Reply
Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:16 am
I just wanted to attempt a thread that deals with the subject of political labels. I happen to think that most reasonable people are not homogenously "liberal', "conservative", "libertarian" (radical, militant, feminist, appeaser, jingoist, imperialist, communist, capitalist, etc., etc.), or any other expedient political label that people try to slap on others to gain a rhetorical upper hand.
I have gone from mildly irritated to downright disgusted at the knee-jerk rush on the parts of so many to label, and thereby dismiss, those who might be opposed on some point of fact or theory.
"Aw, he's just a flaming liberal, don't listen to him!" "Oh boy, another neo-con nut job!" And by so saying, effectively add another layer of a wall - a wall with thinking people on one side, and on the other side the knowledge that we are all much more alike than different. It seems we almost prefer to hide behind contrived political personas than take the minor risk of being made to appear unsure or indecisive about any issues - when the truth is probably that we are all much more lost, much more often, than we dare let on. It's a sort of herd mentality - a gang mentality that demands we "belong" to one group or another. "You're with us, or you're against us!" We all do it. Whenever one of you takes a strong stand on something, my mind immediately starts trying to fit your words into the template of the "you" that I had previously constructed. If it's a newcomer, my mind immediately starts looking for telltale signs that will allow me to think of you as "one of those"
whatevers.
I'd like to read one thread where people are trying to relate to each other and the issues without resorting to packaging and dumping those on the opposing side into a convenient category. I know it can be done - it just takes a little more effort.
For those of you who will doubtless take this opportunity to remind me I am as guilty of not taking the high road as anyone, let me just say I acknowledge that. This is not some miraculous conversion on my part to some ascendant creature with no negativity. I just think it's intellectually lazy to try to get away with affixing political labels, and having that pass as critical thought. I'm going to avoid it, and I wish others would.
Well, truthfully I consider myself an anarchodemocrat ... its just that I havent yet found anyone willing to belong to that particular herd with me. <sighs>
(You're right of course, Snood.)
snood:-
You have obviously not been reading spendius.
But are not "irritated" and "downright disgusted" labels as well.
"They stamped him and they labeled him
Like they do with pants and shirts."
Bob Dylan---Lenny Bruce.
PS Lola and I are trying to relate.A bit.
I agree Snood. I don't believe that anyone here is a pure representative of the label they wear, but as it makes for more interesting conversation, people get placed into their appropriate slots on the scale of labels.
For example, I am often referred to as a neo-con. I am still not sure what that means. I am a registered Republican, and I think Bush is a better president than either Gore or Kerry would have been. I also think McCain would have been a better president than Bush, but I didn't have an option.
I am far from the religious right that gets thrown in with being conservative though. I am not even Christian, but I fight to uphold their rights to worship as they may. I have never understood peoples need to change another person's belief system. I have never witnessed one conversion, so it seems to be a pointless battle that devolves into name-calling by each side.
Back to the topic...
I argue from my side because it adds balance. If we all agreed on all things, what a boring place this would be. I tend to argue and discuss at the level of my opponent (Or try to keep up in some cases!). If my opponent wishes to do a bunch of name-calling, I can do that. If my opponent wishes to discuss a topic using links, I can do that. If my opponent wishes a frank and open discussion based on our opinions (like this one) I can do that.
We all bring a bit of ourselves to these forums. We can not seperate ourselves from who we are. We will have firm opinions on some issues, and sometimes we will just argue for the sake of it. Calling someone a "flaming liberal" is sometimes just easier...
spendius wrote:But are not "irritated" and "downright disgusted" labels as well.
I'd call those adjectives.
What you say is true, snood. And there's more to it. It's self-perpetuating. I have been called a liberal so many times on these boards that I've just accepted that I must be one.
McG:-
One presumes you mean a frank and open discussion on topics you can be frank and open about.
FD:-
They are labels for moods.
spendius wrote:FD:-
They are labels for moods.
If you insist. But clearly snood is talking about labels for people.
nimh:-
I'll be an anarchodemocrat if it will stop you sighing.I don't mind being anything.
FD:-
People are a conglomeration of things.Their political mindset is a mood at a particular time.A label on a person is a stereotype focussed on what the user wishes.McG says she's not a Christian.That's a label.Mrs Thatcher used "not one of us" as a label.Although why I'm quoting her is a bit goofy given my take on her public actions.
spendius wrote:FD:-
People are a conglomeration of things.Their political mindset is a mood at a particular time.A label on a person is a stereotype focussed on what the user wishes.McG says she's not a Christian.That's a label.Mrs Thatcher used "not one of us" as a label.Although why I'm quoting her is a bit goofy given my take on her public actions.
Okeydoke. But it seems a rather unnecessary complication of the topic.
FD:-
"Complicated"is a label.Possibly a collective for things somebody doesn't understand.
I agree with snood's basic thrust.I just take it a little further that's all.
When choosing a label...always choose Brand X.
<okay, corny joke of the week>
Brand X is a label they used to use on the otherwise plain wrapped soap powder which the brand being advertised was being favourably compared to.It's suds were corny.
I got "branded" as the a2k "radical anarchist" a few years ago. works for me.
dys:-
You're no radical anarchist mate.You're a cuddly little cutie and no mistake.
nimh wrote:Well, truthfully I consider myself an anarchodemocrat ... its just that I havent yet found anyone willing to belong to that particular herd with me.
I consider myself an anarchomisanthrope. I believe that all government is evil and that people should govern themselves. I also believe, however, that most people are thoroughly incapable of governing themselves because they're idiots.
For a short time, Dennis' testicles were impaled on the wrought-iron fence outside 10 Downing as a warning to others.
Well, I'm a liberal, so there! Labels are sometimes useful. They convey a concept in one word that might take 50 otherwise. And who wants to write 50 words everytime? However, I do agree with the sentiment of Snood's thread.....or the essence of it. I would far prefer to talk about concepts with another person, both with open minds.
Well, I should qualify that. A mind too open is a bottomless hole into nothing. We have to structure our lives based on some system or set of values.....call it what you will.
Categories are helpful I think as long as they're not held too rigidly.
My definition of liberal, not only includes, but requires a respect for the beliefs of everyone. That means, if we are to live together, we will all have to shut up about our religious beliefs in certain places. That makes me a liberal Democrat. And I'm proud of it.
And I agree with Spendius, Dys. You are a cute, cuddly bear.
spendius wrote:FD:-
"Complicated"is a label.Possibly a collective for things somebody doesn't understand.
I agree with snood's basic thrust.I just take it a little further that's all.
"Complicated" and "complication" are two different labels. Neither indicates whether a person does or does not understand.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace