Extreme Prejudice and the power of labels

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

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.

Saying you can't call someone a bully because calling someone a bully is being a bully is a tire argument. I don't think it is a good argument to say someone must endure someone else's intolerance because labeling someone's intolerance as intolerance is also intolerance.

This like saying not having a religion is a religion. These self-referential arguments are lame.

The point is once you label someone they are irrelevant. Of course, you could argue they are irrelevant. I just think labels are degrading. That is my opinion.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So you're not taking the high road, "they" are just taking the low road?

Like you said, we all think we're "right" for "valid" reasons.

We can't dictate how other's describe us, but other's can't dictate how we describe them either.
I don't see the problem.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Excellent thread! Very well thought out and presented

Politically speaking, there are two types of people who label others: The "useful idiots" who do not have the mental and/or emotional capacity to comprehend anything beyond themselves and their egos... and their masters in the PTB who use the "useful idiots" as foot soldiers in the divide-and-conquer war. It's not a new tactic and it's not a secret. It's written in all the history books. Those with the eyes to see and ears to listen know this.

Unfortunately, too many of those who do know manipulate this failing of human nature for their own agenda and purposes, knowing full well that the "useful idiots" do not have what it takes to see through their manipulations. Some will... sooner or later... but usually too late.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: dfnj2015

So you're not taking the high road, "they" are just taking the low road?

Like you said, we all think we're "right" for "valid" reasons.

We can't dictate how other's describe us, but other's can't dictate how we describe them either.
I don't see the problem.

I think once you label someone it ends the discussion with your own personal blanket of prejudiced based on what the label means for you.

a reply to: Boadicea

PTB - Pass The Buck (?)

a reply to: dfnj2015

My apologies: Powers That Be.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dfnj2015

My apologies: Powers That Be.

It is a good thread. Although some of the arguments against are making me think there is not there there to what I am saying. The whole we must be tolerant to intolerance or we are intolerant argument has me flustered.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The point is once you label someone they are irrelevant. Of course, you could argue they are irrelevant. I just think labels are degrading. That is my opinion.

I agree that labels are degrading, I lean towards a solution of more labels not less however.

We either make up 7.5 billion unique labels, or we accept that generalities are often used and try not to let our prejudices take over when we see those generalities in action.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Prejudice is the result of biases such as the fundamental attribution error. Giving someone a label has little to do with prejudice, and more to do with propaganda.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It is a good thread. Although some of the arguments against are making me think there is not there there to what I am saying. The whole we must be tolerant to intolerance or we are intolerant argument has me flustered.

I understand

I've been feeling rather frustrated and flustered myself lately for much the same reason. It's not fun and it's not pretty, but it is what it is. And it does help me appreciate the many on ATS who are very thoughtful, resourceful, and wise. We cannot change anyone else, but we can appreciate and encourage the best of ATS -- like you and this thread. Thanks for posting it.

Extreme Prejudice and the power of labels

To name something is to control something.

a reply to: Michet

I have to be honest with you, at the beginning of the video I had a lot of prejudice. But I stuck with it. I thought the 3rd way stuff was very good. And Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur was right on.

originally posted by: neo96
Extreme Prejudice and the power of labels

To name something is to control something.

Or at least the person using the label has the delusion they are in control.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The whole we must be tolerant to intolerance or we are intolerant argument has me flustered.

Do you believe people have the right to their own thoughts and opinions?

I sincerely do, and I think that right is what needs to be respected.
The actual beliefs should be open to ridicule in an open and free environment however.

For example, I believe that both Mormon and Nazi white supremacist ideals show a clear misunderstanding of evolution.
Mormon's and Nazi's would disagree with me however and we need to treat each other with respect to find a resolution.

But here's the tricky part.
I just "think" I'm right for my "valid" reasons.
Perhaps I'm the one who misunderstands evolution and the Nazi's are correct.
Maybe it's the Mormons who are right.
Maybe the Black Israelites are correct and it's a stupid question because all of us crackers are possessed by the devil.

The point is there's a lot of stuff I'm wrong about, and there's infinitely more I will never know.

Intolerance is about dismissing the views of others whilst having the assumption that you know better.
It doesn't matter what flag you are holding when you do it.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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

Well, yes and kind of no sometimes. When someone labels someone either they do it with the intent to evoke a negative emotional reaction, or they don't. If they are going for the negative reaction, then don't give them the satisfaction of getting emotional and just stick to the facts. If there was no intent to offend, once again don't get emotional and just stick to logic and facts.

Did you notice that during our back and forth we were doing the label thing to a small extent? Obamacare vs. Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act? Of course, neither one is really an accurate description of the law, but the government is well versed in slapping a pretty label on crap legislation. Who would think that saying "Patriot Act" would leave a bad taste in your mouth? When I call it Obamacare I don't use that label to disparage the law, I've got plenty of other words for that. I call it Obamacare because I'm too lazy to say or type the full name. We were still able to discuss it in a civil manner by expressing our points of view and listening to the other side, and not getting hung up on the labels.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The whole we must be tolerant to intolerance or we are intolerant argument has me flustered.

Do you believe people have the right to their own thoughts and opinions?

I sincerely do, and I think that right is what needs to be respected.

Not 100% of the time. I do not believe someone has a right to yell "fire" in a theater because not being able to do so would mean their right to their own thoughts and opinions were violated.

You do realize people can think whatever they want. I think the discussion is more about treating other people as irrelevant because you do not consider their opinion "right" or "valid" based on some label. I'm not sure changing the conversation around to be about your right to your own beliefs is the topic. Nice try though. You've pretty much hijacked the thread with this line of reasoning.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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

Well, yes and kind of no sometimes. When someone labels someone either they do it with the intent to evoke a negative emotional reaction, or they don't. If they are going for the negative reaction, then don't give them the satisfaction of getting emotional and just stick to the facts. If there was no intent to offend, once again don't get emotional and just stick to logic and facts.

Did you notice that during our back and forth we were doing the label thing to a small extent? Obamacare vs. Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act? Of course, neither one is really an accurate description of the law, but the government is well versed in slapping a pretty label on crap legislation. Who would think that saying "Patriot Act" would leave a bad taste in your mouth? When I call it Obamacare I don't use that label to disparage the law, I've got plenty of other words for that. I call it Obamacare because I'm too lazy to say or type the full name. We were still able to discuss it in a civil manner by expressing our points of view and listening to the other side, and not getting hung up on the labels.

I wish all talks about public policy were done in a civil manner. The "Clean Air Act" is another one when the legislation guts all the regulations around keeping air clean.

Obamacare definitely has a negative connotation. And ACA who knows. Regardless, as a public policy issue, in 10 years the premium doubles and then doubles again, the cost will be more than most people's take home pay. The funny thing about Obamacare is it is pretty much a Republican plan. Democrats wanted a single payer system but that was out of the question. I think there's massive corruption going on in the healthcare industry. How can I even get the issue talk about without being labeled a "liberal communist" for not supporting the God given freedoms of laissez faire capitialism? I don't think I can. I just think at some point something has to be done about healthcare costs in this country. I guess I am communist for thinking so.

As a limiting factor, naming things can be useful for defining different roles.Different names for different jobs.I want my children to call me Dad.Using my first name or nick name isn't cool.I'm your dad, first before anything else,lol. Among friends, nick names often are terms of endearment.Some even prefer those names to their given names, in casual context.

Seeing as this thread is in metaphysics, the labels we choose for ourselves individually are worth a mention too.Ego has the ability to gradually delude individuals.I'm thinking of scenarios where one has a label for certain parts of their personality.

Acting or stage names come to mind.It's fine as a tool for self development or to help earn a living.Hopefully, once they're off stage though, they can put aside that image and get back to being themselves.I'm thinking specifically where people take on the role of titles or images temporarily.It's fine to be the "Boss" at work or the job-site, but are you only the Boss everywhere?It's not healthy to be unable to put the mask down, when required for the other roles we play in our lives.I often ponder how many mental health issues have been caused by individuals trying to reconcile who they are, with the roles they refuse to let go of.Being able to close the door behind you, can serve a purpose.

The thread has brought up a lot of the negatives evoked by the use of labels or how we choose to name.They can hijack our opportunities, by limiting our freedom of choice when it comes to dealing with others.In a world where the natural tendency of life is for things to fall apart or decline, the limits imposed by prejudice often speed along the process.Cooperation however, usually requires us to bring what we have in common together to achieve our goals collectively.The energy required to do that has to come from somewhere.I like to think that being able to look past prejudice improves the odds of coming up with more novel or creative solutions to the challenges we face. Imo, this form of leverage has better odds when you have a larger network to draw on...

Labels like almost everything are neither good or bad/evil, rather it is how they are applied/used.

I admit to labelling people but those labels are flexible and reflect my experience of the person.

For instance if i see a well/over muscled guy in a vest in cold weather walking down the street then i can't help but think what an idiot - does he really think he's impressing anybody? Then it occurs to me that yes he probably is

Big bankers, politicians, estate agents, lawyers/solicitors..., these are labels applied generally and often with negative feelings but I have met a few of each who seemed decent people (the exception that proves the rule is how i/we justify this ) Those individuals will get some sort of different label.

Top sports stars in many team events I label as overpaid primadonnas.

Anybody labelled as a 'caring' profession I tend to view positively but again have met very unpleasant people in these professions who again would be relabelled according to there personality.

Labels are used to group different people together (my sports friends, gaming friends, family, work friends......) it just makes life easier and as above does not have to be used negatively.

So I would propose that everybody labels everything be that subconsciously or not, again it is how the individual uses their labelling system that determines whether it is negative or positive.

We label/name everything else so why not our fellow human?

However I agree that labelling is widely used by the media and those who seek power to discredit anybody disagreeing with their narrative. You just need to listen to the introduction of whomever to know whether you are meant to agree or disagree with anything they say.