Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is normal, I think. It's and evolved instinct to train people function as part of a tribe. We have our roles - the alpha pair, the Guard, the family. I think there is evidence that at one time the mystery of motherhood lead to a Stone age matriarchy and trade and co -operation rather than war. But farming, land, increased population let to border disputes and wars and men took over rulership. Religion (being invented by men - or re -invented after a more woman -run fertiiity religion) supported gender -roles and has done so ever since.
This is become the 'Norm'. and is 'normal' in that sense. It may even be (arguably) normal in the sense of natural. But our society and technology means that we can do better. We adapt the environment rather than adapting to it; we can adapt 'natural' gender roles rather than letting it control us. Atheism, taking the whole element of 'God's intentions' out of it and giving us the options makes this easier to do. The problem is the 'old Norm' thinking still continues because (until recently, anyway) there wasn't the will at the top. And if Right - wing religion has its' way, there never will be.
While I agree that indoctrination may be the norm for groups or societies, remember the phrase: There are people who write the rules and there are people who follow the rules. This I think is the norm because of differences in education, intelligence, and position in life. Religion may be an attempt to level the playing field, with an authority that is greater than the human rule creators. So in a way, religion was thinking outside the box but it has created a new box for itself. It has found itself making rules but not following them.
I noticed a shift in ideas from your first paragraph to your second paragraph from indoctrination to adaptation through the use of technology. Adaptation, I believe, has always been the answer to indoctrination when it is failing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I've said it before. But sometimes I feel like I'm watching children playing in a sandbox when I visit the RS main forum. It literally reminds me of one time when I was in middle school with my friend riding bikes. We stopped and watched some younger kids who were talking about building a motel, which they hoped to complete by that afternoon. (That memory just came to mind.)
I can remember getting angry and wanting to correct them in their thinking. Now I realize, I should just leave them at their play.
With the technology we have today, my daughter can log in to an online game. Go to her lot that the game assigned to her. Then build a hotel in one morning where other children come to work and play in.
Her teacher from last year (4th grade) always suspected I helped her with her dioramas. I honestly never knew when she had one due until she showed me the finished project.
It's okay for people to imagine without corrections.
I am not against the use of labels. However, labels should show their faces when it matters in relationships and they should be put away when it should not matter. For example, if my friend is a vegan, then meat wouldn't be served to her when she comes to visit. But if she wants to go out to eat with a group, she either needs to decline an invitation to an unacceptable restaurant or adapt to the needs of the group, which might include her suggesting an alternative restaurant for future plans. This is for labels that people use to self-identify.
For labels that are assigned to you, such as hypocrite, they should be subject to change as more information comes in especially if it is new information. If a person is still behaving as the same ole hypocrite, then they remain a hypocrite. No surprises there. But if they show a change, then I think that change deserves to be recognized. But they may not like it if the compliments come from the other side.
I am not against the use of labels. However, labels should show their faces when it matters in relationships and they should be put away when it should not matter. For example, if my friend is a vegan, then meat wouldn't be served to her when she comes to visit. But if she wants to go out to eat with a group, she either needs to decline an invitation to an unacceptable restaurant or adapt to the needs of the group, which might include her suggesting an alternative restaurant for future plans. This is for labels that people use to self-identify.
For labels that are assigned to you, such as hypocrite, they should be subject to change as more information comes in especially if it is new information. If a person is still behaving as the same ole hypocrite, then they remain a hypocrite. No surprises there. But if they show a change, then I think that change deserves to be recognized. But they may not like it if the compliments come from the other side.
I like that.
Last evening I was talking with a neighbor (now in his 70s) about experiences he had in high school that -- based on his telling -- seemed terribly unfair (specifically an expulsion). And it reminded me of an incident we had between a teacher and a student where the teacher accused a student of being a "liar". The parent exploded, and I think rightly so. The teacher maintained that if someone lies, they're a liar. The problem with that is that, in the right circumstance, almost all of us lie a little or a lot about some particular situation. I wouldn't label a person a "liar" unless it was a consistent pattern.
Labeling a group is problematic when it is used as a pejorative to condemn and vilify.
that is what places it on the spectrum of "hate speech."
if someone says "men are pigs"
and someone else says "actually no, there are men in my life who are wonderful"
and they say "i have evidence the men i knew did these horrible things so men are pigs"
what the person is saying is they had some bad experiences.
and then they make sweeping inaccurate generalizations. inaccurate because all men are not the same. [just like all religion is not the same. just like all religious people are not the same]
and they fervently wave their "evidence" to condemn an entire group all men.
they are also saying they lack the emotional and intellectual range to recognize the flaw in their "logic"
and they are also saying the lack the ability and tools to form healthy relationship.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-08-2019 at 09:56 AM..
I also wanted to comment on the topic of labels. I am not against the use of labels. However, labels should show their faces when it matters in relationships and they should be put away when it should not matter. For example, if my friend is a vegan, then meat wouldn't be served to her when she comes to visit. But if she wants to go out to eat with a group, she either needs to decline an invitation to an unacceptable restaurant or adapt to the needs of the group, which might include her suggesting an alternative restaurant for future plans. This is for labels that people use to self-identify. For labels that are assigned to you, such as hypocrite, they should be subject to change as more information comes in especially if it is new information. If a person is still behaving as the same ole hypocrite, then they remain a hypocrite. No surprises there. But if they show a change, then I think that change deserves to be recognized. But they may not like it if the compliments come from the other side.
there is no other side.
just humanity
the mindset of "us" and "them" is divisive and reflects strife and contention. it outpictures as conflict, condemnation and battle.
have you ever heard the expression: "them" is a four-letter word.
humans are humans. all of us.
that is a place of unity. it outpictures as respect, dignity, and peace.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-08-2019 at 10:03 AM..
I am not against the use of labels. However, labels should show their faces when it matters in relationships and they should be put away when it should not matter. For example, if my friend is a vegan, then meat wouldn't be served to her when she comes to visit. But if she wants to go out to eat with a group, she either needs to decline an invitation to an unacceptable restaurant or adapt to the needs of the group, which might include her suggesting an alternative restaurant for future plans. This is for labels that people use to self-identify.
agreed
Quote:
For labels that are assigned to you, such as hypocrite, they should be subject to change as more information comes in especially if it is new information. If a person is still behaving as the same ole hypocrite, then they remain a hypocrite. No surprises there. But if they show a change, then I think that change deserves to be recognized. But they may not like it if the compliments come from the other side.
I think it's probably a mistake to say someone is a liar or hypocrite because they engage in those behaviors. I think a person can "tell a lot of lies" or "be hypocritical" but to attach their behaviors to their "soul", for lack of a better word, is improper IMO. That viewpoint may be me overreacting to the freakishly judgemental environment I grew up in.
Labeling a group is problematic when it is used as a pejorative to condemn and vilify.
that is what places it on the spectrum of "hate speech."
if someone says "men are pigs"
and someone else says "actually no, there are men in my life who are wonderful"
and they say "i have evidence the men i knew did these horrible things so men are pigs"
what the person is saying is they had some bad experiences.
and then they make sweeping inaccurate generalizations. inaccurate because all men are not the same. [just like all religion is not the same. just like all religious people are not the same]
and they fervently wave their "evidence" to condemn an entire group all men.
they are also saying they lack the emotional and intellectual range to recognize the flaw in their "logic"
and they are also saying the lack the ability and tools to form healthy relationship.
You bring up a good point on how these labels are subjective in the first place. Highly based on personal experience. If I label someone in a certain way that doesn't mean I see it correctly. I could call someone else a hypocrite but they might not actually be; it might be me that's the hypocrite ( or in my world it might be me that's being hypocritical..much easier to acknowledge my own shortcomings when I phrase it as a mistake rather than a part of my identity).
Labeling a group is problematic when it is used as a pejorative to condemn and vilify.
that is what places it on the spectrum of "hate speech."
if someone says "men are pigs"
and someone else says "actually no, there are men in my life who are wonderful"
and they say "i have evidence the men i knew did these horrible things so men are pigs"
what the person is saying is they had some bad experiences.
and then they make sweeping inaccurate generalizations. inaccurate because all men are not the same. [just like all religion is not the same. just like all religious people are not the same]
and they fervently wave their "evidence" to condemn an entire group all men.
they are also saying they lack the emotional and intellectual range to recognize the flaw in their "logic"
and they are also saying the lack the ability and tools to form healthy relationship.
I would think that most of us could agree with that.
the mindset of "us" and "them" is divisive and reflects strife and contention. it outpictures as conflict, condemnation and battle.
have you ever heard the expression: "them" is a four-letter word.
humans are humans. all of us.
that is a place of unity. it outpictures as respect, dignity, and peace.
There's a difference between how things should be, and how they actually are.
We can strive fro "how it should be", but we still have to work with the world "the way it is".
I agree, Tzaphkiel, that it shouldn't be us vs. them so I take my compliments as I get them. Thank you for your post. But as Phetaroi has pointed out, we don't live in the world as it should be. We live in a world as it is. So one day we are getting along, the next day somebody needs to speak up.
L8Gr8Apost8, I also grew up in a judgmental environment where feelings, especially my own, did not matter. I think there is a huge focus on content on the R&S forum, for example, asking for evidence and reasoning. I don't think we can skip over the emotions, in fact, it probably needs to be dealt with first and I don't like dealing with emotions because they take time to deal with. However, nobody will listen if they think you don't care even if they say emotions are for wimps.
But to be honest, people come here for a variety of reasons which may have nothing to do with finding people who care.
Last edited by elyn02; 09-08-2019 at 01:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
