What is with 'the gay'?

[ILLYRIAN]

I have always found the issue of putting label on a person as very confusing.
For one thing the labels are usually put on a persons clothing, so is the clothing labelled as such?
I am definitely against putting the labels on the persons body as the labels are either pinned on ( bloody painful ) or stuck on which can be bloody painful when removed, ( cheaper than a wax job though ).

Ban labels!

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I have always found the issue of putting label on a person as very confusing.
For one thing the labels are usually put on a persons clothing, so is the clothing labelled as such?
I am definitely against putting the labels on the persons body as the labels are either pinned on ( bloody painful ) or stuck on which can be bloody painful when removed, ( cheaper than a wax job though ).

Ban labels!

Or in tattoo form

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Nah, it's too easy to get tattoos removed, a bottle of Whisky and a wire brush!

 

[Blondie Bear]

It's not a matter of liking to label people. It's a psychological thing that we, as people, cannot avoid on a subconscious level. Our brain can only deal with so much information, so we build stereotypes so that we can deal with groups of people rather than individuals. When we meet someone who acts, dresses, or talks in a similar way to someone else we've met, or a group that we know about, we automatically mentally place him/her in that slot in our brains so that we have an idea of how to deal with him/her. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason--quite often, people do fit nicely into them. Not always, of course. And that's when the real conflict begins; if we expect to treat someone a certain way because we've always treated people like that in that way, then that person turns out to be slightly different, it confuses our brains and makes the other person angry.

The only thing people who "don't label" or "don't stereotype" are doing is being self-aware and knowing what his/her stereotypes are and being willing to look past them when it comes to individuals.

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

It's not a matter of liking to label people. It's a psychological thing that we, as people, cannot avoid on a subconscious level. Our brain can only deal with so much information, so we build stereotypes so that we can deal with groups of people rather than individuals. When we meet someone who acts, dresses, or talks in a similar way to someone else we've met, or a group that we know about, we automatically mentally place him/her in that slot in our brains so that we have an idea of how to deal with him/her. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason--quite often, people do fit nicely into them. Not always, of course. And that's when the real conflict begins; if we expect to treat someone a certain way because we've always treated people like that in that way, then that person turns out to be slightly different, it confuses our brains and makes the other person angry.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the question's not to label or not to label, but what label we use. Labeling is something we always do, whether we like it or not. It's just, some of these labels are hurtful or have a negative connotation, so they should be replaced by relatively neutral ones. But the labeling itself will never stop.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I like labels, you have to be labeled. There's no way around it. Exactly like BB said if you don't use labels thats you just being aware of them and not saying them, if you have to recognize them whats the problem with saying them?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

It's just, some of these labels are hurtful or have a negative connotation, so they should be replaced by relatively neutral ones. But the labeling itself will never stop.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong on that one. All labels are hurtful and negative. As Kirkegaard says 'if you label me, you negate me' the idea of labeling a person, even a 'neutral' label is still hurtful and damaging as it puts them in a predefined hole, thereby removing the individuality of the person to which the label has been applied. There is no such thing as a neutral label when applied to a person; believing there is, is just self deluding yourself for your own ease and comfort.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Sorry, but I think you are wrong on that one. All labels are hurtful and negative. As Kirkegaard says 'if you label me, you negate me' the idea of labeling a person, even a 'neutral' label is still hurtful and damaging as it puts them in a predefined hole, thereby removing the individuality of the person to which the label has been applied. There is no such thing as a neutral label when applied to a person; believing there is, is just self deluding yourself for your own ease and comfort.

And I think you are wrong on that one.
When I 'label' someone, it is I who have done so. This does nothing to the person I am labelling, it just limits my ability to understand him. However the person I have labelled can still be the exact same person with nothing subtracted.
The other great think about labelling a person is that you can do it more than once.
You're not confined to choosing just one label then moving on.

If someone decides to label me 'bisexual' does that mean that is all that I am?
I could also be labelled 'Fat', 'Intelligent', 'witty', 'geeky', 'English' and/or 'handsome'.
All these 'labels' are correct (ohh I should have put modest in there...and maybe heroic) and if I as just one of them, then yes I am limited but my individuality comes from the fact I am all these and more.
The other labels don't disappear when someone calls me just one of them, but it is up to me to show the person what the others are.

So, N4H, I am all for labels because the labels serve a purpose and cause no harm - its the people who deliver them when intentionally meant to harm that is the problem.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

This does nothing to the person I am labelling, it just limits my ability to understand him.

You just contradicted yourself mate; you said it does nothing to the person you label, but then turn around and say it limits them in the way in which you understand them. Can't have it both ways. Does it do nothing or does it limit them? Because if it limits them, if only in your ability to understand them, they are still being limited by you with the application of a label.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Sorry scobro, but I'll have to disagree with ' all labels are hurtful and negative '.
Leaving both of us out of this.

Regarding a model to be a very lovely person; to look at, and as an inteligent person.
As labels go that may not be hurtful or negative.

Once again I should state that neither the author of the statement (scobro) or myself would label ourselves as being really nice people, well not very often anyway.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

You just contradicted yourself mate; you said it does nothing to the person you label, but then turn around and say it limits them in the way in which you understand them. Can't have it both ways. Does it do nothing or does it limit them? Because if it limits them, if only in your ability to understand them, they are still being limited by you with the application of a label.

I have not contradicted myself.
I label you a 'dick'.
You're a 'dick'. I don't know you well enough to say you're anything else, so its up to you to show me what else, other than a 'dick' you are.
Have I impeded you in anyway by using this label on you?
Nope because you are still you.

Please note: This is entirely an assumption that you are more than just a 'dick'.

Better insert an emoticon before someone takes this wrong
Ummm, oh, ok:: vampire

 

[ILLYRIAN]

As SpoonsAreCool just commented, labelling me 'insane', I take it you really meant an insanely clever person.
Oh what a lovely label!

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I have not contradicted myself.
I label you a 'dick'.
You're a 'dick'.

And that is why labels are wrong. Because it sets your mind as to the state of a person, and, if only in your mind you are limiting me. So yes, you have contradicted yourself. If I were to label you an egotistical pompous ass it would be wrong as well, even if it would explain your inability to admit your shortcomings.

 

[JenniferAlice]

I take offence to Scobro being labelled a 'dick'. That is my surname 🙁

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

And that is why labels are wrong. Because it sets your mind as to the state of a person, and, if only in your mind you are limiting me. So yes, you have contradicted yourself. If I were to label you an egotistical pompous ass it would be wrong as well, even if it would explain your inability to admit your shortcomings.

But I am an egotistical pompous ass but thats not all - I just have to show you my other qualities.

I have in no way limited you anywhere else.
I then go to another person and say that guy, he's a 'dick'.
That person replies, 'is he? I always thought him a cock'.
I then say - 'explain'.
I am then told by that person. I agree and now I have opened up my limited mind a bit.
I then go to you and say 'You, Scobro are a dick and a cock' to which you reply, 'yes, yes I am BUT thats not all there is to me. I am many things. I am also {insert something else here}.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

I take offence to Scobro being labelled a 'dick'. That is my surname 🙁

I take offence to you being offended as its suggests you have added negativity to it.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But I am an egotistical pompous ass but thats not all - I just have to show you my other qualities.

But that is where you are wrong! the onus is not on you to show the other aspects of your personality but on me to see them. When I label a person I restrict my ability to see the whole person. Even if the label is positive- EB is a smart funny guy, that limits the ability to recognize the negative, because in my mind I pigeonhole you as that person. Rather than seeing EB, I see a label. But it is easier for us to see labels than to see people.

 

[Cohen]

Wow, Al, you're really thinking too much into this. Not wanting to find yourself stuck in a contradiction are you?

Also, NO FAIR IN AGREEING THAT YOU'RE AN EGOTISTICAL POMPOUS ASS! I so was going to say "But he IS". But you beat me to it, you sly, sly dog.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

But that is where you are wrong! the onus is not on you to show the other aspects of your personality but on me to see them. Even if the label is positive- EB is a smart funny guy, that limits the ability to recognize the negative, because in my mind I pigeonhole you as that person. Rather than seeing EB, I see a label. But it is easier for use to see labels than to see people.

Oh, not necessarily. I labeled EB an ass when I first met him. And here we are many years later, still making jibes at each other. Then again, I was always right about that label. But I've also grown to see that he's quite a respectable guy. So while labels do impair your judgement, you must take it upon yourself to--

Wait, I'm contradicting myself. DAMNIT!

*Stalks off*

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

But that is where you are wrong! the onus is not on you to show the other aspects of your personality but on me to see them. When I label a person I restrict my ability to see the whole person. Even if the label is positive- EB is a smart funny guy, that limits the ability to recognize the negative, because in my mind I pigeonhole you as that person. Rather than seeing EB, I see a label. But it is easier for us to see labels than to see people.

But obviously if you only see that one then that is all I have portrayed to you.
If you see 'pompous ass' but you see nothing else, is that because you are so stuck on one label that you cannot see anything else?
If that is the case then do you do that with everyone?
Do you see your friends and think 'whore', 'freak', 'twat', 'Presbyterian', 'other' (I am well aware I need new friends!) or do you see all the differing things?
I would wager its all the things that make that person. If that is the case why do you know all these things?
Is it because you have lost the labels?
No, you still have them.
Is it because this friend has shown you all the aspects of themselves?

You're in a room with a person you have never before met.
You don't look at him and immediately think 'I want to like this guy so I won't judge him'.
You will make an immediate judgement, which will label him.
He will then do or say something that will add to your judgement.
Is the still on you to search for more?
No, but what is yours is to open your mind and let him explain the other aspects of him.

To bring it back to the gay.
I know there are closed minded people in the world that will never look passed 'gay', heck my own family fall into that catagory BUT many of us who use the labels are open minded enough to let someone either change our minds or add to the label.

 

[Cohen]

I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Or maybe I'm not seeing each side right.

But the way I see it, we all make snap judgments about people. Biggest example I can think of is going to Boys State this summer, and being stuck for a week with 36 strangers--all guys, BTW--where we all made judgments about each other the first night. And for the first 12 hours, it was awful and awkward. But because we had to live with each other, we quickly got past the judgments we made, and got to see each other for who we really were--a bunch of 17-year-old guys.

Point of the story is, yes, we all make snap judgments about people we meet. But at the same time, it's also our job to either look past those judgments or keep building on to the labels.

I don't have to do a thing to make you believe I'm a decent guy. All I have to do is be myself. And if you like who I am, you'll accept me. And if you don't, I'll just be a pile of labels with no real attachment to you.

With that said, I'm going to go watch the Pilot of "Burn Notice". Which I labeled as "worth watching" at the store, and I'm going to go see if that's true. Usually tends to be the case.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

is that because you are so stuck on one label that you cannot see anything else?

But that is typically what a label is- when you see one thing and nothing else. What you are saying sounds more like descriptive terms, which can and do fluctuant than a proper label.