# Are you a label-hater?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Are you, like, like me, man? I mean, like, do you totally hate applying labels to anything, like _this_ kind of person, _that_ kind person, this -ism or that -ism, because it's just like totally uncool and restricting?

Well, if you're a label-hater like me, oh ****... We can't escape the power of labels!!!


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

The only labels I can stand are the nutrition facts on the sides of cereal boxes. I love reading those things!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I sometimes use the kind of labels you're referring to, but with so many qualifications as to severely diminish any utility they may have started with.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I like labels because they help me keep things organized in my mind.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

dont like them


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't mind them if they are more balanced. Maybe then they are not labels anymore. Eg. if I think someone is a ratbag (or I can say worse), I might describe their attitudes or behaviours as objectionable. Eg. call them objectionable people. If that's a label, it's more objective and said without malice or too much emotion. As that implies, it often also depends on how we use labels, eg. our tone of voice or on this forum, tone of writing. A minority of members here really get me heated up, not necessarily with what they say, but how they say it. The delivery of the message, I mean.

But yeah, labels can reduce things that are more complex. My aim is to find a balance. I don't like calling people an idiot, I just tell them what I don't like about their behaviour at the time. Or just say "calm down, you're being very emotional at the moment" or "I would appreciate if you could lower your voice when talking to me." That's better than saying "shut up you bloody idiot"...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Are you, like, like me, man? I mean, like, do you totally hate applying labels to anything, like _this_ kind of person, _that_ kind person, *this -ism or that -ism,* because it's just like totally uncool and restricting?
> 
> ...


I think that I agree that the old left versus right in politics is redunant, here in Australia, anyway. Both the major parties are in the centre of the political spectrum. Labor is centre-left, the Liberal-National coalition is centre-right. Actually, in the last 20-30 years, people say both of them have drifted to the right, either sharply or gradually, depending on who you ask.

I understand it's similar in USA politics. I remember seeing George W. Bush during his first election campaign say he's a "compassionate conservative." What the hell does that mean? That conservative label does not necessarily mean ****hole? Is it like a safety valve or like double indemnity against something. Why didn't he just say he's a conservative (or "neo-con" as people later called him and his inner sanctum)?

Shows all these labels are misleading. I know people who don't believe in climate change but are hard left. Eg. for abortion, gay rights, all that. & notice how both the hard left and hard right - for want of better terms - are totally against globalisation, breaking down barriers to trade, and are obsessed with the UN forming a so-called "world government," all this stuff. I wonder if there's any basic difference between the two extremes. Not that the parties in the centre are much better, they just offer us pollie waffle and jargon.

So what's there left? There's no working class here anymore, or not much of one, they've been absorbed into the middle class. Class is basically in my eyes not much important, wealth and connections/networks are. You can get anywere with those, regardless of what "class" you were born into.

So you're right, these labels are disappearing, their meaning wishy-washy, it may be a sign of this more uncertain world we live in now. Eg. China is still politically Communist but economically capitalist. We condemn Burma (Myanmar) as a military junta locking up people for like 30 years as political prisoners, but what about Singapore which does the same type of political oppression, but they get off without much criticism because they run a good economy. I just can't understand, I'll probably never understand...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The only labels I fret over are the ones on mattresses that say DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> There's no working class here anymore, or not much of one, they've been absorbed into the middle class.


You have no working class any more?! We need some Australian politics


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Definitely. I'm anti-labelist, you see.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm a believer in labeling, and of anything else conducive to a more accurate understanding. I only dislike labels that are misleading, either explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> You have no working class any more?! We need some Australian politics


That may be an example of label-confusion. In the US we have several other examples:

1) what were once labeled 'freemen' (low-income, employed or would like to be)

2)tradesmen, technicians, skilled labor, middle managers

3) professionals (more than 4 years training required), coupon clippers

4) plutocrats

x-1) low income retired

x-2) welfare recipients not looking for work for one reason or another

x-3) politicians

This isn't standard labeling, it's slightly more informative than that. And mostly irrelevant; the reality is:

1) plutocrats

2) everybody else


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I dislike record labels.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I hate libels.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

labelling is understanding


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

An important reminder:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I only hate certain labels...like Hollister. Oh wait, those are brands aren't they. Not the same thing?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> An important reminder:


Oh please, spare the lectures. this Feynman guy knows squat (says so in the vid)

Plus his example doesn't make any sense, he gives the definition of inertia, so obviously he knows what it is, he just doesnt know why it is so.

Hence labelling (to label) requires knowledge. Of course memorizing labels only requires memory, but that's not labelling.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Philip said:


> Oh please, spare the lectures. this Feynman guy knows squat (says so in the vid)
> 
> Plus his example doesn't make any sense, he gives the definition of inertia, so obviously he knows what it is, he just doesnt know why it is so.
> 
> Hence labelling (to label) requires knowledge. Of course memorizing labels only requires memory, but that's not labelling.


Never mind the inertia, apply that argument to the bird, and I might understand what you're saying.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Never mind the inertia, apply that argument to the bird, and I might understand what you're saying.


the point of the label is to not have to repeat each property and characteristic of the object in question each time you refer to it. the kid in the bird example has knowledge of the bird's appearance and labels it x. where the kid is being an idiot is where he tells Feynman that he doesn't have knowledge it... when in reality Feynman just didn't know the label.

when i label music, i'm creating a shortcut in my mind that points to a set of properties which defines the music. if you aren't able to apply a label, it might indicate that you can't grasp or parametrize the object.

this is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of science; labeling, generalizing, organizing, hierarchizing, etc. all applied to knowledge.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

AND there's probably a reason why he didn't mention Chinese as one of the enumerated languages... most likely because the name for that bird is a description of it.

like the word computer: "diàn nǎo", or "electronic brain"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

You don't really seem to be arguing against Feynman, and Feynman isn't arguing against you. He wasn't saying anything against the notion of labels _entirely_, he was just pointing out that people who can recite labels as though that constitutes knowledge are idiots.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> You don't really seem to be arguing against Feynman, and Feynman isn't arguing against you. He wasn't saying anything against the notion of labels _entirely_, he was just pointing out that people who can recite labels as though that constitutes knowledge are idiots.


that is correct. anyone arguing against Feynman is most likely an idiot, actually!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Labels can be fun.

I once bought two sport shirts at a department store, and when the time came, I thought I'd have a little fun by testing the laundering label's directions. 

Well, the shirts shrunk to about two-thirds of their original size. I returned them to the store and requested that my credit card be fully credited. My comment to the astonished sales clerk was, "I always do what the labels say."

The clerk balked, but a quick phone call to the department manager got the result I desired.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> Labels can be fun.
> 
> I once bought two sport shirts at a department store, and when the time came, I thought I'd have a little fun by testing the laundering label's directions.
> 
> ...


Walmart? ______


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I love labels, myself - but I don't think that they have much to do with reality, itself. They're more about perceptions. They can help us imagine more, and see interesting patterns, that may or may not have anything to do with reality, but that enrich the human experience.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

I dislike labels in general as they tend to seperate people into groups and are reminiscent of the old Caste system, but I particularly object to the phrase "middle class" and much prefer to a reference to the middle income group. No one should be judged on his income or perceived social status but rather on the quality of his character.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't like them, but now that I don't spend much time around other people they don't bother me so much.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

On the original question of the thread.

I hate the way people label specific kinds of music (especially 20th century music) such as "Impressionism" or "Minimalism." In my opinion those titles really don't make sense. Especially "Impressionism." Impressionist art (ie. the fine arts) have _light_ as their main focus rather than the usual art elements such as shape or line etc. Monet has shown us with his series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral that different lighting can completely change the feel, or the mood if you wish, of the subject of the piece. Here's a painting of the cathedral by Monet.










And here's the same subject represented entirely differently just by using different colours to show a different lighting.










Impressionism in the fine arts is all about light. So what's impressionist music then? What's the musical equivalent of light? Anyway I can be sure that literally "Impressionist" music would have to sound very different to Debussy for the meaning to actually make any sense. (Brian Ferneyhough is the first composer that comes to mind as a matter if fact! :lol

Debussy didn'e even _like_ the term anyway. And who's to blame him? I'm not particularly keen on using words from the fine arts and applying them to music and changing the meaning of the word completely like that! _And_ without consent of the composer!

Now that's just my opinion on labelling certain types of music. Most other things I don't have such a fuss about organising and categorising and all that.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It seems more that you have a problem with the definition of a label rather than the use of a label itself. The fact is that there are very many things in common with 'impressionist' painting and 'impressionist' music that makes sense to group them together, it's just that you perhaps don't agree with what those commonalities are.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> It seems more that you have a problem with the definition of a label rather than the use of a label itself. The fact is that there are very many things in common with 'impressionist' painting and 'impressionist' music that makes sense to group them together, it's just that you perhaps don't agree with what those commonalities are.


Ah whatever...


----------

