posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:07 PM
The whole label thing is way past annoying. I know of few members in this site that belong on a shelf displayed as this or that. Plenty accept the
label but many without even considering what the label really means, what it once meant, and what it will possibly mean in the future. The whole
labeling thing gets so absurd that those who love to label wind up hyphenating those labels, so if someone claiming to be a "conservative" doesn't
fit the paradigm the modern label proscribes, then those people must be "neo-conservatives", then come the "classical liberals", the "moderate
progressives" the "fiscally conservative - socially liberals", and on and on and on as if by adding all these adjectives and adverbs onto the label
helps to somehow clarify a position.
Labels are restraints imposed upon people demanding they conform to some sort of "norm" that in the end does nothing but assure conformity and when
all sides have conformed to the labels that some status quo believes properly defines them then suddenly we're all "conformists".
When I first joined this site I went for a long time refusing to use an avatar. It was only after several members contacted me and suggested that my
posts were not getting the audience they deserved because of my own stubborn refusal to conform to a norm that I considered the value of an avatar.
Once I agreed to finally use an avatar, I had to go through the process of choosing one. After a few months of stewing on that I finally chose the
avatar I did.
I bring this up only because lately I am often accused of being cantankerous and grumpy even when I'm not being cantankerous and grumpy. Sometimes
I can be grumpy, but only sometimes, and often, when I am just being adamant about a point, that insistence suddenly becomes labeled as "grumpy",
and I have suspected for over a year now that my choice in avatar has a lot to do with that perception. I have considered choosing a "kinder
gentler" avatar, but why? Who would I be appeasing? Would that appeasement even matter?
I can be moderate on a plethora of issues, but my moderation is largely ignored and it is my extreme views that often grab people's attention.
Because of this, many view me as an "extremist". Should I just forgo my extreme positions in order to shed the label of "extremism"? Who would
Often I am taking to task for my "tone" and those taking me to task think nothing of the "tone" they employ to take me to task for my "tone",
and if I call them on that, they justify their "tone" by suggesting they are merely taking me to task for my "tone". Should I "tone" down my
posts to appease? Who would that appease?
One of the most shocking elements of participating in communities such as this is how many people despise freedom and harbor grand ambitions as petty
tyrants, wanting to control, not just the way people communicate, but how they think. It is easier to recognize when engaging in debates and relying
upon "extreme" points of view, but the truth is, this element is not just a phenomenon of the internet.
Years ago, were I to go to a party and discuss the topics I willingly discuss here, I would be the "party pooper" and if I kept it up, I would find
myself no longer being invited to party's. Today, for whatever reasons, such discussions become the "life of the party" as more people are
"waking up", but the proclivity to insist that we all conform to certain norms is always prevalent.
I suppose threads in this site are somewhat like party's. Not political party's but just plain old congregate in the kitchen party's. In certain
circles, I am not at all welcome to join those party's. In others, I am more than welcome...and then one day, for whatever reasons, someone who
hated to "party" with me has changed their mind and invites me to their party, and the labels they once stuck all over me are peeled off and they
begin to accept me for who I am...who ever that is...