represented with the map. That is the problem with labels. People are much more than any prejudice you have based on you associated meaning with a label.

Labels allow people to treat other people as less than human. Once you are declared to be a certain label, your opinions and point of view become irrelevant. Because a label is a little compartment that says someone is just "this" and nothing more. Labels allow bullies to always be right. That is why labeling people is so popular.

On one of the forums I call someone a "liberal". I knew they were very right wing with their point of view. I forget the issue but they would advocating a position that was a little less extreme than the other right wingers. It was really funny. The person then dedicated a complete post about how they thought they were not a "liberal". It was like labeling someone "gay" in the 80s. No matter how far to the right you think you are there is always someone who is a little more extreme. The person was really unhappy being called a "liberal".

So where do you stand on using "labels". Are labels a good thing or a bad thing and why?

Labels are indeed a form of prejudice to make a person seem smaller in your eyes, they are a form of ridicule or mockery of scoffing.

I would add another one: biblethumper. This is often used by people to ridicule others who may refer to scripture to answer a question. It is a means of belittleing the person's belief.

This world is full of scoffers, and ridiculers as you have brought out though. Snowflake is a recent good example. I don't think Jew by itself is a derogatory term though as are democrat or republican. Some people even claim to be those. But they can be used in a derogatory fashion, just as the word gay.

On the other hand biblethumper, snowflake, and titles like that are strictly ridicule, as they are made up words, or words that are given a different meaning than what is intended. Again to make fun of, ridicule, or scoff at that person. Make them little in your eyes. Humiliate them, while trying to aggrandize, and puff yourself up.

Honestly I had you labeled! In a moment of clarity I'm having, just waking up...I read your post and must say I agree with you 100%!! It's well thought out and in my opinion not biased in anyway. Later today I'll reread your post to let it sink in. Once we label something and it's an enemy of the state, it's fit for eradication!
I raise my glass to you......

Hey, nobody is labelled forever. Maybe in your world/reality, but in mine, everyone I label has the chance to redeem themselves through action that would change my mind. If they don't and they keep doing what they are doing, the label seems has to strengthen itself.
If you constantly cry 'safespace' and get annoyed by someone appropriating your culture but have nothing else to offer to the world, you are a frigging millennial snowflake.

I also notice that you don't mind the labels neo-nazi, racist, trumptards, far righter etc. Which means that giving those labels to someone is still ok in your minds.
The only labels you moan about are those that involve YOU. Biblethumper, snowflakes etc

This tells me everything I need to know.
The label I gave YOU is still valid and strong in my head.

It goes both ways you know.

a reply to: Hecate666

But what purpose does labeling someone serve other than you can discount there opinion as being irrelevant? That's kind of my point. How can we come to any common ground agreement if one side is given such derision before the discussion even begins. I think that is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry.

Labels are neither good or bad. They're just tools used to evoke emotions. You want people to feel good about something, give it a positive label. You can take the exact same thing and give it a negative label.

When the government says, "Give me money or face guys with guns." it's taxation. When the mob does it, it's extortion.

When CNN talks about a government they want us to like, it's called an administration. Governments we aren't supposed to like are called regimes.

Small groups fighting governments we like are called terrorists. Small groups fighting governments we don't like are rebels or freedom fighters.

We like wealthy job creators and philanthropists, we don't like rich fat-cats.

Whether a politician is listening to her constituents or sucking up to special interests depends on the politician and the issue.

One man's religion is another man's cult.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Customers with cash in their pockets are the real job creators. And do you really think the ACA ruling on 6/28/2012 murdered the nation? That seems a little reactionary and overly dramatic in my mind. Any day now Trump can complete overturn ACA as if it did not even exist.

I agree one man's religion is another man's cult. But I do not agree labels are "neither good or bad". The moment you start using labels you have tunnel vision. As I said, I think people are much more complicated than broad brushed labels we dub them with. The other problem is once you dub the label the discussion is over. The prejudice is set in stone.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Hecate666

But what purpose does labeling someone serve other than you can discount there opinion as being irrelevant? That's kind of my point. How can we come to any common ground agreement if one side is given such derision before the discussion even begins. I think that is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry.

As long as some people are quick to judge me and call me a racist, I see nothing wrong with labeling them as idiots.
As I said, it goes both ways.
I don't know how you use labels but it seems different to the way I use them.

YOu see I never label someone without good reason. At first everyone is always equal and I happily work with them, discuss things with them, live as neighbours to them.
The only time I start using labels is when I get PERSISTENT opinions that I disagree with for good reason.

If they keep telling me they know who I am and judge me without any substance, only then do I start labeling people.

Please read all of my posts [well rhetorically saying] I have NEVER called anyone a name just for the lolz or due to lack of argument. I have called general groups of people snowflakes and millenial wusses. All due to their behaviour and insults towards people who have genuine concerns.

Yet the same groups never give me the same curtesy.

I have been called racist, nazi, idiot, tinfoil hat, far right, dumbass, etc just for stating a valid opinion that could have been discussed.
In return, don't blame me to bunch these people together and give them an nice shiny label like:
HYPOCRITES

a reply to: dfnj2015

Even if Obamacare were totally repealed tomorrow, what would remain is the legal framework for the US Government to force people to buy private products. That will never go away. You can count on some point in the future where the government will force people to buy a company's product to keep that company afloat, or simply because the company invested enough in lawmakers to insure healthy future profits. To me, that was the end of the United States where people were free to decide what they wanted to do with the fruits of their labor, and that's why John Roberts is just as responsible as Barack Obama. Either one of them could have stopped this. But they were either too short-sighted to understand what they were doing or too greedy to care. I put it on par with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

As for labels, I maintain they are still just tools used to evoke emotions. A pipe wrench can be used to fix the plumbing, or to cave in somebody's skull. The wrench itself is neither good or bad. It's the user, not the tool.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Nothing makes you more prejudice than giving someone a label. Once you label someone they will never be anything more than the label you give them.

Aren't you just doing the same thing and labeling people as labelers.

We're tribal animals who thrive on labels.

I agree that some labels are more loaded than others. But they are necessary.
Imagine a supermarket without labels, it would be a flustercuck.

I say ignorantly label everyone and accept the ignorant labels you are dealt.
But most importantly understand that labels can't give all the information.

Whilst a liberal heathen infidel is an accurate label for myself, I'm also so much more.
But that's just my white trash opinion.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I never labeled anyone a labeler whatever that label means.

I still stand by my OP. I'm not sure labels have any good purpose. I think they just allow bullies to always be right in any conversation.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You make very good argument with regards to the Roberts ruling. Unlike car insurance where driving is a privilege, be able to live is not a privilege. But at the same time I think the argument about people walking into a hospital and getting emergency care for free is a good argument for making health insurance mandatory by some kind of tax. But I agree with you idea about the government making it mandatory to buy a product. Of course, we do have social security and that is a very popular product. I'm not sure what is right or wrong but I do appreciate your position. Whether is done with healthcare I really don't care. After 30 years of 20% increase on average before and after ACA I would just like to see something done to reign in the out of control inflation. Healthcare makes the $20,000 Pentagon toilet seat in the 1980s look cheap. I think the insurance providers own the hospitals and there's a little little bit of corruption going on in overcharging services during patient visits. That's my suspicion. Whatever it is, healthcare just sucks for everyone!

I would love to have the conversation about healthcare and public policies to address the issue without being called a "fascist" or a "liberal".

There is also labeling of people as too good or worth more than they are. It often causes people to get worn up keeping up with the label you gave them. You tell your kid, boy you got a great job with plenty of money, they hate their job but stick with it because they label themself with a need to prove themself worthy in the eyes of other. Most deceptive qualities in people is not caused by greed, it is caused by trying to gain respect and admiration from others they care for.

Labels both ways are not good. we need to just accept people by how they are. Even a person who robs from people does not rob from all people. To some people they are good. It depends on what side of the coin you are on. I have known of people who stole from others only to give it away to others to get the respect from them. They can't understand that they do not have to buy the friendship from their friends.....or maybe if they do, they have chosen the wrong friends.

Some people are label makers and make more labels than a grocery store stock person. A label only exhibits what is perceived as worth by the person who determines the price you have to pay by your desires..

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I never labeled anyone a labeler whatever that label means.

I may have misunderstood.
Did you not say that people who use labels exhibit the height of prejudice.

I don't think you can label those who use labels with labels like prejudice , and claim the moral high ground.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I still stand by my OP. I'm not sure labels have any good purpose. I think they just allow bullies to always be right in any conversation.

Isn't bully a label as well?

I think I've totally missed the point here.

dfnj2015

I think labels limit conversation and opportunities. I don't like to miss out on opportunities so prefer not to label a person. And the only way to find out what opportunities are there is to have open conversation. I can't do that if I limit everything a person is/can be to a specific set of guidelines found under one label. By putting limits on that person..I set limits on myself.

Thanks,
blend57

Kinda one sided

the are positive labels which you totally ignored

originally posted by: dfnj2015
That is the problem with labels. People are much more than any prejudice you have based on you associated meaning with a label.

That's the problem with people, not the labels.
If you dismiss Bernie Sanders because he's been labelled a "commie" then that's not the labels fault.

We should just accept our own prejudice and take responsibility for it instead of blaming the words.

But for arguments sake let's say it is the fault of these labels. What's the final solution?


First they came for the adjectives and I did not speak out...

originally posted by: Hecate666
As long as some people are quick to judge me and call me a racist, I see nothing wrong with labeling them as idiots.
As I said, it goes both ways.
I don't know how you use labels but it seems different to the way I use them.

I hope we can agree two wrongs does not make a right.

The racist thing is a tough one. I don't think it is okay to be tolerant of someone else's intolerance. I totally get your hypocrite point and that it works both ways. However, if you are espousing black people have "smaller brains" then maybe you have something going on there that is slightly inappropriate.

I think you have to judge this in a case by case basis. But labeling someone a racists just because a person is white then I will agree with you.

Everyone thinks their opinion is "right". Everything thinks their opinion is based on "valid" reasons.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I never labeled anyone a labeler whatever that label means.

I may have misunderstood.
Did you not say that people who use labels exhibit the height of prejudice.

I don't think you can label those who use labels with labels like prejudice , and claim the moral high ground.

I was not claiming a moral high ground. I think when we label someone we are talking the low road.