The Conspiracy Against Labeling:

Well, okay. As long as we all still feel free to point out when we believe a label is being misused, whether the label used is inaccurate, too broad of a generalization, or used only to disparage.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Since you tried to derail my other thread with a post about this one (for some odd reason) I will bring my response back where it belongs.

You say everyone fits into groups, and you are correct. What you are still failing to recognize is that just because someone fits into a group, doesn not mean that all in that groupshare the exact same traits.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I never claimed this at all. When I talk about Liberals I talk about liberals when I talk about extreme muslims I talk about extreme muslims when I talk about birthers I talk about birthers, when I talk about environmentalists I talk about environmentalists. I usually say somewhere that I am not talking about all (whatevers) of course because there are always outliers sure. And that's what most people miss or even criticize me for doing so. And usually when debating I say, "the majority of birthers believe that Obama was not born in this country."

Or, "the Majority of Christians believe the in birth of Jesus Christ and a singular God."

Or, "Many Jihadists believe that America must be destroyed and Islam should be the dominate religion."

Or, "The majority of Environmentalists also align themselves with other liberal viewpoints."

Or, a big no-no in the liberal world, "the majority of Blacks are poor and democrats."


To me, there is nothing wrong with those above statements. Others take great offense at it, and I just don't know why. Now, if I say, Americans are stupid, or Muslims are terrorists than yes, I would be wrong. However, it gets sloppy because people always accuse or deny even when proof positives are staring in their faces.

Originally posted by Sahabi
This separatist ideology of Liberal versus Conservative, Right versus Left, Democrat versus Republican that is spelled all out in the OP is what inspired my posts in this thread. Anyone that can think for themselves can see that there is no two-party system... only wealthy bankers and corporate heads that control both parties by finance and acquirement.

But that, in itself is a classical left-wing view. Anti-corporatism and anti-bankerism is leftist. You are against "seperating left and right" but then, in the very same paragraph espouse far-left-wing views of society. See the contradiction? As I said earlier, the "no label" crowd only wants "no labels" if it is something they disagree with.

reply to post by vasaga


Your idea that "disagreement leads to aggression" is precisely the kind of philosophy the OP was complaining about. Please consider whether its really true that "disagreement leads to aggression".

reply to post by Skyfloating

That is not my point at all. Stop goddamn strawmanning.

No wonder this place is a joke.. Even mods don't have reading comprehension..

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hey there Skyfloating. Nice to make your acquaintance.

I am posting in the philosophical/metaphysical point of view, not one of 'political correctness'. As I said earlier, I am not against labeling 'this' as 'that' or 'that' as 'this.'

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." [Romeo and Juliet - Shakespeare]

Regardless of what superficial name, label, or classification we give to any thing, the thing will always 'be what it is.' No matter what anyone says about me or you, we will always be what we are. "I Am that I Am." At any moment in time I can choose to take a different point of view, different lifestyle, or different personality. I once wore He-Man pajamas as a child, does that make me 'Now' a He-Man fan? If I was hungry a few moments ago and then ate a sandwich, would I still be hungry?

Labels only attempt to explain and understand a thing in it's current state. Each thing in existence is a non-permanent expression of infinite possibility. We can call any thing by any name for reasons of understanding. But when we place others or ourselves into boxes, we are limiting the concept of possibility for all things experience change. What is anything? It is what it is as 'Now.'

Now, if we examine the macro to the micro, cosmic to the atomic and subatomic, we discover that each and every thing is fundamentally the same thing; Energy. What makes any thing 'different'? Simply the vibration, density, and concentration of this Energy. This helps to explain why each and every thing is interconnected and co-dependent on everything else to exist.

I hope that clarifies my understandings of labels.

reply to post by Skyfloating

"Anti-corporatism and anti-bankerism is leftist."

In my past, I was anti a lot of things! At different points in my life I hated others based on homosexuality, race, religion, nationality, social status, political party, and even fashion statement trends! Today I find myself less anti anything, and more pro. As the late Mother Teresa said; "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there."

Although my previous post may have one assume that I am anti-bankerism or anti-corporatism, this is not my view. I do not hold hatred or blame against them for anything. It is a simple proven fact that Rothschild Zionism and Bankerism has infiltrated and funded royalty, nobility, politicians, militaries, and businessmen on all sides of the spectrum. With hind-sight, we now see that Obama's foreign, domestic, military, and constitutional (lack thereof) policies and agenda are identical to that of George W. Bush. We then see Bush's biggest rival (John Kerry) and Obama's bigget rival (John McCain) come together to support Obama's policies. What do we see these Republican and Democratic leaders doing? They are polarizing the masses against each other based on their superficial party label, all the while wars spread, bailouts continue, and rights are taken away.

This is not espousing anti-Bankerism or anti-Corporativism. I am not spreading judgement or separation. It is simply making an observation and stating what is happening. So what makes me not 'anti' them? Because I hold no hate or blame on them. They are my brethren, just as every human, animal, plant, and existence is One 'family.' Banks, Corporations, Politicians, and Military Leaders are not to blame. Each one of us are responsible for our own selves, our own decisions, and our own actions.

Am I against labels? No. A thing is what it is. Difference of expression, opinion, and point of view that does not infringe on the Free Will of others should be embraced! And that includes how one articulates their understandings of reality... love, hate... unity, disunity... labels or not.

Repeating myself, the Openig Post and thread author is spreading the agenda of societal polarization, separation, and compartmentalization based on a manufactured Left/Right paradigm. OP is not interested in open dialogue.

I know I wrote a lot. Sorry

Peace be unto you.

@Sahabi and @Skyfloating:

thank you both for proving my points. Even though, Sahabi does not want labels, Skyfloating can conclude even from the tone of your post that you are a liberal and thus without typing up your whole life story she can easily conclude that you are a liberal. The way you described yourself and your description of yourself sounds an awful lot like a liberal. You may not even put yourself in that category, because for whatever reason you hate labels, but others like myself and skyfloating will have no problem defining you that you are a liberal.

FYI: This post isn't really about so-called "open dialogue" it's asking the question why the left hate to use labels, when the right feel it is so ridiculous and unimportant to even care about. If you don't like right/left things don't preach to me about it, because that's how I see the world. It is right VS left. In America anyway. I can easily place other people from other countries into these categories too! Even though they may be totally against the American ideology separation. It still works, and I have no problem using it!

Do you have a problem with being called a liberal?
Why do you hate that label so much?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

That is not my point at all. Stop goddamn strawmanning.

No wonder this place is a joke.. Even mods don't have reading comprehension..

I am quoting what you said and you respond to it with that which you criticize in others: Agression (ad-hominem personal attack). Why dont you just address the several points brought up? Instead you responded with a terse one-liner as if you couldnt be bothered to defend your views. If you really believe what you are saying, explain it. Start with explaining what you meant by "disagreement leads to agression"...you you mean the type of aggression you just displayed?

reply to post by Sahabi


I`ll explain why I consider your view far-left (and I have no problem with your view, nor with far-left views).

You recognize a leftist by looking externally for the cause of problems (banks, corporations, rich folks, etc.

You recognize a rightist by looking internally for the cause of problems (laziness, lack of education, etc.)

Leftists are usually also the people who say "lets look beyond the left/right paradigm" while rightists usually say "my side is right, your side is wrong".

So, I am not really "judging" you, its just that I am familiar with your talk because thousands of other leftists use it. Spend some time on this site and you`ll see where someone is coming from.

I see you retracted some of your statements in the last post and I understand you wish to be beyond sides, but being beyond sides and seeing animals and humans as "one" is still somewhat leftist
But so what? There is nothing wrong with being a leftist. There is nothing wrong with labels.

By the way: The Rotschilds dont have power since a hundred years. I recommend you update your encyclopedias. .Google has more power than the Rothschilds. .

The much-used tactic is to first soften things up by saying something like:

"Neither left nor right are correct. Both are flawed. Lets look beyond left/right".

Once someone agrees and is softened up (and it is easy to agree with that), leftism is again introduced, but its not called left-ism but rather "the truth".

Of course similar tactics can and have been used by right-wingers, but its more rare there because they tend to "stick to their guns" (which leftists view as narrow-minded).

Originally posted by Sahabi


Now, if we examine the macro to the micro, cosmic to the atomic and subatomic, we discover that each and every thing is fundamentally the same thing; Energy. What makes any thing 'different'? Simply the vibration, density, and concentration of this Energy. This helps to explain why each and every thing is interconnected and co-dependent on everything else to exist.

I hope that clarifies my understandings of labels.

Yes, but you are still using classifications (labels), namely different densities of energy. And its quite appropriate to use them, otherwise you would not be able to tell the difference (to discriminate!) between anything.

reply to post by Skyfloating

You are misrepresenting my point and then trying to refute it.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Source

My point was:

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

So.. These stuff need to be defined. Otherwise it'll only turn into a baseless yes/no argument which will lead to aggression. As long as the question "why" can be asked, it's not defined properly..

For what "these stuff" is, read the actual post. I never said disagreement leads to aggression... I said that having arguments about undefined labels will lead to baseless arguments which in turn will lead to aggression, because people are not understanding each other and talking past each other. So in short, baseless arguments will lead to aggression. That's something completely different than saying that disagreement leads to aggression.

People seriously need to learn some philosophy..

Originally posted by vasaga
For what "these stuff" is, read the actual post. I never said disagreement leads to aggression... I said that having arguments about undefined labels will lead to baseless arguments which in turn will lead to aggression, because people are not understanding each other and talking past each other. So in short, baseless arguments will lead to aggression. That's something completely different than saying that disagreement leads to aggression.

People seriously need to learn some philosophy..

And who defines what is baseless and what isnt? Let me guess: You.

Lacking words to format thoughts is a way to inactivate your brain and not allow you to think.

I mean that literally. No words, no thoughts.

People who dislike giving words to observable phenomena are trying to control your ability to think, while claiming that they are doing it out of compassion. If you had compassion, you wouldn't be trying to turn me into a squirrel.

reply to post by Skyfloating

No.. I don't decide anything I already explained this.. If you want to know, go read. And remember, I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

There are some labels I enjoy (white, metalhead, gamer, that sort of thing) but when it's a label that boxes people into a certain thing that's the same as a separately named group (like with religions) then that doesn't sit right with me.

reply to post by vasaga


Im afraid the original point you were trying to make has become lost. Im sure if you provide an example of what you mean, the conversation will move on more constructively for the writers and readers involved.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hi there again Skyfloating.

Maybe I wrote too much and you once again lost my points of understanding.... you say a leftist looks externally while a rightist looks internally. Then you go on to label me a Leftist... I just said in my last post: "Banks, Corporations, Politicians, and Military Leaders are not to blame. Each one of us are responsible for our own selves, our own decisions, and our own actions."

If a man buys a pizza shop, then begins to sell pizza.... and if I then go on to say this guy bought a pizza shop and sells pizza.... does this make me left or right? Neither, it is making an observation and stating it. Who is to blame for eating this man's pizza? Should we say the pizza owner since he is supplying it? I say no, it is each pizza eater's personal responsibility for purchasing the man's pizza and eating... no one made them eat pizza by force.

As I did in my above post I placed NO blame on anyone besides self, I only stated where the bulk of political and military funding comes from bankers and corporations.

• "The world is a reflection of yourself."
• "What you think.. what you say.. you bring forth."
• "Love and treat others as you love and treat yourself."
• "You must be the change that you want to see in the world."

These are the quotes I have put in as my signature for quite some time now. I whole-heartedly believe them, and from how I see it, these concepts are fully internal, not external.

P.S.
The House Rothschild's acquirement of Associated Press and Reuters... their financing of Rockefeller, Soros, and JP Morgan leads me to believe they wield heavy influence today.


Sorry to have wasted both our time.