ATS: Let's conduct a social experiment: No political labels for a week

a reply to: carewemust

I don't like slogans sneaking into my crackers. I find that offensive...

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Someone had made a site theme not too long ago where you couldnt even see the peoples names, and reported and reported it as being an amazing experience.

It's therapeutic and works wonders, especially if you've been here long enough to form biases against certain members like I tend to do.

It's a trip when I switch back over to the regular theme and find out that I just gave Reldra 5 stars and called Kayla a genius.

a reply to: Bone75

Hahaha..

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Should someone who defends left/right causes also be required to defend extreme views of the same cause?

If the label doesn't fit it doesn't fit.

Is it fair to add "independent" to that list?

I'll be the first to use that term to describe myself, but maybe it gets thrown around so much these days that it too has become a 'label.' I can see where it may seem a bit ambiguous--perhaps even a copout to some, but I've even considered starting a thread to elaborate on why I label myself as such with the hope that other "independents" would offer their own thoughts as well.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Nice play.

It's pretty hard to envision any negative connotations around the word independent.

a reply to: toysforadults

Labels are used to degrade people so you don't have to take their opinions seriously. Labels are degrading. Once you are labeled you get demoted from peer to the level of the label. Labels exist so people can degrade other people.

Labels have been used since ancient times to convince the local population there is no moral implications for killing another tribe. Labels are Satan's sperm giving birth to all kinds of evil.

It's not just labels that are the problem when talking about politics. So just not using labels is not enough. Another problem is a particular form of argument. The argument form is to attack the person who is speaker. For example, if someone is complaining about racism you attack the person making the claim as being a racist. This changes the focus of the argument away from a behavior or public policy and puts the focus on the person making the claim. This way public policies are always stifled because everything becomes bickering about people making claims. Nothing is ever taking seriously because the person making the claim is always suspect as not being genuine.

Any civil conversation about politics should just talk about the pluses and minuses of having or creating a public policy. We should only talk about people's or corporation's behavior causing a particular grievance. We should never talk about any quality of any person arguing for or against something. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. People's opinions should be respected. Shifting the conversation to be about person making the claim is a tactic to end the conversation by denial.

I appreciate the purpose of the OP but in reality conversation about politics rarely ever or basically never really accomplish anything. Politics are HUGE waste of time. NOTHING will ever change. Lobbyists define domestic policies for both parties. The CFR defines foreign policy for both parties. Why even have parties. Why even have elections.

a reply to: toysforadults

No.

I see it as censorship, even if it is a self-imposed version of it.

With all due respect, I won't be playing.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I am not sure it's labels. More like an attempt to make things impossible. And theres a dichotomy between what happens depending on the source of news. Not entirely on board with the "no labels at all" thing, but I think it helps in person if you can see beyond em but that's just a personal responsibility type of thing not any belief system. No im not against beliefs. Just be wise with em that's all...

It used to be like that way back when I first found this place.

I held ATS in very high regards compared to other forums. It was just a place to debate and grow ones mind.

Now, everythings partisan. People assume your political ideology based off of the idea that you happen to disagree with a certain point.

To be fair, the entire internet has changed lately. I'm not even sure what to blame for it, theres way too manner factors and variables at work.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: toysforadults

Never. Those that adopt such labels deserve to be labelled by them. Those that defend such labels deserve to defend them. Those that do not wish to hear them deserve to hear them.

This might be my favorite post of yours, ever.

"Those that do not wish to hear them deserve to hear them". Love that.

a reply to: toysforadults

I applaud your thinking. The U.S. has become divided due to party affiliations. To ignore that simple fact is not being honest with oneself. It's clearly apparent here on ATS. Some posters can't go a day without political attacks or start a thread for the main purpose of attacking the opposite party.

Without these political labels our government would function so much better and pass far better legislation which would benefit all Americans and not just a few. It's clearly apparent people ignore the wrongs of their own party and their party presidents. What would be so wrong if we had representatives that were issue driven instead of party platform driven. Both sides have their own positive and negative perspectives on issues affecting American citizens and foreign policy. Pointing out those negatives and positives no matter what party you're affiliated with is much more mature and constructive than fallowing the political narrative.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The U.S. is also divided by ethnicity. We have one very long street in Chicago where you feel like you're driving through various nations. The people, sign languages on storefronts, even the street name itself, changes every mile or so.

I don't very think it is so much the "labels" being the problem as much as the way people use them. People seem to turn them into "dirty words" in their deleivery of said labels. Make them accusations like they are a bad thing as opposed to just being a neutral identifier.

For example I could say I was an independent for lack of a better word or preference over giving a long description of how I see things, and someone could attack with something such as oh you're one of those weak wishywashy types. That is hardly the case, but that is an example of how it can be turned into a dirty thing when in fact I was just generally speaking.

I think a lot of people may tend to lean left on some issues and right on others. Some issues they may not even give a rats ... about. If people would quit trying to put others in a box and actually read or listen to what the person is really trying to say or explain without jumping the gun with their opinion we might actually get a lot further.

How many times have you seen responses around here and you think to yourself, did they even read the whole thing? How can they respond like that when it clearly says.... I'm sure you get my drift.

People are entitled to their opinion. Arguing the points are not going to change either persons opinion. Discussing it and listening with an open mind and not attacking like a petulant child, well then, we might actually get somewhere or at least meet a little closer to the middle road.

This is all just my humble opinion and how I choose to go about things. I doubt you will ever find that I have argued with anyone on here in all my years of posting. Mamma ain't got no time for that....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Should someone who defends left/right causes also be required to defend extreme views of the same cause?

I don't think so as an example I am very very much into animal rights. its big deal to me, however peta doesn't represent me or my views on animal rights they're a bunch of idiots. Extremes on both sides do nothing but divide no one should support them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Manners, respect and politeness are censorship! Don't you tell me not to swear in Church!

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Manners, respect and politeness are censorship! Don't you tell me not to swear in Church!

By all means . . . .

But if we get rid of political labels how will we know if the person we are talking to is one of the good guys or one of the bad guys?

originally posted by: Tardacus
But if we get rid of political labels how will we know if the person we are talking to is one of the good guys or one of the bad guys?

There ain't no good guys...

There ain't no bad guys...

There's only you and me...

And we just disagree


P.S. I just came up with that.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Manners, respect and politeness are censorship! Don't you tell me not to swear in Church!

If black people don't want to be called 'n-word's by white people is that too much to ask? Being respectful and polite is not about you being censor but about just being civil and respectful of other people's feelings. Why is this even a topic? Why is this so difficult for some people. I would never use the N word in a conversation with a black person. I would feel like I defiled something sacred.