Flying lion you can sit on my other article Ka Zam! Bi-Sexual Babes in a Bottle! All you want and try to justify why it is okay to put a label on a person but the fact of the matter is you cannot physically put one on a person, if you tried to put one on me I would punch you in the mouth. You can only do this metaphorically and no matter how you look at it labeling a person will NEVER be a good thing.
Even when I call some on say a Socialist and saying it negatively I personally am still not labeling them because I have the unique point of view that just because I think that person is a socialist I still think they are much, more and were I to label them as such that is all they can be.
Further one of the meanings for the word wicked means severe or distressing and when kids use it it is generally to describe something or someone extreme further when used by practitioners of magic…same thing only a different definition. Definition, not lable. Adjective not label. Context not label. Just as you tried to say cool and beat were used many different ways when in fact they all came down to the same definition.
You can think what ever you like but I will always think you are wrong and you can checkout your metaphorical use of the word label if you would like to understand how limited I think you are:
In sociology, the word labeling is used more as a metaphor, than a concrete concept. The general function of labels are widely known and recognized as a method of distinction that helps people recognize one product from another. In social terms, labels represent a way of differentiating and identifying people that is considered by many as a form of prejudice and discrimination.
The most common method of 'labeling' people derives from a general way of perceiving members of a certain nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, or some other group. When a majority of people hold a certain point of view towards a certain group, that point of view becomes a stereotype. That stereotype affects the way other people perceive the groups in question and the result is a 'label' that is metaphorically imposed on the members of the group in question. A member of a targeted group is thus 'labeled' by the larger society, and along with it, the nuances underlying the label, be it positive or negative, that aids in the formation of social stereotypes.
Further while you like to go off on tangents like the, "Critical period hypothesis", it is just that a hypothesis that is hotly debated and has more detractors than believers. Sadly again I am a detractor as if this has anything to do with the fact that it is wrong and impossible to label a person.
7 comments on Justification of Stereotypical Discrimination
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
Interesting! This is going to be difficult to break down into its component parts so that instead of the assumptions (Mental labels or perhaps attitudes?) you are making about what I am saying it would be nice if you actually take the time to understand what I am really proposing with what I have already written. You deny that use labels and see as person as more than a label, yet you make the classic mistake of, making a conclusion about what, someone (myself!) is writing, rather than taking the time to make sure that your conclusion fits the facts written before you.
First I define ‘right’ as that which fits all the facts.
Then this means that ‘wrong’ is that which does not fit all the facts.
Now you say that when you use a label and assign it to a person then that is ‘all’ they can be. If anyone were to tell me that a label completely defines someone or something then I would punch that someone in the face and probably kill in the process. It should be beyond obvious that no word can completely define any real object or action.
I said, “You can not correctly apply a label to anything but we still have to use them. The danger is in being unaware that language is a map of experience and can not be what is 'real' it can only ever be a representation or a map.” (Here I am using the metaphor or analogy of ‘map’ where you are using of the word metaphor)
Now I reasonably ask does this sentence fit your initial statement “…try to justify why it is okay to put a label on a person…”? I am not justifying the use of labels, I am raising conscious awareness of the assumptive dangers we all have when reading, hearing and speaking.
One of the things to be aware of when reading or speaking a word is that it has at least two things being communicated, an emotional and/or historical content and a set of properties that give it conceptual meaning. For example, the word Marxism has a historical association of the way it was put into practice in Russia so resulting in a negative emotional reaction to the word even though many do not know what Marx actually wrote.
There are words in other languages that someone not brought up in that language’s culture that cannot be accurately translated, German “doch” being one and Persian “taroff” another. The same is also true of humour for without knowledge some jokes are just going to ‘mego’ (My Eyes Glaze Over) the audience.
I wrote “If you don’t want to understand and wish to remain attached to your viewpoint that is ok, all of this is about, is the awareness of the information and assumptions that get associated with words, if you can’t see that language is a tool used to map the environment we live in and the map cannot be congruent with the environment then I am happy to leave it at that”.
Now while a ‘label’ does not fully describe a thing or person it can tell you something about it or them. Example, “They are stubborn”, tells you something about the person but does not tell you everything about them. Similarly, “They are female” tells you something about a person, but does not tell you everything about them. There is no difference between using these descriptors as opposed to using words like “Homosexual”, “Socialist”, “Black”, “Honky”, “Lesbian” and many others these words tell you something but only a tiny bit about a person, it is ones own personal emotional association to such words that is the problem not the attributes associated with the words themselves. The emotional association of a word is not the same for everybody. Only awareness of the possible assumptions you are making can combat errors.
Now I wonder why I am thinking about brick walls and speaking to them! Well I still like you so stick that in your….. {{{{Censored}}}} and {????} it! Laugh out loud now!
I have not the time for this right now but from what little I have read of your post I wil inform you that you do not get to decide the meaning of lable. Expets before you have already decided what it means and if you choose to misuse it and give it your own or someone you consider and experts definition than so be it, though that is neither accepted or fact.
A lable by any definition is all inclusive.
Man stubborn when used to describe a person is an adjective.
Ok so think outside the box and just swap 'stubborn' for Blacksmith or some other profession like Taylor, shoemaker and 'phone sex operator'. They still only tell you a small tiny part of what a person is.
You say "A Lable by any definition is all inclusive".
–noun
1. a slip of paper, cloth, or other material, marked or inscribed, for attachment to something to indicate its manufacturer, nature, ownership, destination, etc.
2. a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
3. a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification: The following definition has the label “Archit.”
4. Architecture. a molding or dripstone over a door or window, esp. one that extends horizontally across the top of the opening and vertically downward for a certain distance at the sides.
5. a brand or trademark, esp. of a manufacturer of phonograph records, tape cassettes, etc.: She records under a new label.
6. the manufacturer using such a label: a major label that has produced some of the best recordings of the year.
7. Heraldry. a narrow horizontal strip with a number of downward extensions of rectangular or dovetail form, usually placed in chief as the cadency mark of an eldest son.
8. Obsolete. a strip or narrow piece of anything.
–verb (used with object) 9. to affix a label to; mark with a label.
10. to designate or describe by or on a label: The bottle was labeled poison.
11. to put in a certain class; classify.
12. Also, radiolabel. Chemistry. to incorporate a radioactive or heavy isotope into (a molecule) in order to make traceable.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME < MF: ribbon, perh. < Gmc. See lap1]
Which bit implies' a label is all inclusive'?
-------------------
Example of excluding one characteristic associated with an 'idea'
"He looked exactly like Father Christmas, only without the beard"
An expert is someone who knows more about a subject than you do or again from dictionary.com “1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert”. But they are still human and can make mistakes.
I guess that since you had nothing else to say than a silly quibble, I accept the unspoken appology!
Labeling is just what "people" have come up with. In my book, there is no such thing as labeling an individual in one category. We are are own person with a uniqueness. I love who I am...if people want to label me, that's fine, but I will remain "deaf" to their opinion. Maybe I might be on a bit of a different topic...but who cares.
I love your thoughts. It doesn't matter what you do for a living. You are your own, and only you know who you are. You rock in my opinion. You are just a cool chick with cool thoughts......some other people just take what you say so defensively, that it is sickening.
Love ya Holly!
By the way....that is a hot picture of you! Sexy and artistic!
I wonder if I have Cassandra's curse! Only in my case it is "You will speak to the world but nobody will understand what you say"