> If someone perpetrated violence on him because of something he _couldn't_ choose, say, his skin color, I have a feeling he'd be less likely to conclude that "

> If someone perpetrated violence on him because of something he _couldn't_ choose, say, his skin color, I have a feeling he'd be less likely to conclude that "The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you." I disagree. Each person reacts to circumstances differently. It might lead him to reject (what he perceives as) arbitrary labels all the more because others were using it as an excuse to hurt him. And yes, these labels often come from outside of us, but I think his point is to resist internalizing them. > The people to whom this "labeling" is most important are those who were labeled. Not those who label themselves. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. We all get labelled, we all have cultural scripts we are expected to follow. And yes, some have more negative labels. Are you saying such people are more justified in internalizing and defining themselves by their labels? I guess I'm just curious as to whether you accept his premise that striving for a minimalist identity helps remain objective? Is it not worth analysing in our own lives what identities we have internalized that we could do without?