Sometimes I need to quote myself

[hummingwolf]

because it's just too relevant to conversations going on this week:

So it seems to be a natural feature of the hnau of this planet to try to place everyone into a little box as we decide who is like us, who is unlike us. And the ones who are unlike us and who we happen not to like must be wholly unlike us, incomprehensible to us and uncomprehending of us. This saves us time. If we already know that we will never understand nor be understood, then all the hard work of communicating may safely be skipped over and we can go straight to the vilification and the fighting.

Comments

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

>the ones who are unlike us and who we happen not to like must be wholly unlike us

a few years ago -- wait, maybe as many as 12 years ago -- i read a book by sam keen (Faces of the Enemy, for the synopsis, at amazon) much to this effect: that we have to turn people into less-than-ourselves in order to make ourselves feel better, to justify ourselves when we're opposed. stupid human nature. :/

[aekiy.livejournal.com]

Funny.. I've actually had the opposite problem. I tend to naturally want to believe that other people are somehow above, more experienced, better than I am..

[magnifelyn.livejournal.com]

i tend to believe others are more experienced and better than i am, too.

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, most people do that if somebody else around seems like they know what they're doing at all. Most of us probably feel less competent at a lot of things than the people around us. But many people think differently about people they don't associate with--they might look down on a drug addict without knowing a thing about how the addict got there, for instance; or they'll convince themselves that a religious fanatic is a completely different kind of person they could never possibly understand; or they'll be convinced that an atheist is an alien being with lower morals.

[aekiy.livejournal.com]

mya.. that does happen a lot, I guess. Usually don't tend to assume things.. but am generally disappointed when people end up at some sever extreme, like say Jack Chick on the religious fanatic end of things (although I sometimes wonder if he just does that for the heck of it).

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Human nature sucks.

Though humans have some wonderful qualities too. That's what makes our species so frustrating to deal with--you can't really get away with pretending we're all good or all bad for very long.

[magnifelyn.livejournal.com]

Dear HW,

You shouldn't say too many true things on the internet-- at least, not publicly. It could get you in trouble with Big Brother.

Also, i wanted to mention that Jon Stewart does exactly this on occasion. He makes some blanket statements about the "red states" that leave me feeling uneasy. Not only does he assume too much about the attitudes/beliefs/characteristics of red-state-dwellers... but he also assumes they are not watching his show. What a silly mistake!

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Eh, not enough people listen to me for Big Brother to care about. If I influenced the views of campaign contributors, then he might worry a little.

I hate pretty much any statement which implies that members of a different group are completely unlike the speaker's group. I mean, c'mon--people change party affiliation from Democrat to Republican and back again all the time. Would that ever happen if people were really that different? I do think it's a mistake to assume that members of some other group will think exactly the same way you do (it's a mistake to assume all members of your own group will think exactly the same, for that matter), but it's a bigger mistake to assume that members of another group are completely incapable of thinking the way you do.

not sure Im making any sense since it's bed time...

[jennixen.livejournal.com]

I think that part of this is true, that we want to lable ourselves BUT I don't necessarily think that it has to involve not understanding others.
Because every lable we use is different from another lable.
I can relate to different things in each person.
I can relate to a dog owner because I have a dog. If that dog owner also is a woman, I can relate to some womanly things.
If that woman has the same background as me, I can relate to that.

But it doesn't mean I can't understand those who I have nothing in common with. Sometimes, understanding and empathy are not due to what we have in common.
I have discovered empathy from people who do not share what I need empathy about. Because, of course, it's also about individuality.
What we do with the lables, how we react to the same situation.

Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to communicate and the world is quite hostile towards everyone who is different. Our societies tells us that we should conform. Or at least, that's my experience.
This leads us, or at least it has lead me, to the need for sharing.
Since I feel like such an outsider, I long for sharing with another person.
Personally, I have tried many different labels to see which ones are most important to me. The result is that communication is key.
People who can understand me and what I'm saying, without necessarily agreeing 100% with me, are people I want to spend time with.

I'm way too tired to reply this right now. I hope it makes some sense. ;)))
I think that perhaps, in order to place people into boxes we have to communicate...and also that these boxes are many and not necessarily holding the same people all the time.

Fighting comes from fear and insecurity. Fear of being rejected out of the community. If we could all accept difference and oddities, there would be no fear of rejection because everyone would be accepted.
Or so I think.

Re: not sure Im making any sense since it's bed time...

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

I think that part of this is true, that we want to lable ourselves BUT I don't necessarily think that it has to involve not understanding others.

I agree with you that using labels doesn't necessarily mean that you won't understand others. Labeling myself as a tea-drinker or chocolate-lover doesn't mean I'm trying to distance myself from coffee-drinkers or strawberry-lovers, after all (and chocolate goes so well with strawberries anyway!). That wasn't really what I was talking about in the old post. That one was inspired by people who convince themselves they are totally different from the people they call enemies, and then go on to act exactly like them--if I remember correctly, that post from last year was specifically inspired by a book by an atheist who tried to convince people that all religious writers were illogical by pointing out their fallacies, then made exactly the same errors in his own arguments; and also by a Jewish woman who was so upset by the actions of Palestinians who killed Jews because they didn't believe that Jews were humans, that she called for the deaths of all Palestinians because she didn't believe Palestinians were humans.

[seejaye.livejournal.com]

I'm leaving a comment 'cause I was perusing my own user interest page and noticed that my interest entitled "open-minded skepticism" was no longer an isolated, freakish, lonely designation but was now an underlined, official "shared interest" - huzzAHH! (It's the little things that make me happy.) And yours was the one that did it - still only two of us, though. Great to see a kindred spirit!

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Little things make me happy too. Hi there!

(There are actually a couple of people out there who list "open minded skepticism" as an interest, but the hyphenated version really is so much better.)