Current Events > "When we label someone as different, it dehumanizes them in a way...

(+) Yeah! (+)

they become "the other". They're not worthy of our time, not our problem, and in fact they "the other" are probably the cause of our problems."

Do you believe in that statement?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY5SatbZMAo&t=5m20s (Until 5:36)
---

no. people can be different, and be equally human and have just as much inherent value

Sartre would say otherwise =P.
---

I got a friend who do that. She was hyper triggered that someone mentioned that I am gay. I wasn't. people whine about "labels" because you describe things the way the actually are.
---

No. Because it's an entirely false premise.

In no way does pointing out a difference, even a derogatory one, necessarily imply someone it's not a homo sapian.
---

Other than the last part yeah

Most differences are less relevant than people treat them
---

kewldude475 posted...

What is "different" even? Honestly people are more alike than we'd like to admit.

Jobs, careers, professions can be seen as different. For example, a girl may have a boyfriend that is a circus clown, and that can be considered different. A sister's brother may have a job at Disney World where they dress up as Goofy, and that might be seen as different compared to some other type of job.

Then, looks-wise, a guy may have pink-dreaded hair, which may count as different. Or, someone may have two gold incisors, which may be seen as different. Those are aesthetic features that may be seen as different.

Then, upbringing. In a community of farmers, the one who may be seen as different is perhaps a fisherman, or in a town full of steel workers, the lumberjack may be seen as different compared to the bigger group.

Even when it comes to foods and preferences, if someone prefers snails at a restaurant, or pizza with lettuce as the topping, that might be seen as someone being different.
---

What about the person that wants to be identified as a serpent?
---

chrono625 posted...

What about the person that wants to be identified as a serpent?

That's definitely different.
---

"Dehumanize" is just the newest liberal buzzword for wanting to control your language because it hurts their feelings. I've never actually seen it used to describe a situation where the speaker was trying to imply that someone was less than human.
---

The Admiral posted...

"Dehumanize" is just the newest liberal buzzword for wanting to control your language because it hurts their feelings. I've never actually seen it used to describe a situation where the speaker was trying to imply that someone was less than human.

lol why do you hate liberalism so much, every prominent scientist in modern history has been liberal, doesn't that give you a hint?

This is the most condescending attitude that people seem unaware that they have. As soon as you say something like this, you're taking it for granted that someone else's values and cultural differences don't matter to them, because they don't matter to you.
---

kewldude475 posted...

And at the end of the day, why does anyone care if anyone does any of that?

Well to many people it can make them downright uncomfortable, it causes a physiological reaction in them, such as strong repulsion or abhorrence of another person's presence or being, such as when the persons listed above for example have to coincide with someone at a gathering such as a dinner table.

Others at the table may feel uncomfortable by their mere presence, and thus not act normally around them, change their behavior, or not carry about their conversation honestly or genuinely had they not been there.
---

buzzword is a buzzword to avoid talking about context and meaning
---

Not always, but sometimes. The key is to actually listen to other people and don't deny their feelings about what you call them.

kewldude475 posted...

Honestly none of the thing you listed are any reason at all to be uncomfortable around a person.

Another aspect not yet mentioned is how a person's personality may be considered different. Such as, for example, someone that is not accustomed to laughing, in that they have what may be considered a morbid personality, so in their case they might make feel others uncomfortable when the rest of the group reacts in a certain positive way, while such a person instead does not do so, causing them to be seen as different.

Likewise, the opposite tone, in that someone may be very outspoken and lively in a group who is otherwise reserved, closed-up, and preserves a quietness among themselves. In this case the outspoken individual may make those others feel uncomfortable.
---

kewldude475 posted...

Well yeah if you're with a bunch of quiet people and you're being a loud-mouth causing a scene you're gonna get some looks. And if you're stiff as a brick while your friends are having fun I'd imagine that'd make them uncomfortable too. Like they'd wonder if you enjoy being with them, if you're having a fun time, if you even like them at all.

Someone could say under such scenarios, that the person shouldn't be expected to conform to the crowd's expectations, in that if the person is not the same as them in their behavior, they shouldn't be forced to change that fundamental aspect of their personality which sets them apart.

So it raises questions about adaptability and as to whether or not a person should change some aspect about themselves to suit others, or if instead, the group just has to tolerate and put up with any differences that are not according to their common familiarity.

Should there be any compromise in such a situation, or should one group give way or consent to the other?
---

kewldude475 posted...

No idea to be honest. If you don't like someone why fake it? Just don't hang out with them if you honestly don't like them it's less toxic and better for both that way.

That's why in the case of family reunions, for example, a person may be forced to be under such circumstances against their own will and desire. So maybe the person doesn't want to fake it, but when doing so, and by being themselves, they perhaps have the opposite and wrong-intended effect in that they tried to alter their natural behavior to please the group, but it turned out that that had a negative impact on those same individuals.

So there we have a possible damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario, in that either way the person is rejected for either being themselves, or trying to please the crowd - and it not being met favorably.
---