People as Tropes, Cliche's, Stereotypes, Ideas

Who are you? Who are they?

A man? A woman?

A "black person"? A "white person"?

An idiot? A genius?

A troll? A passifist?

A "warrior"? A "philosopher"?

A "grunt"? A "master"?

A "dreamer"? A "go getter?"

A poet? A logician?

Old fashioned? New age?

A "Special snowflake"?

An "SJW"?

A "Trump supporter"?

A "Hillary supporter"?

Republican? Democrat?

A "kid"? A "vetaren"?

A stoic? An epicurian?

Dark? Light?

Jedi? Sith?



Can you simply be chalked up to any one of these labels?

Can any of them be?



Why is it that, with the tool of language to express how we see others (and who we're likely referring to), we use these shallow ideas/labels so definitely when talking about ourselves/each other that we filter out an entire spectrum of who we are as complete human beings? Especially when referring to people online?

Is there something we can do to improve our ability to respect people when talking about them, where we're not just chalking them up to a likely false and ignorant idea, a trope, cliche, or stereotype (such as any one of the above)?

Actually, yes ... there is.

First, we can let the false and ignorant idea be. It is there, it was learnt and is part of our psychic make-up.

But then, instead of stopping there, we can explore other aspects of that person. We can remember that many of our ideas are not our own, they come to us from other sources. We can remember that many of our ideas are false, limited to a very small sliver of what we know about another - much less "others" - and gradually move into curiosity mode out of "seek and destroy" mode.

I could go on a bit more about that (and start boring you all with Buber), but I need to get to work.

I think that labels are pretty necessary to a lot of our social interactions. It's how we identify ourselves and others as friends, colleagues, and allies. They affirm our identities.

For example: I'm a nerd. I label myself a nerd. I like meeting other people who identify as nerds because it means that there is a great likelihood that we will share interest, values, and qualities.

I think the problem doesn't rest with the labels or the use of them, but in how we treat those with particular labels, or when we mislabel others. Or when we only see the label, rather than the whole person.

Like any tool, labels can be used to create or destroy, and we each decide which we will choose.

I find that a lot of times when people are discussing one of these labels or referring to an individual as one of these labels it is the experience that they encountered that they are describing. Any one person can identify with many/all/some/or none of any number of labels. And each person plays a role in life. Just as that role changes from time to time, the role we play at any given moment can be associated with any number of things. :pinch: :laugh:

To define oneself as a label I would find kind of shallow. But to use labels to help describe to others how you feel or what you identify with at any given moment is communicating. Just like when someone is acting like a troll on a web site we say that person is trolling or that person is a troll. Because at that moment, that is the perception. That does not mean that the person is only a troll. It does not mean that the person identifies with being a troll. It means that the person was doing something to make another see “troll” in them. Same is true with almost all labels of things that are based in idea.

Labels that are founded or rooted in actual groups, not ideas that group people together, like vet, republican, democrat, race… these are labels that are really undeniable but not as descriptive. They accurately describe one aspect and should be confined to that aspect. IE, a vet is a vet, nothing more. Nothing less. That does not mean that a vet is someone more likely to behave one way or another. It just means that at one point they were in the military. A supporter of a political campaign describes that one aspect, they support some campaign. That does not mean the person is good or bad or even that they agree with the policies… just that they support the campaign.

So the major differences in the labels we use is rather they are fact based or perception based. And how we use them and which ones we use demonstrates the individuals understanding of those labels and their use. :S :laugh:

I don’t know that using labels is a bad thing. I don’t think it fits for every case and is probably used more often than need. But that doesn’t make it bad. And I would not discourage people from using the very labels that our society has made up. I am not always fond of what others have to say but I don’t think I really want to start creating censorship logs of words we don’t want people to use either.

I don’t think the expression of ideas is always meant to be pleasant mainly because not all ideas are pleasant. Or even agreed on by the majority. :ohmy:

And one of my biggest pet peeves is people pushing their ideas on others as though theirs is the only valid opinion. Or when they use their groups of people with supporting ideas to gang up on others that have differing views or ideas. :pinch:

One of the main points of Jediism and TotJO is diversity and learning not only from other people but about different and diverse views. Sometimes we will find those ideas, views and expressions of them unsavory. So what!?!? That is what we are here for.

So, as was asked… “Is there something we can do to improve our ability to respect people when talking about them”

My answer is yes. As long as it is personal choice to do so. But, I will not try to force people to speak the way I want or take away people’s forms of expression and the labels they created for themselves just so I, or others, might feel better about the conversation. :blink: :lol:

So long as the site rules are followed.

the inverse to this is that some actually are little more than the trope, cliche, or stereotype with which they identify

i am a/n __,
i am involved in the ideas and politics associated with being a/n __
i believe what a/n__ believes, i like what a/n__ likes, and i want what a/n__wants
being a/n__ is the nucleus of my personal identity, the primary impetus of my social persona, and the limit of my existential ambition

and you can put any word/s youd like in there, plenty of people are more than happy to let their label/s define them

so i would say "let your label be your description, not your definition, BE more than just a trope, cliche, or stereotype, and after that; just do your best"

OB1Shinobi wrote: "let your label be your description, not your definition, BE more than just a trope, cliche, or stereotype, and after that; just do your best"

I really like this Obi.

Proteus wrote: Especially when referring to people online?

Is there something we can do to improve our ability to respect people when talking about them, where we're not just chalking them up to a likely false and ignorant idea, a trope, cliche, or stereotype (such as any one of the above)?

Online is a key word here. To me the majority of you are faceless entities that I only get to interact with in a two dimensional world on a limited basis concerning a very finite set of issues. Now that is not to say that we cant find respect for each other and play nice with each other but in the end the only way anyone can identify anyone else in this limited medium is through labels.

"I like that guy because he is an "X" like me and I avoid that girl because she is always being "X".

Generally in this sort of setting you don't get to know the real person in a real world setting, only the persona they portray on a website. Sure there are exceptions as sometimes we come across someone we want to get to know better and we take the extra time to interact with them a bit more - maybe even meet them in real life, which is ideal. However there are way to many of us and real life takes too much time for anyone to really spend that amount of time with a good portion of the others let alone the majority, so we are stuck with labels.

Benjamin Whorf proposed the linguistic relativity hypothesis to discuss why he thougt labeling is dangerous . According to him, the words we use to describe what we see , actually determine what we see. In his thesis he refers to a tribe which has more words for snow , as we only have one word. What i am trying to say is that our eyes can decieve us and that labeling can lead to a very narrow view of what someone is really about. Labeling people symplifies them and is a kind of lazy way to not be bothered with the more complex nature that we as human being have. I can tell you a hundred stories of people who have been labeled and have been treated different when they got another label. Labeling can be usefull for a quick scan but is absolute rubbish if you want to communicate from Soul to Soul. I think we as Jedi need to be very wary of Labeling human beings ..not all cats are grey

Leah Starspectre wrote: I think that labels are pretty necessary to a lot of our social interactions. It's how we identify ourselves and others as friends, colleagues, and allies. They affirm our identities...I think the problem doesn't rest with the labels or the use of them, but in how we treat those with particular labels, or when we mislabel others. Or when we only see the label, rather than the whole person.

I've often said that labels for humans aren't categories, but more like tags. A lot of people think of labels as categories--because we treat categories like boxes, and something can only fit into one category at a time--and this limits their ability to perceive the whole person. I get thrust into the category of "a**hole" a lot. That's one of the aspects of my personality, but because we treat categories like boxes, most people won't ever move beyond that because they don't think I can be anything else.

However, when you tag something, it's like adding a sticker or a label. Tags (especially in coding and social media) aren't mutually exclusive; something can have as many tags as fits. Because of this, we're more ready to accept that whatever we're looking at can fit multiple tags, be multiple things, and isn't just trapped inside one musty carboard box.

Labels as tags are good, because they let us identify important characteristics without letting those characteristics define the whole. Labels as categories are bad, because we get so caught up in the label we forget to look inside the box.

steamboat28 wrote: I've often said that labels for humans aren't categories, but more like tags. A lot of people think of labels as categories--because we treat categories like boxes, and something can only fit into one category at a time--and this limits their ability to perceive the whole person. I get thrust into the category of "a**hole" a lot. That's one of the aspects of my personality, but because we treat categories like boxes, most people won't ever move beyond that because they don't think I can be anything else.

However, when you tag something, it's like adding a sticker or a label. Tags (especially in coding and social media) aren't mutually exclusive; something can have as many tags as fits. Because of this, we're more ready to accept that whatever we're looking at can fit multiple tags, be multiple things, and isn't just trapped inside one musty carboard box.

Labels as tags are good, because they let us identify important characteristics without letting those characteristics define the whole. Labels as categories are bad, because we get so caught up in the label we forget to look inside the box.

I love this. This is a great way to see it!!! (Applause)