4 ms·
> I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified Huh? Why? Seriously, I don't understand that kind of thinking. I d
by gizzlon 8y ago
> I personally give the respect to people to refer them as they would like to be identified
Huh? Why?
Seriously, I don't understand that kind of thinking. I don't think individuals necessarily deserve that kind of power others. Sometimes we should adjust to save other peoples feelings. But having that as the default seems crazy. What if they are full of shit? Or misuse that power? Or I simply disagree with them.. shouldn't I have the right to disagree with their self identification?
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoThese labels are all fuzzy, so self identification is the only reliable way of applying labels in any sense. For example, if the Chinese communist party says they are communist, why would you want to argue with them?
- called_it 8y agoIf you claimed your comment was in French instead of English, even though I can clearly see it's in English, why wouldn't I disagree?
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoFalse equivalence. Language isn't a subjective language, ideology most definitely is.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> These labels are all fuzzy, True > so self identification is the only reliable way of applying labels in any sense No, it's not. Self-identification is one of many ways of operationalizing a categorization, and it's useful for some purposes but not others. You can also operationalize by sets of concrete policies, which is useful for different purposes. And there are other options. The relevant basis of categorization depends on the purpose of categorization.