posted
First, I would like to point out that I have not read the three books of which he speaks, yet I feel it necessary to voice my concerns for what OSC states in his essay.
My issue, as always, deals with the frustration caused by labeling that is always applied and the ignorance of the general public.
Our society is so full of labels and stereotypes of those labels that it seems to me that we are adrift in the ocean. Never moving unless things that lie outside of our control decides to move us. No one can say anything without being labeled and thereby stereotyped. If you believe that someone needs to stay home with the children, you are labeled as denying equal treatment as if being a stay-at-home parent was a waste of time and unworthy of respect. If you believe that the president is causing problems, you're a Democrat & a Liberal. If you think abortion is wrong, you're a Republican, anti-choice, & a Conservative. If you are against the war, you hate the troops. If you protest, you're an extremist and a rebel
How can we expect to voice any opinion? How can we argue against another person with a differing opinion without being labeled?
It is the foundation of our ignorance and the basis for the divisions we find ourselves in. There is nothing 'United' about the United States. Just many divisions and breaks. We are a united states because people are too scared to be ridiculed to speak out against what they want, with the exceptions of those who speak out and are labeled extremeists and radicals.
The general public has problems and concerns that are not addressed. They are not addressed because the public fears the backlash that discussion on a broad scale would cause. When people are afraid to speak their piece, how can we expect things to change? How can we call our nation a democracy when we don't hear the voices of the people, but only the 'extremists'?
If someone can explain to me how it is possible to overcome the labeling and stereotyping based on these labels it would be greatly appreciated.
posted
Isn't the general public another label? The public, the people, they are just labels. It is impossible to avoid some of type of label when discussing issues. You have used several yourself, extremist, radicals, ignorance of the general public, and so on. I think you might be confusing labels with opposite opinions. We can voice any opinion we choose to. However, so can everyone else. If I speak out against the terrible war in Iraq I am voicing my opinion about it. If someone else voices their support for the noble war in Iraq, they are expressing their opinion. Even when people say if you speak against the war it means you hate the troops doesn't mean that is true or that you can't say it. You can still express your opinion, and they are doing the same. Just like if I support the war and the spreading of freedom and democratization in that region of the world and someone else says the war is nothing but blood for oil, Haliburton, Cheney and Bushco and there is no freedom anywhere there or here, they are only expressing their opinion. Nothing is stopping me from believing what I believe. Everyone has an opinion and a right to express it. The opinions often differ and can differ forcefully, but nothing is stopping you from expressing your opinion. Having some one else truly listen to your opinion is an entirely different matter...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure it is possible, especially in the U.S. lately. I didn't read the OSC essay, but I fully comprehend what you're talking about. I myself have many of those stereotypes etched in my brain, but even I am a contradiction to those indoctrines.
As a child and a teenager I never voiced my opinion or rather, I always kept my opinion 'middle of the road' and passe, so that I wouldn't have an opposing opinion to anyone. But recently I find that this method doesn't even work because people generally, want you to agree with them 100% (or not at all, so that they can rip in to you), and it seems that 'middle of the road' is no longer an option.
Let alone to transcend a stereotype seems a high crime. It's like being Protestant in Northern Ireland and being able to sympathize with the Catholics.
But it's not the labeling and expressing of opinions that poses an issue, it's the judgement.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, I am talking about the immediate labels and stereotypes placed on the person.
Just because someone does not agree with the war, does not mean they hate the troops as is often made out by those who support the war. Just because someone doesn't agree with abortion, doesn't mean they are against people's rights and choices.
As well, voicing some opinions are illegal and will land you in jail or a psychiatric ward. Not all opinions ARE allowed.
I am talking about the labels that are put on someone because of their beliefs. As for the labels I used, it was to show that those are labels put on people who voice those opinions.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure I'm talking about the exact same thing as Johivin, but when | refer to the judgement, I'm refering to how that being is interpreted as a person because of that label, not as the label itself. I hope that wasn't too confusing, I just couldn't think how to word it better. I think it gets the point across though.
And, yes, the judgement is just expressing an opinion as well, but opinion isn't what can hurt, it's the judgement that can.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against simplistic arguments. They water things down and weaken discussions. How can you really think of the impact of abortion with simplistic phrases like, "Baby-killer" or "against choice." We need to realize that all the issues are complex, broad with all sorts of different facets to them. Such as the war in Iraq, the president or any other issue that is personal or political. No matter what your opinions are, you have to try to see it from all sides and not just make these snap assumptions. Otherwise, it's like arguing with children who will stomp their feet and insist that Santa Claus exists and bought them their presents even if their is no chimeny. It really doesn't help this country one bit and just plays into the wrong hands...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the issue, Synesthesia, that I have with Mr. Card's argument. He begins by arguing against simplistic arguments and yet he winds up doing precisely the same thing.
I've been told repeatedly that it is human nature to do that. That everyone does it, so perhaps I should let this lie. I know that judgement is passed on everyone we meet whether we know them or not, but I'm curious of ideas how to get away from that? Or is it even possible?
posted
Johivin, Could you maybe take some quotes from the essay to back up your assessment of what Card was arguing and then why you have a problem with it. I've read the essay and the accusations you make in your first post do not seem to be justified. What is your basis for this, as coming from the essay:
"If you believe that someone needs to stay home with the children, you are labeled as denying equal treatment as if being a stay-at-home parent was a waste of time and unworthy of respect. If you believe that the president is causing problems, you're a Democrat & a Liberal. If you think abortion is wrong, you're a Republican, anti-choice, & a Conservative. If you are against the war, you hate the troops. If you protest, you're an extremist and a rebel"
If I've missed something please point it out.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to think like that because it tends to annoy the heck out of me. On both sides! Like feminists ranting about the patriarchy. Or conservatives saying gays are destroying families without showing how. Constant conspiracy theories and mistrust only leads to one thing, not looking at the whole picture and looking at the problems that really effect America and society at large.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to play devil's advocate, aren't some labels true enough to be useful?
When you say Krispy Kreme, I think glazed doughnuts. Even though they make other kinds as well, the majority are glazed. So if I connect Krispy Kreme with glazed does that mean that I'm unfairly labeling the doughnuts, or that I am observing the pattern?
Doughnuts analogies aside, I can see where you might say that OSC's article "labels" feminists and academics as extremeist man-hating liberals. But I think that the question of whether most academics subscribe to extreme left-wing views, and whether they have fully explored the foundations of those views, needs to be asked before describing what OSC does as labeling.
How true does it have to be before it stops being a label?
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
If someone can explain to me how it is possible to overcome the labeling and stereotyping based on these labels it would be greatly appreciated.
Johivn Ryson
I feel your frustration in myself, but you reminded me of one other thing too. We USE the labels to our advantage too. Think of the number of times in your life that a person has said to you "Im (not) the kinda person who..." Or "I'm unique" or whatever.
Think of the term "pro-life." What does it mean??? Does "a culture of life" have an opposing side? Is there a "Culture of non-life (or death?)"
No, I think we, we as in everyone, adopt certian labels when it seems convenient, rebel against others to show our individuality, and create new ones to stand out or gain support. What the hell did Jennifer Lopez ever do to become the "pop-diva" or princess/queen or whatever is now her obligatory title? Its all marketing. Marketing yourself, your beliefs, whatever. That people also use labels to denigrate others is a natural thing in a way, an everpresent process, not something new.
The idea that everything is so new and novel and special is all part of the sales-pitch IMO. According to much of the newsmedia (yes, a label), everything seems to be new at least every 2 years. Fasions that have been coming and going for decades are "new" when someone convinces you that they are. An idea you just heard is of course NEW to you, and it just seems CRAZY that all the people who already heard it might have already benifited from whatever nugget of knowledge you've just acquired.
I recently heard the Bach solo violin partita no.2, the Chaconne. I had NEVER heard it before. That millions of people have loved that peice and never once mentioned it to me in my whole life... it boggles my mind.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
