The labels that we use here on P&N and others use elsewhere

[raildogg]

I think it is fashionable to call people politically-charged names these days. Whether it be "neocon", "hawk", "lib", "leftie", "commie" or "Islamofascist" or whatever. There are many more out there and some haven't even been invented yet. I'm sure some of you could come up with something great.

The question is: Is calling another person these sort of names an insult? Does it show your opinion of them? Also, most people are complex and they don't act uniformly so when you call them a neocon, are you saying they can only think one and only way? Can't they be flexible?

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine, and I feel that these labels are doing more hurting than helping. We need to spread joy one person at a time, not spread anger. Try to have a conversation with that person instead of calling that person this name or that name. I am guilty of doing these things I want to change. I will try to avoid these terms in the future, and I hope that happens elsewhere too. I doubt it will.

Also, most people are ignorant of the meaning of most of these labels, yet they use them in every sentence it seems. That is not what bothers me, what bothers me is that they get upset when you try to challenge them that their view of that term is wrong.

We need to evolve as humans and this is something we should work on.

 

[Meuge]

Agreed 100%... although some of these labels are more specific than others... and thus have a better chance of being accurate representations of the person's values. That being said, I still think that labeling people is a waste of one's time.

 

[Proletariat]

We're all probably going to die.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
We're all going to die.

Fixed.

 

[Steeplerot]

I deleted my smart-assed post for sake of goodwill or whatever the OP was trying to show (I think)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I think it is fashionable to call people politically-charged names these days. Whether it be "neocon", "hawk", "lib", "leftie", "commie" or "Islamofascist" or whatever. There are many more out there and some haven't even been invented yet. I'm sure some of you could come up with something great.

The question is: Is calling another person these sort of names an insult? Does it show your opinion of them? Also, most people are complex and they don't act uniformly so when you call them a neocon, are you saying they can only think one and only way? Can't they be flexible?

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine, and I feel that these labels are doing more hurting than helping. We need to spread joy one person at a time, not spread anger. Try to have a conversation with that person instead of calling that person this name or that name. I am guilty of doing these things I want to change. I will try to avoid these terms in the future, and I hope that happens elsewhere too. I doubt it will.

Also, most people are ignorant of the meaning of most of these labels, yet they use them in every sentence it seems. That is not what bothers me, what bothers me is that they get upset when you try to challenge them that their view of that term is wrong.

We need to evolve as humans and this is something we should work on.

The Country has still been destroyed so labeling the 52% responsible didn't make a hill of a beans difference unfortunately.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, it definitely is destructive. Especially when that label automatically causes people not too even consider anothers point, just because.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Yes, it definitely is destructive. Especially when that label automatically causes people to not even consider anothers point, just because.

QFT.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I think it is fashionable to call people politically-charged names these days. Whether it be "neocon", "hawk", "lib", "leftie", "commie" or "Islamofascist" or whatever. There are many more out there and some haven't even been invented yet. I'm sure some of you could come up with something great.

The question is: Is calling another person these sort of names an insult? Does it show your opinion of them? Also, most people are complex and they don't act uniformly so when you call them a neocon, are you saying they can only think one and only way? Can't they be flexible?

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine, and I feel that these labels are doing more hurting than helping. We need to spread joy one person at a time, not spread anger. Try to have a conversation with that person instead of calling that person this name or that name. I am guilty of doing these things I want to change. I will try to avoid these terms in the future, and I hope that happens elsewhere too. I doubt it will.

Also, most people are ignorant of the meaning of most of these labels, yet they use them in every sentence it seems. That is not what bothers me, what bothers me is that they get upset when you try to challenge them that their view of that term is wrong.

We need to evolve as humans and this is something we should work on.

Better straighten up there Raildogg, this seems like a pretty left-wing nut job idea to me.

 

[Stunt]

Labels can be counterproductive, but can also be a blessing for some.

For example, if you can create fear for a certain mindset; if you can associate politicians with this midset, you may be able to bring people into a less extreme position.

For example republicans use the term liberal, communist; democrats use neocon, fascism.

From an outsider looking in, I find the republicans have done a better job attacking and creating negative associations with liberals. However democrats have been far more aggressive in associating Bush to Hitler and other mindsets to push people away.

It's a simple part of politics, the extremes push each other away; people will continue to label the extremes as this tends to bring support to their argument. Both sides benefit/lose from this style of debate.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Labels can be counterproductive, but can also be a blessing for some.

For example, if you can create fear for a certain mindset; if you can associate politicians with this midset, you may be able to bring people into a less extreme position.

For example republicans use the term liberal, communist; democrats use neocon, fascism.

From an outsider looking in, I find the republicans have done a better job attacking and creating negative associations with liberals. However democrats have been far more aggressive in associating Bush to Hitler and other mindsets to push people away.

It's a simple part of politics, the extremes push each other away; people will continue to label the extremes as this tends to bring support to their argument. Both sides benefit/lose from this style of debate.

Agree with Stunt for a change on this one.

Republicans campaign of labling the Dems "Flip-flops" worked so well last round.

Most likely whatever lable they come up this time will also work on the Sheeple.

 

[judasmachine]

some are helpful as it can help one to understand where another is coming from, however when they're spat instead of just spoken they become derogatory.
(ie conservative to con, and liberal to lib, etc)

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Agree with Stunt for a change on this one.

Republicans campaign of labling the Dems "Flip-flops" worked so well last round.

Most likely whatever lable they come up this time will also work on the Sheeple.

The Flip-Flopper label was well warrented.

2004 was the first year the Democrats used targeted advertising; not much different than what google does with its advertisements. For example if i read an email about a flight I have, google's ads will advertise flights, and other associated items. The democrats used this method when pointing out Kerry's positions.

Many religious groups recieved ads and material focusing on Kerry's religeous side and how he was compassionate towards the Christian faith/views. Likewise with groups typically anti-christian (ie. pro-life, anti-traditional marriage); they received material almost in direct conflict with the Christian material. So it was no surprise when Kerry was giving public speeches and debates, he mantained a fairly ambiguous stance on key issues.

Throughout the campaign it was very difficult to get a clear response from the man and he was unable to give clear and concise answers to questions mainstream America demanded.

I think the swiftboat incident was absolute crap, and Bush is by far the ideal man to lead the free world...but Kerry did absolutely everything wrong and I refused to support the man. At least under Bush there's some hope of getting a good Dem in 2008. But a marginal/weak win from Kerry would have produced a Republican in 2008 wthout a doubt.

Just felt the need to point out why the flip-flopper label was well deserved. I can't stand politicans who go out of their way to confuse voters; precisely what Kerry knowingly did.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Agree with Stunt for a change on this one.

Republicans campaign of labling the Dems "Flip-flops" worked so well last round.

Most likely whatever lable they come up this time will also work on the Sheeple.

The Flip-Flopper label was well warrented.

2004 was the first year the Democrats used targeted advertising; not much different than what google does with its advertisements. For example if i read an email about a flight I have, google's ads will advertise flights, and other associated items. The democrats used this method when pointing out Kerry's positions.

Many religious groups recieved ads and material focusing on Kerry's religeous side and how he was compassionate towards the Christian faith/views. Likewise with groups typically anti-christian (ie. pro-life, anti-traditional marriage); they received material almost in direct conflict with the Christian material. So it was no surprise when Kerry was giving public speeches and debates, he mantained a fairly ambiguous stance on key issues.

Throughout the campaign it was very difficult to get a clear response from the man and he was unable to give clear and concise answers to questions mainstream America demanded.

I think the swiftboat incident was absolute crap, and Bush is by far the ideal man to lead the free world...but Kerry did absolutely everything wrong and I refused to support the man. At least under Bush there's some hope of getting a good Dem in 2008. But a marginal/weak win from Kerry would have produced a Republican in 2008 wthout a doubt.

Just felt the need to point out why the flip-flopper label was well deserved. I can't stand politicans who go out of their way to confuse voters; precisely what Kerry knowingly did.

I am not surprised again.

Still spewing 110% bullcrap from north of the border and religious on top of it.

Which one of the followers are you? Swaggart, Shuler all of the above???

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I am not surprised again.

Still spewing 110% bullcrap from north of the border and religious on top of it.

Which one of the followers are you? Swaggart, Shuler all of the above???

1) I'm not religeous in the traditional sense of the word. I support all social left values.
2) I typically find more Democrats I relate to than Republicans.

Feel free to point out my false assumptions and quit comparing me to the people I am critical of.

 

[LumbergTech]

i think its pretty obvious that the current gov is using labels to hold down certain view points..im guessing that all of them have done it..they use the word liberal with a poisonous sounding L ..its like a codeword to them..if they say liberal in a demeaning way then they know who to trust ..my girlfriends dad does this constantly, even though he is actually somewhat liberal in comparison to the older conservatives..he thinks that by maintaining this rude and dishonest approach of discrediting people will somehow help his groups ideology..i think it just makes them look wrong

 

[Moonbeam]

We label people so we can put them in a known box. In this way we can cease to think of them as human. We can treat them entirely as dead objects of memory that's always of the past.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We label people so we can put them in a known box. In this way we can cease to think of them as human. We can treat them entirely as dead objects of memory that's always of the past.

Definitely true--the right thinks the only good liberal is a dead liberal (or that the only place for a liberal is either buried in a wooden box or in the bottom of a landfill)

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We label people so we can put them in a known box. In this way we can cease to think of them as human. We can treat them entirely as dead objects of memory that's always of the past.

Definitely true--the right thinks the only good liberal is a dead liberal (or that the only place for a liberal is either buried in a wooden box or in the bottom of a landfill)

This has got to be one of the worst posts ever.

Overall, there have been some interesting resposes here, keep them coming.

It is not about one specific group, it is about all groups and all people involved in this name calling and labeling. MoonBean, yes we do treat them as something else besides humans. It makes us feel better when we take the human aspect out of it, that way we can go all out and make our point, supposedly.

Saying only Republicans or whoever can use labels is totally false. Every group, or almost every group uses various labels to put on opponents and new ones are being created every day. In fact, I see new labels popping up on this forum.

 

[Gaard]

Everyone uses labels. But there is a difference between using a label as a description and using one as a slur.

 

[Genx87]

are they helping humanity move forward

Nope, do I use them? Yup.

Edit: btw I will say that I dont expect Humanity to ever get past labels either because it is the easiest form of defense from something unknown.

It may even be subconcious function from the days when we would label lions, tigers, and bears as predators. Or from the days when we used to defend our villages from the other village with people who had a physical feature distinguishing themselves from people in your village.

 

[Proletariat]

I think you are asssuming most people want to move humanity forward. Labels are always used by ignorant people. Brown, White, Black, commie, Russian scum etc. etc. Unfortunately most people are ignorant.