LABELS - The Thread!

[Juana]

  Of course.

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Garbo, remember saying how you probably need to step away for a while?

You probably need to step away for a while.

I dunno.  I don't think it's POSSIBLE to have this conversation without flaring up, so there's no point waiting.

And I'm a big boy.  I can take my medicine when it's appropriate.

(I'm still waiting to catch hell for my rant gland going nuts upthread.    )

[Juana]

Hmm, I haven't gotten there yet. But I'm actually feeling really, like, crowded and cranky (the reason I invented Web-less Wednesday was to decompress) so I'm gonna back off for a couple hours at least.

Garbo, remember saying how you probably need to step away for a while?

You probably need to step away for a while.

I'm a bit of a terrier, unfortunately.

[Faust]

Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Privilege is something that exists in the fucking West, too, at all levels, and it needs to be dealt with. If you're saying, "hey the UN is the only one who can talk about race and sex relations in America (or where ever)" then you need to remember that change happens on the ground. Roger learned something, Roger changed something about his vocabulary, because we talked about male privilege. I'm sure he's not the only one, he's just the most vocal about it. I know that I learned what my asshole behavior was through these kinds of discussions. I changed because I learned about privilege. All this shit happened on the ground.

Yes some small ground has been made, I wont argue that there is more that can be done, a larger audience reached and a greater impact wrought, because any progress is progress.
It would be negative and standing in the way of progress, messages and teaching to tell someone they are incapable of understanding based on their situation in life.
And I don't think you understood my UN comment, I don't believe the UN makes any progress at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course.

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmm, I haven't gotten there yet. But I'm actually feeling really, like, crowded and cranky (the reason I invented Web-less Wednesday was to decompress) so I'm gonna back off for a couple hours at least.

Fucking do-gooders.  This was just getting good.

[Faust]

Of course.

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

The bolded part has me genuinely considering gender and sexuality nihilism, It sounded like a fun phrase at the time but I am reaching the point where I wish to Reject all sexuality and gender based classifications as at best absurdism at worst completely false.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Those labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

But they don't tell Joe's story. They tell you some nouns or adjectives or adverbs and you Mad Lib the rest of Joe's story based on your assumptions tied to those labels. Only Joe can tell you Joe's story and it will involve a hell of a lot more than a few labels.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Those labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

But they don't tell Joe's story. They tell you some nouns or adjectives or adverbs and you Mad Lib the rest of Joe's story based on your assumptions tied to those labels. Only Joe can tell you Joe's story and it will involve a hell of a lot more than a few labels.

This is correct.  They prevent Joe's story, by instead presenting a dossier of labels that take the place of Joe's Story.

Sort of like taking The Count of Monte Christo and telling it as privileged cis/straight man loses girl and freedom to more privileged cis/straight white man, gets revenge, the end.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course.

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

The bolded part has me genuinely considering gender and sexuality nihilism, It sounded like a fun phrase at the time but I am reaching the point where I wish to Reject all sexuality and gender based classifications as at best absurdism at worst completely false.

That's what I've been arguing all along.

I am not a cis/straight white male, I am a human.  If you need a label, I am a Roger.

[Faust]

I didn't know I had the privilege to do this:

I claim right of conquest from my position of privilege, come forth and listen for here is my decree

I reject any and all dogma of the twin headed demon Gender and Sexuality.
I am on this day a simpler being for it.
I reject those qualities in myself and I refuse to see them in others, I decree this because I can, because of privilege.
Where once there stood the ever growing cacophony of hetro homo cis trans bi, man or woman and combinations thereof there is now only a person.

Where two beasts should rut it shall only be Fucking and when two beasts romance it be love.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am on this day a simpler being for it.

I'd argue that.  You are instead rejecting an enormous simplification.

[Faust]

I am on this day a simpler being for it.

I'd argue that.  You are instead rejecting an enormous simplification.

(When I say simpler I mean less headaches and having to wiki what I apparently am)

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I'd always kinda thought labels were more of a helpful prediction kinda thing.  Like, Garbo said in the OP "biped" is a pretty common label round here, and what I think might clarify that is to say something like:

If it makes sense to expect someone, labelled as a human being, to act similarly to other human beings you've met before, it might also might make sense to expect a similar correlation between other individuals with the same label.

In fact we can actually see that is true.  It is accurate to say that a heterosexual man displays romantic interest in women, this is likely true of all men who are (strictly) heterosexual.  But I think that's pretty self explanatory.  I think the obvious danger in labels has already been pointed out, which is when they are used as tribe-like identifiers instead of descriptors.  I think the thing that has been bubbling in my brain for a while is that maybe the problem isn't with labels themselves, but with these particular labels and the way we use them.

I mean, it would seem absurd to consider a hammer as inherently a bad thing that should always be rejected, just because it can be used to crush someones skull.  It's important to realise that stereotyping is going to keep happening, even unconsciously (anyone taken an Implicit Association Test recently?), maybe part of the answer to affecting positive social change isn't to deny that a process that happens anyway isn't happening, but to be more responsible in usages of stereotypes?  Group stereotypes have the power to aid oppression by creating an in-group and out-group, but, I think it's something I read here years ago:

"If you want to change a system you can't just tear it down, you have to build a better one."  (probably not completely accurate quote, but close)

xx

edd

[AFK]

The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.