People as Tropes, Cliche's, Stereotypes, Ideas

steamboat28 wrote:

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.

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'm glad we're actually exploring this and not simply trying to justify it or disown it.

Proteus wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

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.

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'm glad we're actually exploring this and not simply trying to justify it or disown it.

i believe that to see people as more than their labels you have to be more than label yourself - if all you are is a __
then all youre even capable of seeing when you look at others is "another__" or some variation of "not__"

i think that the labels are a useful for people from a personal development standpoint because they give us a conceptual frame to begin with - "i am a jedi" for instance, ok, cool, what does that mean?
well so now we have the doctrine, now we have the code, now we have the maxims ect, and we can use these as tools to better ourselves and orient ourselves in useful ways

and a lot of times i think that we have a natural fascination with exactly the kinds of things that we ought to be identifying with, because those things are specific to our own personalities - martial arts or playing guitar, or being a jedi, whatever- labels are kind of an "existential hand rail" that we can use to help us mature in a certain direction thats actually good for us (or should and could be good for us, so long as we do it in a healthy way)

what i think tends to happen is that the label becomes a full fledged identity
and identities give us a kind of purpose, and this is all very comforting because it reduces the uncertainty of our experience and gives us an idea of what to do with ourselves

ultimately we are way too complex to be reduced to a label (or any single identity) but the "boots on the ground" reality is that a reasonably well made label can get you through the motions of your whole life if you want it to - i mean once youve got it figured out to a certain degree of functionality, you can stay there indefinitely

but i think that in the "proper" course of events, we grow into our labels and then we grow out of them - not saying we dont still retain features (you might always love martial arts or playing the guitar) but eventually we mature to the point where we no longer need the label to reduce the uncertainty of life because we have an actual history of facing that uncertainty and we realize that we can face it, even without the label, or even if we grow beyond the identity

thats when i think we're capable of seeing others as more than just their labels - im not sure its even possible to recognize other people until we have come to understand ourselves as being more than the labels that we've used to construct our own identities

so thats why i would say "be more than just your label"
be more than your label and then [strike]you will[/strike] you might be able see it when other people are more than theirs too

I enjoy my labels. In many cases, I have earned them, worked for them, and am proud of them.

Now, they mean infinitely more to me than they will to anyone else.

What does "Sith" mean to me?

Its the path I have been on for just shy of two decades.

That cannot be limited to a set of circumstances, cliches, stereotypes, etc.

What does it mean to you?

Well, in most cases, much less.

So then, when it comes to a limiting factor of a label, it can only come from outside.

Take the Thread about "Siths are reall Siths."

To read it, is to see my lifes path reduced down to the lowest common denominator.

I could argue it, but I see no real reason, or purpose.

Its not my limitation to deal with, but others.

I have numerous other labels.

Student.

Teacher.

Nurse.

Father.

Husband.

Friend.

Etc.

Bottom line, I am secure in my identity. I know who I am.

If you do not, by whatever label, well, I do not see it as disrespectful, merely ignorant.

So then, online, or off, it comes to the question of whether or not I feel its important enough to try and change your ignorance of me.

More and more, the answer is no.

I am in no way limited by someone elses view of me. Thats their limitation.

Proteus wrote: Sith?

If this was all you called me or treated me as for the rest of my life, I'd be happy. It would mean I'd achieved my goals in everything else that mattered.

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

Maybe not yet, but I'm sure as hell aiming to be.

Proteus wrote: 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)?

I am very cautious to what I say , it is in our speech that can be found ..fruit. I connect. I don't acknowledge label by example. I'll often say a person rather than all those silly labels. The human and their potential. In stopped labeling my self along time ago and am reaping the benefits in my own life for it. I know my focus and often times the labels, just don't stick.

Its up to us what character we wanna play in our own story's some times...
Carlos

Welp, I'm not against it.


I'm somewhere near Khaos on this one,

I've collected some labels (or, as a nod to my beloved and probably deceased by now Drama instructor - Masks)

Some I've worked hard for, some I don't particularly want, and others are neither here nor there, but mine none the less.

Some are straight up Fake (as far as I see them, looking out), which whilst potentially against the Jedi code, is at the moment essential to me supporting my lifestyle - How many can honestly say they're not chucking on some cheap paint to blend in with a certain group (maybe "liking" something on Facebook you don't actually like, just to maintain your "Foodie" or "Surfer" or "Macrame Fancier" street cred, using words like "study" or "meditate" to seem more Jedi-esque when you really mean "sleep on it and deal with it next week" )

As for others -
Generally you get a "Label" for a reason. If you don't like it - Change how the audience that gives it to you perceives you. Give them a different experience (or don't, depending on how much of a damn you give about that particular audiences opinion)

I'm a white guy. I look white. It's a fair assessment.
Of course, I could be a "white guy" from any number of places on earth.

I have an accent, which gives me an extended label (in the real world....)

So now I'm a White....*something* guy.

You can all see my spelling - now I'm a white guy from a commonwealth country.
You can all see my punctuation - now I'm a white guy from a commonwealth country with a crap education :laugh:
I'm on a Jedi website -...well you can see where this is going.


Any labels you have for someone (or someone has for you) are going to be based on as much or as little as is experienced.

We are all caricatures of ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln - Stiff Beardy Git in a suit with an axe.



If every day you walk into your office and sook about the traffic. You'll be known as a Sook. Sook Label Earned.

Don't crack the sads when that's what everyone around the office knows you as.




___________________________________________________________________________________________



Different train of thought -

There are presumably certain "archtypes" to choose from, there's probably something there about essentially having a "shopping list" of characters to choose from in the world, and jamming all the people you know into as near-as-good-enough category they can fit.

Saves a lot of processing time worrying about an individuals qualities or foibles