Labels: Downfall of Humanity? Hello, my fellow site-goers. Today, I'm making a topic about labels, and why ALL of them, not just bad, but good too, are bad.Luprony and I have had lengthy discussions about this topic, and here is what it comes down to: 1. All labels are Self-Limiting: Applying yourself a positive label may seem like a good idea, but in all honesty, it isn't. You're pairing yourself with other people with the same so-called "Label", and therefore, not finding individuality in yourself. The ultimate goal in life is to find out who you are, yourself, instead on relying on a set of given rules, which are labels. Don't live by what people say you are, instead, find your own path instead on relying on positive labels. 2. Not all labels are true: Labels are an instrument used for both positive reinforcement and negative stereotypes. Sure, negative labels hurt. But what happens when you find out that the one positive label you gave yourself turns out not to be true at all? You break down. Not only do you realize why that label was wrong, but you also question whether your negative labels mean anything, which they don't. 3. Labels Archive Groups (L.A.G.): Specific labels are applied to certain groups because of one of three possible things: They think they are right, the group is shunned by the public, or the group accepts the labels willingly. Number 1 is the most common, followed by number three, then two, depending on the group. The people who think they're right tend to be wrong; they apply labels to other people so as to classify them as "Popular" or "Unpopular." These so-called "popular" kids apply even more slanderous labels to the "Unpopular" kids, causing certain groups (Such as LGBT teens) to have depressive thoughts, or even suicide. The "Neutral" kids also apply the so-called "Popular" kid's labels as the right way, so they follow and accept it, resulting in even more turmoil. The groups that openly accept labels (Such as Religions) are equally stupid. Not only do most labels go against their "Religion", they blindly accept them. Not to mention, groups set their OWN labels for their people, and they blindly follow the labels their religion/group sets for them. Hence why most religions tend to be ignored in general society due to their ignorance towards other religions. 4. Setting your own path: Sure, setting your own labels is great in certain cases. It can give you the confidence to accomplish a major goal in life. But the ultimate purpose is to not rely on labels and to find your own path. You create your own set of rules and live the way you want to live your life. Relying on labels makes your life, in the end, miserable, and it leads to unhappiness in the future. Consider humanity a "Pack" for a moment. People discourage leaving this Pack, because it would result in being alone. But being alone is not as bad as it seems. Solitude can lead to intelligence, peace, and the ability to make your own choices. Most members of a "Pack" will try to persuade you to stay in said boundaries of their labels; but should you be free of this "Pack" and be a lone wolf means that you have overcome labels, and achieved as much social enlightenment as you possibly can. (Read, social)However, being a "Lone wolf" so to speak does not mean you are without help. It also does not mean that you cannot offer assistance to anyone who asks or needs it.The basis of Lup n' I's conversations is that; Labels are bad. Strive to be your own person in life, and don't rely on the labels of others to get the job done. Find your own way, ignoring all labels people slap on you, good or bad. You know who you are, and only you do. Nobody else does, so don't follow false labels, because in the end, all labels are false; we make or break ourselves based on our choices and actions; following your own path is the choice that everyone should strive to make. Final time Writing this: 34 minutes, 54 seconds.
The counter argument to this, which myself and some others here champion, is that while labels can certainly be negative and their use have both seen and unforeseen negative consequences, that there are situations where their benefit outweighs their harm. Using a label to identify yourself can be directly beneficial in two ways that I believe are not given the credit they should in the above argument. Labels allow people to quickly describe themselves to others. In a general situation it is much easier and less time(space) consuming to say to someone "I'm a pansexual, genderqueer, biological female," than to say "I love without boundaries. I am attracted to all gender variants. I am biologically female but I have male qualities that cause me to gender slide quite a bit so I don't fully identify with either end of the spectrum." Yes, the second is more telling, but there are situations that just don't warrant such explanation. There are those, in fact, that warrant even less and a simple "I'm queer" will suffice. The second role that labels perform is mentioned above, but not in a way that I believe does justice to its importance. Being a member of the "pack" is a comfort thing. Extreme individuality is not for everyone. There are those of us who can handle it and in fact thrive on it, but to push everyone into that category isn't exactly fair. It feels good, for many people, to know there are other people who feel the way they do. For many people it is a life saver to know that "gay" or "lesbian" is a label they share with others who are attracted to the same gender that they themselves are and are attracted to as well and that they are not alone. In a world where such things are still looked down upon, banding together under a label can be a safe and empowering thing. I understand and respect the opinions expressed above, I just think it's important that the other side of the issue has a voice as well. (Which is why I think this thread was one that definitely needed to be made and I hope it can be a place of enlightening discussion for all involved on both sides! ^_^)
Ah, a good-ol' two-sided debate.. Y'see, this is why I love this community. Open-minded individuals who actually make sense in what they say. Interesting counter-argument, nonetheless! It actually gave me some insight as to what some people feel.
I'd like to propose the opposite, that labels do not limit individuality but, rather, do the complete opposite. In chemistry, there is only a set (but vast) amount of elements. Every hydrogen particle is alike to another hydrogen particle (well, on a basic level). However, Elements combine to create completely different and unique results, and sometimes they combine in different ways. Hydrogen when combined with say, Carbon, creates a different result than when its combined with Helium (I know its more complicated than that but I'm keeping it simple for the purpose of this analogy). Picture "labels" as elements. One particular label isn't who you are. Rather, the sum of your labels, how they combine, how they click together, how important they are to you, is who you are. No two people have the same exact labels, nor do two people have the same combination of labels, thus, everyone is different and no one is the same. No two gays are the same because they aren't just gay, they are also so many other things. One could be tall, the other could be a geek, another could be an athlete. And then it goes even deeper, with more and more labels applied and more and more ideas mixed in that no two athletes are the same either, nor are two geeks, because of other labels applied. The vast amount of labels in one person combine to create an individual unlike anyone else in the world. Because of the huge amount of labels that can be applied, both consciously and subconsciously, mean that no two people will ever be the same because for no two people will the labels combine the same, and for some people certain labels apply more than it does for others, and so on. Because of all the labels that make us up, we are individuals. The most important thing though is that labels are changeable (for the most part). Thus they are even more complex than the elements, which are set forever (we will always be composed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus, however we will not neccassarily forever be a brony, or a bad person, or a good person, or a geek, or a weak person, or a strong person). Thus, with the power to be aware of and change the labels you do not like, you can have true freedom and mastery over life and who fundamentally you are.
Thank you, Saiko. I'm glad I could show you another side of the coin in a way that makes sense to you. I agree that a healthy two-sided debate can be an awesome thing and it's something that this entire community seems to be a place more suited to this sort of thing than some others. Chapien: You bring a very interesting idea to this entire debate! I like the idea of many labels snapping together to create a truly individualized being. That is certain an enlightening way to look at the whole issue... I'll have to think on this a bit. Thank you for sharing that. ^_^
Chapien, Labelling yourself as an individual because of a group is the basis of this conversation. Even then, applying yourself a label is a bad thing to do, because no label is truly unique. Eventually, other people connect with that label of yours, and your individuality is compromised. The goal of this conversation is to debate whether or not true individuality can be achieved, and while it's not likely, I've always believed that people who label themselves positive labels only do so because they are slapped with negative labels, so it's their coping mechanism. It's never been about "Chemicals" or "Labels" per se. It's more about finding yourself without relying on said labels. Labels, good or bad, can be shattered using logic. It's much worse to have a good label shattered than a bad one. But I do see where you are coming from. Then again, it doesn't mean I agree with it. And debates exist for this purpose; to voice your opinion. Have at it!
See the thing is, you apply a label to yourself. But what that label means to you is different than what it means to anyone else. No one has only one or two labels. Everyone has a million and one, likely more, labels that apply. Thus, because of how complex labels are, because of how many labels we have, no two people are alike, thus making us all unique individuals because of our labels, not in spite of. If you have a million different labels, and someone else has a million different labels, the chances of you two being the same, or even similar, are next to zero.
Ah, now I see where you're coming from! Now that I think about it that way, that seems to make a lot of sense. But still, the issue stands; labels aren't true facts, (Positive ones are) only supporting factors that help with certain problems. You may see it differently, but there is always going to be, out of 7 billion people on this planet, someone that completely identifies with your labels. Now, that isn't really a bad thing, either.
It's funny because I had just finished reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, a fantastic book that tells the story of an individual struggling for success in a society controlled by conformity. Here's how I see it. What defines a label? My definition of a label is an interest, trait, or value that you have. While a "label" by itself doesn't show your individuality, it is the many labels we gain throughout our lives that show who we are. You say that all labels are bad and should be avoided. Since labels show your interests, traits, values, etc. this is implying that an individual does not have interests, traits, or values. This of course isn't true, an individual would have many interests, traits and values that suit him/her, and only him/her. There are 2 main types of people, the individual, and the conformist. Both have labels: but it is how the labels are acquired that makes them different. The conformist would have labels because the labels make that person. An individualist also has labels, but it is him/her that makes the labels. A conformist would have a label just because people around him/her has that label, or because they will not appeal to society without said label. An individualist would have a label because without a label, what is it that makes you an individual? Even though he/she is an individual, you still have a personality, beliefs, moral values, and traits; and in turn you must have a label to show for it. Saying someone does not have a label, is saying that someone does not have a personality, or does not exist. Labels are just as conforming as they are unique. It all depends on the person, and how the labels are used.
The problem with forsaking labels is that it forsakes identity. Now, labeling to be part of a GROUP is a complete surrender of individuality, i.e. A bad idea. Rejecting all labels also means you reject identity as a whole, since you reject the idea of names. After all, if a label is a word that, when applied to a person, implies certain traits, what is a name, a word that implies that person's traits, except a label? One can argue that names are unecessary, and that we can live without them. True, yet false. We can survive without them, but as a society, we can not function without referring to someone by name. People have, to this end, suggested that we can use a series of descriptors in place of a name. However, one can plainly see that this is also a name. So, In the end, which is better? A misuse of labels? Or an absence of them?
Who cares if they are factual though? They are convenient ways to identify yourself. Now, I think I BETTER way to say this is this: Labels are not permanent. They are necessary. They promote friendship and individuality. But they can be changed, as you wish them too. Labels are subjective.
Labels are also delicious when you eat them accidentally when eating an apple. Seriously, though. Who puts labels on fruit?
But to this I ask, in the million labels that define a person, just how precise are these labels? Sure the combination is unique but is the quantity per measurement? Its like cordial juice, some people like more water in it than others. Due to abstraction perhaps a person is being defined incorrectly whilst still under certain labels.
Its all subjective, just different ways to look at the world. What the label say, "stubborn" means to one person means something entirely different to someone else. Thus you can have as many labels as you want or need. This can be none or millions. Either way you're still a unique individuals. Labels are only true if you make them so, and they can always be changed.
Exactly, they apply differently between people and have different meanings to different people, its not the label that is the problem its the pre-formed definition of what the label is/means.
Mainly this. It doesn't matter what you think your label means. Society will always think the same exact thing and do a universal meaning on you. It doesn't matter if you think stubborn means something else to you; people will just go by the dictionary. People associate labels as a supporting tool, when society interprets it as a factor to base someone into a group of individuals.. Hence this discussion.
Wow I would miss an interesting topic such as this whilst at school. I'll add my input nonetheless. It'll be quite quick. In my opinion, labels can neither completely good or bad. The same could be said of all things really. In any bad situation there is a silver lining and for every positive result there is a negative recoil even if it is tiny. Labela are way of definin someone be it positive or negative. It all depends on the labels though. Everyone has multiple labels because it is the accumulative actions that define who a person is. Labels really don't restrict somebody as much as they're the result of Previous actions, be it yours or others. In the end, it all depends on who you really are as a person, even if you may be stuck with some bad labels. Keep your friends close.
Sure it does, but I don't just disregard what society comes up with entirely, else I'd have nothing to prove, then society would think itself right which we can't let it do or it'll stick forever.
