Labels?

[Htom Sirveaux]

It seems to me that people are too complex for labels to be very useful, and yet it's difficult to imagine a world without them. Something gets damaged if people try to stuff themselves into what others imagine when a particular label comes to mind. And yet a label can also be a commitment, and don't people need commitments to know themselves, have a sense of purpose, and build self-confidence? Labels can hurt and create mistaken expectations, but they can also empower and bring people together.

Thoughts?

[hrmjustin]

1. I agree. I notice as my faith cuanges and grows thst labels don't pinpoint my faith completely.

Some would like to classify me as one thing or another but people grow and their views change.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. How have your views changed over time? nt

[hrmjustin]

3. My ideas on prayer and what God does in the world.

I believed at one point if you pray hard and obeyed the rules you would be rewarded in this life. I don't believe that anymore.

[No Vested Interest]

4. Ah, Justin, I agree that people change as well as their views.

I don't know that I'd say they always "grow", but people do "evolve" and "change".
Re labels: people will label - it's almost inevitable, maybe even necessary for the human mind.

But, I'm thinking only the person involved knows what the label should be, and sometimes even they don't know the best or correct label.
We can also be different persons in different circumstances.

[hrmjustin]

5. You put it better than I could.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. Have you ever been tempted to idolize a label?

And by that I mean, make one particular label *the* key part of your identity?

[No Vested Interest]

12. Interesting question. I would have never used the term "idolize" re a personal label

but I believe I understand your concept.

I do identify strongly with the label of "loyalty" or "fidelity", though I realize that one can overdo that or that sometimes the subject of the loyalty is not worthy of the virtue.

Is this what you had in mind, or were you referring to another type of label?

[Htom Sirveaux]

13. Any kind of label, but especially religious/spiritual labels. nt

[No Vested Interest]

14. Okay, then. I'll stand pat with answer in #12.

[rug]

7. The problem is when people stuff the labels in their ears.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. How does one avoid that temptation, in your opinion? nt

[rug]

9. Realizing that it's a category not an identity.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. Is this about cooling one's emotional attachment? nt

[rug]

11. Not so much as understanding that human beings do not fit into boxes.

Some people choose one, climb in and close the lid.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Don't we pretty much have to label things...

to get a general understanding? We label everything in some way, and it makes it easier to navigate everything from the grocery store to course lists. With religion, labels make sure we don't walk into a Catholic church, synagogue, Hindu temple or Christian Science reading room by mistake.

Of course labels are restricting-- that's the point. But one would hope the label is the start in understanding. The label is a pointer and it's up to us to go beyond the label and see what is important in there.

[hrmjustin]

16. What is a faithiest?

[el_bryanto]

17. I believe the term refers to an atheist who thinks that some atheists are too harsh on believers

Basically it's a way to bully their fellow atheists into taking a hard line approach towards believers.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

18. Another attempt at bullying. Just sad.

[Goblinmonger]

19. No, it's not

It comes from a book from someone who self-identifies with the label and makes the argument.

[hrmjustin]

20. Thanks my friend and welcome to our group.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Not a problem.

I know that I am not a fan of a lot of faithiests (S.E. Cupp comes to mind immediately), but it is a self-selected label.

[el_bryanto]

22. That's possibly the origin of the term; but obviously it's being applied wider than that. nt

[Goblinmonger]

23. I think that's pretty much how it is being applied

Certainly the book that coined the term is seeing it as a positive trait and many on here don't think it is a positive attribute, but both seem to be using it to describe the same approach.

[Goblinmonger]

25. So why am I getting that attitude?

If I had come in here saying "you have no idea--your mind cluttered with belief and all," I'm quite sure I would be blocked from this group (and I would be fine with that decision). Why do you think you get to take that attitude with me?

I'm trying to tell you how it is being applied from those that think like me. I admit that I, and others, don't see it as a positive attribute. I just don't think we are using it to describe people in a way that is inconsistent with the person that coined the term (other than the positive vs negative attribute concept).

[el_bryanto]

26. You are getting that attitude because I know who you are

And I know how eager you are to excuse even the nastiest comment by an atheist.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

27. I have posted nothing in this safe haven that violates the SOP

I've conducted myself quite well in here today. If you think I'm wrong, please point out where that would be.

Your attacks of me seem to quite clearly violate the SOP of this group.

[el_bryanto]

28. Than I suppose my comments will be hidden.

We'll have to see.

I am pretty damn sure I would get the same response if i were to post in Atheists and Agnostics. Probably worse.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

29. Depends on how you posted.

Again, if I have posted somehow out of line here, please let me know and I'll make changes.

[rug]

30. Your defense of a hidden homophobic post, for starters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643738#post37

Your threadjacking disruption for another.

And no, you won't change because, why you did nothing wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

31. I've asked for an explanation of why it is homophobic

and have gotten nothing. If you wish to explain beyond "because it is," I'm ready to listen. I have no idea why that post is homophobic and I have no explanation from anyone as to why it is.

MY threadjacking disruption? Before I got involved:
Justin makes a post about the appropriateness of the hide.
You make your homophobic comment.
okasha posts to let you all know she alerted.

That's three posts that take the thread off course before I get involved.

Then el_bryanto decides to threadstalk me to continue his abuse of me after getting a 6-1 hide in another thread.

Yet it is just me that caused the disruption. A host of this group openly stated that el_bryanto did nothing wrong in his attack on me even though a jury voted 6-1 to hide. You do know how bad things need to be to get a 6-1 hide. But nobody else in this group which is supposed to be all about civil discussion decides to let him know his attitude was shitty.

And now you continue the discussion here and this will probably become all my problem for threadjacking.

Whatever. I tried to have a discussion in this group. I was nothing but civil to everyone I responded to. Even during my "threadjacking." I'm quite sure if I wasn't, the hosts would be more than happy to have blocked me. I've even asked what the problems were and offered to change. You give me real reasons why that post is homophobic and I'll edit my response to you. But I'm sure you've searched the google for some indication of "baby" being a gay slur and found nothing so I don't expect you to have a reason beyond "because it is." For me, say it enough times and it becomes true doesn't work.

Clearly the SOP of this group is just utter bullshit. You aren't open to all people. You don't want civil discussion with all. Even when people are openly asses to me, it doesn't matter to the people in this group. You can go back to your discussions amongst yourselves. The locked thread is the second largest thread on the first two pages of the group.

[hrmjustin]

32. We do not chastice our members in public.

You however are pushing it and I invite you to withdraw.

[Goblinmonger]

33. I was chastised in public in this group.

Several times.

kentauros publically said that what el_bryanto did was just fine, so I would reckon he didn't privately chastise him.

And unless rug has some "snappy" response to my, I'm done in here. Clearly I'm not welcome and those that attack me are.

[hrmjustin]

35. You camd in here knowing fullwellwhat might happen and started trashing the place.

Don't blame us if it didn't go your way.

Oh and trashing this group like you did is a SOP violation.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Started trashing the place?

Where did I do that Justin? What did I say that deserved the response el_bryanto gave me? A jury agreed 6-1 that he was out of line.

I was nothing but respectful to even him and his attacks.

[hrmjustin]

39. here.

Clearly the SOP of this group is just utter bullshit. You aren't open to all people. You don't want civil discussion with all. Even when people are openly asses to me, it doesn't matter to the people in this group. You can go back to your discussions amongst yourselves. The locked thread is the second largest thread on the first two pages of the group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1264&pid=3828

You also came in here like a hall monitor saying rug and el_braynto are not fitting the sop of this room. That is not for you to decide.

I don't appreciate you doing that. I kept my mouth shut because I did it in AA once defending rug in a thread that the op said he was putting him on ignore.

If you hzve concerns bring it to the hosts.

[Goblinmonger]

40. Yup

That was one of my last posts.

What did I say to el_bryanto that warranted his response?

I thought this group was about civil discussion. It seems to me that unfounded claims of homophobia and personal attacks that get hidden by a jury seem to be against civil discussion.

Why would I have any desire to bring it to a host when the head host told me that el_bryanto was just fine with what he did?

[hrmjustin]

41. The head host might not have seen the hide. I don't know.

But you knew your presence would be disruptive and it caused him to snap at you. He got a hide and as far as I am concerned we move on.

If I came back to your room you know damn well what the reaction would be. I stay away because it would be disruptive and mean for me to go back.

If you want to post here then DO NOT CRITICIZE OTHERS HERE.

[Goblinmonger]

42. It just seems that that attitude

of "do not criticize others here" doesn't apply to everyone.

You say you don't publicly do that but your are publicly doing it with me. But not el_bryanto. Or rug. So it seems like the rule is "DO NOT CRITICIZE BELIEVERS HERE."

But, I'm done with this discussion before y'all have more reason to throw the threadjack label at me. If rug comes back with more, I'll respond to him, but I'm done posting here. I get it.

[hrmjustin]

44. We don't get posters like you coming in here to start in often.

I welcomed you here but if I saw what you did in the other thread I would have confronted you about it. I bit my tongue for several reasons.

Thi is not a high traffic group but all we ask is for calm and insightful discussions. But you didn't come here for that.

Now it is time for you to withdraw because my patience is at an end.


Note to jury I am a host in this room.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Sorry

but I really don't give a shit about your "patience" or see that as a reason to stop.

I've said above I'm done here. I'll follow through with that if the "you trashed the place" discussion stops on your end.

[hrmjustin]

47. I am a host in this room and ask you to withdraw.

You presence is disruptive.

[kentauros]

43. I said no such thing.

Quote me if you need to. Whereas, I have to assume you mean my reply to you in the locked thread, re the following:

Neither you nor el_bryanto have violated the SOP, but I would ask that you both take it to PM, where this entire threadjack should have gone, too.

and assume you are referencing el_bryanto's post to you in that same thread, re:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643738#post38
38. Hey it's great to have you over here to lecture us

Why don't you stick to your own forum?

Atheists already have the AA forum and the Religion forum to shit on believers - do you really need this forum too?
Bryant

I will admit that it's borderline on the civility, yet still not close enough to warrant a hide or a warning.

So I will reiterate, as much as I hate having to hammer this again and again:

Neither you nor el_bryanto have violated the SOP, but I would ask that you both take it to PM, where this entire threadjack should have gone, too.

I think we've explained ourselves enough. This isn't the Religion group where it's downright expected for players to go round and round arguing the same little bit back and forth while ignoring the entirety of the original post.

Stop arguing semantics or I'll have to shut this one down, too! Take it to PM where it belongs.

[rug]

34. And I told you I'm not parsing gay slurs with you.

Why don't you stop your whining about other DUers? You whine here about el bryanto and you whined about me in replies to kentauros.

The SoP does not include disingenuous meta about DUers that you're trying to import from your other haunts.

And you can go back to truebrit71 and tell him you tried. Maybe he'll thank you for your efforts, even though it amounted to no more than stirring bullshit.

BTW, since you like irony so much, read your own words:

I was nothing but civil to everyone I responded to.

something, something, something . . . .

Clearly the SOP of this group is just utter bullshit.

I bet you don't even see it.

[Goblinmonger]

36. That response was in the same post.

Look at the time stamp and find something before that that is uncivil. I've offered to edit those if so. Once it became clear that publicly attacking me was just fine, I thought it was time to point that out. I responded to those attacks in nothing but a civil manner.

And hopefully it is clear to everyone that "I'm not parsing gay slurs with you" really means "I have fuckall as to why that is homophobic but I can't possibly admit that."

[rug]

38. Ah, "find something before that that is uncivil".

before that. That's the ticket!

What is clear is that you didn't hear a word kentauros explained to you as to why it is homophobic.

I give him props for crediting your question with more sincerity than I ever would.

Oh, do not ever attempt to paraphrase me. It's patently dishonest and only makes you look ridiculous.

[Goblinmonger]

45. You mean this?

How the little bits, the minutia, work individually doesn't matter. It was all an attack on Justin and definitely against the SOP. To me, and to the other hosts here, the entirety of his post comes across as thinly veiled homophobia. If any one part is homophobic, it pretty much tends to taint the rest of the post.

That comes down to "because it is."

The only thing I can get from anyone's description is that Justin is gay, the post was harsh on Justin, therefore homophobic. There is no data given for the claim. And certainly no warrant.

Let me repeat, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT POST IS HOMOPHOBIC. Give me some real, actual reasons. I have read none.

[rug]

48. "the entirety of his post comes across as thinly veiled homophobia"

If you had actually read about casual homophobia you'd know accurate that statement is.

And I will tell you one final time: I am not about to parse gay slurs with you. I have no interest whatsoever in listening to you defend how one word or phrase may be homophobic while another is not. The prospect of such a conversation is truly nauseating.

And should I ever choose to do that, it would not be here, in this Group, under this SOP.

Now you said upthread, before posting this, that you're "done posting here". I suggest you listen to yourself because you are way, way off-topic. In fact, one might say you're disrupting. I bet you HAVE NO IDEA HOW.

[kentauros]

49. So, you're ignoring the part about the worm?

kentauros (25,071 posts)
36. The reference to the worm certainly comes across as a penis reference to me.

I don't understand the baby reference, but that in itself can be insulting, especially as truebrit has continued to use it even in PM.

Goblinmonger (17,805 posts)
37. I guess I didn't read the worm reference as homophobic but I could be wrong.

You don't specifically say the worm reference is homophobic or not, but offer up the possibility that it could be. So yes, you do have an idea of how it could be homophobic.


You know, I've said this before, whether in public or PM, to take off-topic issues like this to PM. Stop threadjacking, and on a subthread from a locked thread no less!

[okasha]

51. A footnote.

The worm reference was precisely why I alerted .It does suggest a penis, and the whole post reads like a taunting come-on. I read it very much as I would "You know you got the hots for me, baby."

Rug got it. GM should have.

[hrmjustin]

52. Thanks okasha.

It was an ugly post and I am glad the jury got it right.

[okasha]

54. You're welcome.

It was a vile post, and I don't believe for a nanosecond that the nastiness was somehow unconscious or unwitting.

The jury got it spot on.

[kentauros]

53. Thank you, okasha.

And with that, I think we can safely say


[center]The End[font size="1"]
(of this sub-thread)[/font][/center]

[hrmjustin]

50. I am sorry that this all happened in your thread.

[kentauros]

55. I think labels are necessary.

Otherwise, people remain complex, possibly too complex to contemplate. A label narrows the focus to a level everyone can grapple.

For example, while I consider myself a New Ager, that doesn't truly describe what I believe. At the same time, I sometimes call myself a Spiritualist. Yet, that's not right in the true definition of it, as I define it more with the whole of New Age thought.

And so, I cherry-pick all the time. We all do that, in every aspect of our life, some of us just more than others in one area.

So, in many ways, labels are more about how you want people to perceive you than in how you perceive yourself as a whole.

[okasha]

56. I think the cherry-picking is necessary.

I use it to fend off responses that are rooted in stereotypes. ("You're interested in Richard III? But you're an INDIAN!" "You're a socialist? But you're a TEXAN!&quot Sometimes it's a matter of sheer self-defense.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

57. Labels can be handy, but a given label can cover a multitude of differences

Both Bill Donohue and I would call ourselves Catholic, but my religion is vastly different from his (and he might well say that I am mislabeling myself). Similarly, I know a libertarian who rejects Ayn Rand and all her works and all her empty promises.

Labels can lead to oversimplification of an individual's actual stances.

[cbayer]

58. Labels are necessary but limiting by there very nature.

In order to create demographics and other statistics, we must use labels.

When it comes to religion, those labels are often too narrow or too poorly defined, and we end up with data that is questionable.

But it's still good to try and figure out where people are and how there might be trends that indicate change.