LABELS - The Thread!

[Juana]

What VRBL said. You don't fix problems by ignoring them.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What VRBL said. You don't fix problems by ignoring them.

Please read what is posted instead of what you think will help the argument to continue.

[Juana]

I did read it, thanks. I stand by my point. By "consciously ignoring" gender, you are ignoring a lot of things that need to be addressed.

[Verbal Mike]

I should probably preface by saying that in my estimation, I'm mainly splitting hairs here, because ultimately, v3x and p3nt, I think you're both damn good guys for wanting not to be biased. Most guys don't even try.

But my point is mainly that in order to adjust one's own behavior towards eliminating bias, one has to be consciously aware of the oppressed labels of people around oneself. Trying to ignore color/gender is counterproductive in striving to behave in an egalitarian manner.

If this already came across clearly and I'm just repeating myself, then I'm the one not quite getting you guys, and I'll butt out until I'm less distracted by my friends' still-impending arrival, and re-read some stuff again later. Just wanted to make clear that I'm actually only talking about self-improvement here, not about how to "improve" other people.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think there's value in self-reflection and comparing your behavior between individuals. I don't think you need the labels to do that... though certainly they could be useful again for introspection/self-reflection. The problem with labels is when you begin applying them to other people and making assumptions about them based on the label (which is the bit that got us here to begin with)

[P3nT4gR4m]

But my point is mainly that in order to adjust one's own behavior towards eliminating bias, one has to be consciously aware of the oppressed labels of people around oneself. Trying to ignore color/gender is counterproductive in striving to behave in an egalitarian manner.

Trying to ignore is different from not seeing. The fact that you can't actually ignore or be unaware reminds you of the fact in itself. The ignore part is more about not letting it affect your actions. Making a concentrated effort. "Ignore" possibly isn't the right word but I don't have a better one handy

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I should probably preface by saying that in my estimation, I'm mainly splitting hairs here, because ultimately, v3x and p3nt, I think you're both damn good guys for wanting not to be biased. Most guys don't even try.

But my point is mainly that in order to adjust one's own behavior towards eliminating bias, one has to be consciously aware of the oppressed labels of people around oneself. Trying to ignore color/gender is counterproductive in striving to behave in an egalitarian manner.

If this already came across clearly and I'm just repeating myself, then I'm the one not quite getting you guys, and I'll butt out until I'm less distracted by my friends' still-impending arrival, and re-read some stuff again later. Just wanted to make clear that I'm actually only talking about self-improvement here, not about how to "improve" other people.

I don't think they're good guys. I read what they said, and I saw them go on the attack when they thought they had backup. I think they're shitty, cowardly, insecure guys who don't want to listen or learn because it makes them feel too threatened.

[trippinprincezz13]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

[Verbal Mike]

Rat: in general, I agree. In tackling one's own unconscious biases regarding certain labels, there doesn't seem to be any way to consciously work on them without consciously paying attention the labels, keeping in mind that the only really relevant thing is your own perception of things.

p3nt: that may be the disconnect here. To me, "ignore" refers purely to the conscious level of thought and action, which I don't consider to have such a huge effect on more basic things that you just don't think about. Can I suggest "eliminating bias in my behavior" as better terminology? Works for me.

Nigel: I can totally see where you're coming from. But in the greater scheme of things, it seems to me like p3nt and v3x are somewhere in the upper percentiles of coolness in this respect for even consciously giving a shit or claiming to. (This is not meant to suggest you guys are claiming to give a shit when you don't; I'm saying that even if that were the case, that's better than a hell of a lot of guys who are proud oppressors.)

EDIT: Also I should add that I agree with trippinp, it does seem like some serious misreading is going on here, especially considering p3nt's last post. (In case that was unclear.)

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

What's wrong with it is that, however many times I try to explain what you jut said, I'm one of those kinds of people who can be freely called "not human" and a "piece of shit." Ironically this outright and explicit dehumanization is perfectly acceptable, because I am not the right kind of opponent to implied and traditional dehumanization.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

You make some good points, but I've seen enough from the two of them trying to tell women what they "should" feel, that I'm pretty certain of my assessment.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

You make some good points, but I've seen enough from the two of them trying to tell women what they "should" feel, that I'm pretty certain of my assessment.

You should feel differently about that, Nigel.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"But he's really a nice guy and doesn't mean any harm, you shouldn't be so hard on him".

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Show me, please, where I told you or any other woman (or person for that matter) how they should or should not feel about anything, ever.

Thanks in advance.

[Juana]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200562.html#msg1200562
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200604.html#msg1200604
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200612.html#msg1200612
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200623.html#msg1200623
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200657.html#msg1200657

It's never been all-or-nothing/with-us-or-against-us. It's been "you don't get to tell us what we experience or control the conversation about it." Which he's repeatedly ignored.
I have also, explicitly and several times, said that we want dudes' input and you can disagree with HOW something is approached, but not what we experience (which he's also repeatedly ignored, most recently involving a terrible metaphor about lions). If he's backpedaling to that now, I give zero fucks.