Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Is that what all the fuss is about? Because from the discussion I was expecting something far more...stupid.

That eloquent extract is the reason why social movements should steer away from tumblr. It has a habit of taking good things and making them shit.

[Dutchling]

Is that what all the fuss is about? Because from the discussion I was expecting something far more...stupid.

That eloquent extract is the reason why social movements should steer away from tumblr. It has a habit of taking good things and making them shit.

"And why the fuck do they only look at North America and ignore the South? You know why? Because there is more rape in the south by racist white people with confederate flags that is still ruled by racism and sexist rednecks. They only look at the north to make America look better, when it’s really a rapist capitalist shithole."

hurrdurr

[XXSockXX]

Is that what all the fuss is about? Because from the discussion I was expecting something far more...stupid.

That eloquent extract is the reason why social movements should steer away from tumblr. It has a habit of taking good things and making them shit.

That has actually a lot of comedic value.

[palsch]

So basically your point is I don't understand the marginalization and how nasty labels are and how bad they are when I slap them onto other people.

Not at all. I was describing the goals of using the term.

Firstly, the idea that labels = bad is pretty much flat wrong. Labels can be useful, if only for helping people to feel like part of a community or as ways to explore their own identity. Especially for marginalised groups labels that they own and define can be very empowering. The problem, again, comes with imposed labels where that power is used by outside groups, often in very controlling ways.

And making people experience such an imposed label is a useful tool for helping others understand that, through admittedly crude methods. Maybe you don't need it, maybe you don't like it, but that doesn't make it useful or harmful overall. It's certainly helpful and useful for some people.

[DJ]

The point is that two wrongs make a right if you're a minority?

[Dutchling]

The point is that two wrongs make a right if you're a minority?

It wasn't a wrong in the first place if you're a minority :x

[palsch]

The point is that two wrongs make a right if you're a minority?

The point is if a white guy is arguing why it's so wrong to keep referring to black people with the n-word, maybe a black person should try calling him cracker to see if that helps him understand what it's like. If no other arguments are working then giving a small experience from the same family could be a useful tool in the toolbox. Except that, for some reason I really don't understand, cis seems to work even better than any anti-majority racial or ethnic slur towards this end. Despite having even less power behind the term.

Of course, this is all secondary effect. As I said in my first post;

Comparatively the real power the term cis has is as a way to refer to non-trans* people that doesn't hold them as some norm against which trans* people are measured, just by being a little strange and unfamiliar. Actually, more than that, it offers reminders that trans* people exist for those who might prefer to just ignore that fact.

I'm not sure that this isn't the very part that causes discomfort. The way that us 'normal' people might be the ones labelled rather than (or in addition to) the 'abnormal' is what causes the screaming about labelling...

[DJ]

No, it's more like a black person saying that all crackers should die because they're all collectively responsible for KKK. Or me burning down random Serbs' houses because 20 years ago some Serbs burned down my house.

[palsch]

No, it's more like a black person saying that all crackers should die because they're all collectively responsible for KKK. Or me burning down random Serbs' houses because 20 years ago some Serbs burned down my house.

Wait, have you gone back to the 'die cis scum' part, or are you seriously saying that just using the term 'cis' as a term for non-trans people is an act of violence?

[DJ]

Nothing wrong with the cis part, that's simply an observation. The die part is quite bothersome, though.

[Loud Whispers]

The point is if a white guy is arguing why it's so wrong to keep referring to black people with the n-word, maybe a black person should try calling him cracker to see if that helps him understand what it's like.

An appallingly bad argument that ultimately ends up with everyone referring to each other not as individuals but as labels. No longer are you Sarah or James, now you are cracker and nigger. The end point being 'you see what it's like' and the people being fine with it... Being fine with it still.
And it's hard to believe you need to call non Indo-Europeans Cisslavic to relate to their troubles. How far are you willing to delete empathy from the human consciousness that you require a mutual sense of worthlessness before you try to begin understanding one another?

[Zrk2]

Is that what all the fuss is about? Because from the discussion I was expecting something far more...stupid.

That eloquent extract is the reason why social movements should steer away from tumblr. It has a habit of taking good things and making them shit.

Pretty sure that one's satire, but if you want to see ridiculous SJWs go to www.reddit.com/tumblrinaction.

[palsch]

An appallingly bad argument that ultimately ends up with everyone referring to each other not as individuals but as labels.

I... just... what?

I'm not sure you are reading the same posts I'm writing. Probably my fault. Let's try this another way.

The term cis seems to discomfort some cis people for being an externally imposed label.

This discomfort these people feel over an externally imposed label can be a useful tool for encouraging empathy with groups whose labelling and identity has been externally imposed in the past.

This is required because many people will never have encountered a similar situation, and so giving them any emotional hook will help with empathising, in the same way someone who has had a phone stolen might more readily empathise with someone whose house is robbed.

That's the extent of my argument there.



If I'm honest I'm more interested in the actual arguments against using the term. They seem to limited to these two;

1) Labels are universally bad.
I flat out disagree with this. Copying what I said before, labels can be useful, if only for helping people to feel like part of a community or as ways to explore their own identity. Especially for marginalised groups labels that they own and define can be very empowering. They can be harmful, sure, but the idea that they are inherently dehumanising and evil is, to me, wrong-headed. It too easily lends itself to erasing elements of personal or community identity.

2) Normal people don't need labels, only those with abnormal conditions do.
Which is kinda the core point of the term. Pretending that one group is normal and the other abnormal and only the abnormal need a way of being identified is the idea that is being fought against. I pointed out before the whole neurotypical thing out of the Autism movement. The idea that there is some platonic normal against which all other groups should be defined is one of the first things to be abandoned. This is a case where a label other than having no label to refer to those outside the groups is incredibly useful to those in the groups.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm not sure you are reading the same posts I'm writing. Probably my fault. Let's try this another way.

The term cis seems to discomfort some cis people for being an externally imposed label.

This discomfort these people feel over an externally imposed label can be a useful tool for encouraging empathy with groups whose labelling and identity has been externally imposed in the past.

This is required because many people will never have encountered a similar situation, and so giving them any emotional hook will help with empathising, in the same way someone who has had a phone stolen might more readily empathise with someone whose house is robbed.If I'm honest I'm more interested in the actual arguments against using the term. They seem to limited to these two;

1) Labels are universally bad.
I flat out disagree with this. Copying what I said before, labels can be useful, if only for helping people to feel like part of a community or as ways to explore their own identity. Especially for marginalised groups labels that they own and define can be very empowering. They can be harmful, sure, but the idea that they are inherently dehumanising and evil is, to me, wrong-headed. It too easily lends itself to erasing elements of personal or community identity.

2) Normal people don't need labels, only those with abnormal conditions do.
Which is kinda the core point of the term. Pretending that one group is normal and the other abnormal and only the abnormal need a way of being identified is the idea that is being fought against. I pointed out before the whole neurotypical thing out of the Autism movement. The idea that there is some platonic normal against which all other groups should be defined is one of the first things to be abandoned. This is a case where a label other than having no label to refer to those outside the groups is incredibly useful to those in the groups.

I haven't seen anyone cry out for being externally labelled, but rather for the very act of labeling itself. Encouraging people to stop basing their identity and treating everyone as separate groups instead of equal individuals is not going to happen if the people acting under these imposed groups reinforce them by accepting them with these labels, and defining their exclusion with more labels.

Looking at historical generalizations, seeing the active reduction of man to labels and bringing that into the modern world is not being empathetic, that is earning someone's pity by manipulating their emotions and insecurities. You normalize it, and build in the mind justification for 'good reason' why bad things should continue.

To extend the limit of your individuality to your basest attributes is to deny your individuality. To use these emotions to build these 'empathetic' hooks with communities is to create an unstable active trade of information. Passions swing both ways, and the social justice warriors embody this - people who fight for others, while simultaneously disregarding who they are fighting for, basing their reasons on these emotional hooks.

There are such things as communities, and these will almost always be founded by individuals with similar interests, it is human nature. But to then name these communities as individual entities to which all others are conglomerate to, that is to more easily care less about them and pretend helping a non-entity is actually aiding anyone at all.

It is easy to define sexuality, gender and race with words. This is fine. Yet you, and far too many like you then conflate these things with labels, which are immorally used to define a person's very being.

[palsch]

I haven't seen anyone cry out for being externally labelled, but rather for the very act of labeling itself.

Then I'll just say that our experiences are very different.

I mean, think about this. When we are talking about non-external labelling we are talking about labels people personally or communally identify with. You are saying that people complain about labels they choose themselves. There are disagreements within groups about labels for those groups, sure, but the vast majority of complaints about labels are when outside groups apply labels that those being referred to don't accept.

Now people complain about other people identifying with labels (hell, that's what you are doing), but I give such complaints far less importance than how a group or person chooses to identify. It's just another form of external groups dictating how people should identify, which is the problem with external labelling in the first place.

Encouraging people to stop basing their identity and treating everyone as separate groups instead of equal individuals is not going to happen if the people acting under these imposed groups reinforce them by accepting them with these labels, and defining their exclusion with more labels.

Different people have different experiences of the world and different needs. Insisting that they shouldn't identify with these differences isn't treating them equally, it's erasing these experiences and needs.

Looking at historical generalizations, seeing the active reduction of man to labels and bringing that into the modern world is not being empathetic, that is earning someone's pity by manipulating their emotions and insecurities. You normalize it, and build in the mind justification for 'good reason' why bad things should continue.

Wait, historic generalizations? That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about modern labelling of minority groups in both social and legal contexts. The insistence among some people that their outgroup labels for minorities are just fine to use, regardless of how those groups see the label. The practice of lawmakers, medical officials and others defining groups and their needs without input from those groups. These things are hardly historic, even if they are slowly improving.

And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil.

To extend the limit of your individuality to your basest attributes is to deny your individuality.

OK, where did I or anyone suggest such a thing? Has anyone ever suggested such a thing?

It is easy to define sexuality, gender and race with words. This is fine. Yet you, and far too many like you then conflate these things with labels, which are immorally used to define a person's very being.

I don't suppose you could clearly define the difference between a morally sound word that describes the shared attributes of a group of people and an immoral label that defines a person's very being for me, could you?