Extreme Prejudice and the power of labels

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

My apologies if that's the case, that was not my intention. I'm just confused as to what you see the solution as being, or if you even think a solution is possible.

I agree we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.
But reading every book isn't practical either.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Great post. But I don't think we as humans will ever get over using labels. The solution is not to stop using labels, but to learn not to put too much weight on any given label.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Labels essentially turn a person into a product, whether a product of an ideology or service matters not. There's really nothing good to be said about it. Point of the thread is that labels should never be used as an identifier of a person because a person is more than any label you might slap on them.

The real issue is the power that labels with extremely negative connotations can be openly used when Persona A labels person B without the need for person A to clarify why they gave Person B that label.

Adjectives that have positive connotations within the context they are included: that is a fine pen!, the visual and auditory quality of that TV is amazing!, this computer is fast! cannot really be viewed as anything bad or neutral.

Adjectives that have neutral connotations within the context they are included — a green painting (is it good or bad the painting happens to be green?), a book that has many pages (what does the number of pages have to do with the book itself?), a house with a large roof (what does the roof size have to do with it being a house?) cannot really be viewed as anything good or bad.

Notice anything about all my examples above? That's right, they don't involve describing people! Sure, you can openly say: Jack is an intelligent person!, or Debbie has realistic aspirations, but ANYTHING deemed inherently negative becomes a problem when describing people — because if other people hear, they might believe what they have heard. And when the label is VERY negative, their reputation will unjustly suffer.

When it comes to labelling individuals OR especially groups of people sharing some common feature, people lose their minds and will believe what they are saying is racist/sexist etc.

It's madness and it needs to stop.

a reply to: dfnj2015
It depends on whether the label is a negative one. A label like "Jew" is simply an honest accurate description if someone is really a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, it's not a negative label. I check whether or not it qualifies as "name-calling". Like "evolution denier", "science denier", "creatard", "heretic" or "cult(ist)", those are negative labels and qualify as name-calling. The label doesn't always need to be spelled out to have the desired effect of painting a negative picture on someone and especially the last example I gave can only be described as name-calling if it isn't true (or spin motivated by an agenda). Referring to the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, and (Jonestown) Peoples Temple as a cult or their adherents as cultists isn't name-calling. It's just being honest in ones description of them.

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: dfnj2015
It depends on whether the label is a negative one. A label like "Jew" is simply an honest accurate description if someone is really a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, it's not a negative label. I check whether or not it qualifies as "name-calling". Like "evolution denier", "science denier", "creatard", "heretic" or "cult(ist)", those are negative labels and qualify as name-calling. The label doesn't always need to be spelled out to have the desired effect of painting a negative picture on someone and especially the last example I gave can only be described as name-calling if it isn't true (or spin motivated by an agenda). Referring to the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, and (Jonestown) Peoples Temple as a cult or their adherents as cultists isn't name-calling. It's just being honest in ones description of them.

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

I rember this Awake! article. Because I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and had to continually, day after day, deal with teachers at school, and classmates that called me every name imaginable to humiliate me, and make me small in their eyes.

Biblethumber, cultist, brainwashed. Back then most people still beleived in God. My God taught me not to treat other people like that. But obviously they were not being trained by anyone good. They still aren't. They are still at it, lying about us, and name-calling, hoping no one will pay attention to the facts.

There are a couple of recent threads on this message board about the Jehovah's Witnesses being banned in Russia. And guess what? Instead of paying attention to the facts given in court, and noticing how the court intentionally ignored the facts, and denied the evidence, and even though the prosecution HAD NOTHING to uphold their lies, the ban went into effect.

People on this board constantly harass Jehovah's Witnesses and spew lies and hatred. When faced with the facts they will ALWAYS ignore them. 100% of the time, and spew more hatred and lies.

The whole world is indeed lying in the power of the wicked one. Some of them know they are working for Satan, others of them though, they simply are too hateful to open their eyes to see what they are doing. Which is too bad. Many of them don't know anything else than to hate and lie and doubt, and believe anything but truth.

And again, when Jehovah's Witnesses are brought to legal courts, like in Russia. There is no proof. They simply have to ignore the truth, and continue lying. That helps no one.

a reply to: XeloE
Those kind of threads do tend to attract a peculiar type of person. The first one in the breaking news forum seemed to attract the majority of their accounts on ATS along with their most zealous victims. They have a peculiar style to their commentary. They like a particular propaganda routine and will repeat it quite often. But it's their craftiness that gives their true nature away for me regarding some of those accounts. Their influence on ATS is quite significant it seems, but subtle. Pushing buttons here and there regarding what this system of things and the spirit of the world has already preprogrammed in people.

It would really help if people would focus more on the facts/realities/truths/certainties and acquire some honest knowledge/science regarding these subjects and what's really going on in the world. This playlist is intended to focus on that and make a comparison as advised by Hebrews 5:14 (perhaps it has some interesting things in it for you as well):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to philosophies and stories

originally posted by: dfnj2015 I think when we label someone we are talking the low road.

I agree with this only insofar as the low road being the baseline, the natural and instinctual. I think labelling stems from tribal behaviour and is an essential element of how humans mentally organise information about eachother. We encounter the other person and we notice things about them. Our minds organise this information, gleaned via the senses, identifying markers placed on each observation. He smells! Label him a stinker, think of all the other people you know that stink, mentally group them together.

Labelling is a function of our natural response and interactions with each person we meet or encounter for the first time. It's part of the survival instinct, is this new person one of us? Is he like me?

In itself, it has no more value or importance than any other functional element within human interactions. Unless it carries with it judgement without discernment that closes the mind to the other individual. Sad when the interaction stops at the baseline. No hope for any meaningful connection after that. The labelled person has been objectified, dehumanised and rejected.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Good thread.

Here is a little story that is true.

Power can be a good thing or manipulated into something very bad.

Power, when some men are given some power many get drunk on it, here is how that works.

I want control, I want control over you, and what you do, what you say, what you wear, what you eat, what you read, what you watch on media, what you learn in schools, how much money you make, and so on...

However you cannot have any power over me. I have declared myself "special", I am above your laws, I can do what I like, I can not be held accountable, You have no rights to know what I am up to.

I am drunk on my ego, you are a bottom feeder to me, you are less important than me, and most of all, I am "better" than you.

This is inside of the minds of how powerful people "think".

You just want to slap the ( snip ) out of them. I know, right!

a reply to: dfnj2015

If labels have no good purpose then why did you feel it necessary to use a donkeys ass as an avatar?

What does that say about your opinion of posters on this site? You are a prime example of what you hate in others

a reply to: dfnj2015

Good thread. I think Neo is right, take the example of Psychiatry, pseudoscience.
They "create" more conditions/labels every year to add to their control over the human condition.
A priest does the psychiatrist work without charge

a reply to: whereislogic

Referring to the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, and (Jonestown) Peoples Temple as a cult or their adherents as cultists isn't name-calling. It's just being honest in ones description of them.

The label "cult" can also be honestly applied to closed belief systems with administrative censure and no right of redress like the Jehovas Witness's. Shunning of members from their own families, disgusting.

It fulfills the classical dictionary meaning of "cult"

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
I mentioned earlier:

...spin motivated by an agenda...

Nice example how to spin (or capitalize on the ambiguity of) language. It might have been more convincing if you had actually quoted from a dictionary when referring to that so-called "classical dictionary meaning". But it still works fine for those described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (it's what they already wanna hear). From the start Jesus' disciples have been referred to as a cult by the enemies of their God, who does have 1 singular unique name, and you're being reminded of it on a regular basis. You just don't seem to like sanctifying* it as Jesus described when he put it at the top of his list regarding his God in his model prayer (*: KJV uses 'hallowing').

Matthew 6:9
9 “You must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.* [Or “be held sacred; be treated as holy.”]

Babylon the Great won't be around much longer, better get out before it's too late.

Ezekiel 39:7
7 I will make my holy name known among my people Israel, and I will not allow my holy name to be profaned any longer; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah, the Holy One in Israel.’

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

Hebrews 8:10,11
10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.
11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!”* For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them.

I hope bible quotations or quotations from other threads that are related aren't counted as paragraphs in a comment... (or single sentence commentary on them, I could leave out the below and keep it to the single paragraph at the top but there's a point to this quotation that I don't wanna miss the opportunity to bring up about Protestantism and their theologians and their fondness of hypocritically accusing others of being a cult or part thereof as well; I really don't like leaving out the background behind the bolded sentence below).
Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find? (ATS thread)

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth. How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false?
...
A century later, Capito was listed first among prominent anti-Trinitarian writers.
Capito believed that the Bible was the source of truth. “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology,” he stated. According to Dr. Kittelson, Capito “insisted that the chief failing of the scholastic theologians lay in their neglect of the Scriptures.”
...
In about 1527, Wittenberg also became home to theologian Johannes Campanus, considered to be one of the greatest scholars of his day. Although at the center of religious reform, Campanus became dissatisfied with the teachings of Martin Luther. Why?

Campanus objected to the ideas of both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. According to author André Séguenny, Campanus believed that “the Bread as a substance remains always bread, but as a sacrament, it represents symbolically the flesh of the Christ.” At the 1529 Marburg Colloquy, a meeting held to discuss these very questions, Campanus was not permitted to share what he had learned from the Scriptures. Thereafter, he was shunned by his fellow Reformers in Wittenberg.

The Reformers were especially upset by Campanus’ beliefs about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. In his 1532 book Restitution, Campanus taught that Jesus and his Father are two distinct persons. The Father and Son “are one,” he explained, only as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh”—united, yet still two persons. (John 10:30; Matthew 19:5) Campanus noted that the Scriptures use the same illustration to show that the Father has authority over the Son: “The head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”—1 Corinthians 11:3.

What about the holy spirit? Again, Campanus appealed to the Bible, writing: “With no Scripture may it be adduced that the Holy Spirit is the third person . . . The spirit of God is taken in an operative sense, in that He prepares and carries out all things through his spiritual power and activity.”—Genesis 1:2.

Luther called Campanus a blasphemer and an adversary of God’s Son. Another Reformer called for Campanus’ execution.
...
The apostle Paul urged his fellow Christians: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So, labeling GMOs is a demonstration of extreme prejudice?

I would agree to that.

Easier to mental map and get a feel for what is going through peoples minds. The same way constellations are... but if anyone were to ask Asia? Orion needs a break.

However; in the ultimate sense? They are just points of light.

Yet another however? I lay down on my back in Santa Rosa state park in Arizona, and saw the entire night sky turn into a solid white sheet. Which in Native terms is the Great White Spirit, that was accepted as "god" when the Christians first stepped onto the native lands now known as "America" All points North and South was the migratory track, following natures pattern with trade routes all inbetween.

Of course; all Natives of all lands did the same and the real trail blazers filled in the gaps.

The thing about knowledge is it is all complete; it was just never really complied due to dogmas that created different ideologies.

The extended olive branch was this: Do you have this in your lands? As the sight knew it beyond language.

Now that we have language? We can say do you have this? However, there are still gaps and oles in that knowledge as well, even though it is also complete.

The real grey matter? Acceptance; if it is complete within? Then there is never any need to go without; unless to share and fill those gaps.

Fortunately? The internet is this centuries land bridge and like the old sword that turned into plow shears when holding up the olive branch? Can be used to cut all of those old lines of separation and demarcation.

Unfortunately? Many use it to cut new lines instead of extending that olive branch.

fill "it" in any way you see fit to one's own "taste" is the real point.

We may share the same tongue as some language goes; but no one can say my food is too hot or too cold, too sweet or too salty when it is in my own mouth unless that tongue belongs to me.