Opinions

[Guest KimberlyF]

A few statements that I think can be generally accepted:

As much as we may not care for it, labeling groups of people is not going to end any time soon.

In any large group, at least one or more people will be offended by every possible thing that can come up.

Accepting these two statements, in your view, what percentage of people in a group need to be offended or made uncomfortable by a label before we stop using it, or find a different label to use?

[Guest Jennifer T]

That's an interesting question. I don't have an answer. I am not particularly offendedby any labels that have been used on me in the past. But I try not to use too many labels in dealing with others.

[Guest sophia.gentry58]

Hi Kimberly,

I agree with Jennifer, it is an interesting question and I don't know if anyone will come up with an empirical answer; anything less of course is pure speculation. That being said, it may not be so much about percentage of those whom the labels are addressed as much as it does with how derisive and dehumanizing it is and what the general public (specifically the offending group) is willing to take hearing others being verbally and incessantly beaten down before they say enough is enough. Cases in point, how many within the following groups do you suppose did not have a problem hearing various epithets to refer to them: Japanese - Jap; Jews - Kike; Italians - Wop; middle eastern - Hajji; Irish - Mick; African Americans - black person, ad nauseam. None of these terms ceased being popular by those meaning to brutalize one's humanity until the majority of the offending group deciding for whatever reason to no longer denigrate the offended group. I'm only opining and could be totally out in left field on this.

Sophia

[Charlize]

It is possible that your statements are correct. I am certain that the first is. The second however depends on many factors and the type of people involved. Accepting that statement how could it matter unless we know to what we are referring and the groups involved. Otherwise just wheel spinning without traction.

Hugs,

Charlie

[Guest KimberlyF]

It is possible that your statements are correct. I am certain that the first is. The second however depends on many factors and the type of people involved. Accepting that statement how could it matter unless we know to what we are referring and the groups involved. Otherwise just wheel spinning without traction.

Hugs,

Charlie

When I'm talking large group, I'm talking about, say the 'trans community' where it doesn't matter if its .5% or 5 percent, we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of people in this country. I believe there isn't a political, religious, whatever thought or joke that doesn't offend at least one person in the group for one reason or another.

I'm not talking about a large group being 50 people at a family reunion. They MAY all agree on a thing or two. But the bigger the group, the lower the odds of everyone agreeing on every major issue.

So we will label, and someone will be offended. At what point should we change the label?

And I do believe, and this seems to be accepted, that people should have the right to self-ID.

So we wouldn't call a group TVs these days, but an individual could strongly ID that way and we should call them TV, correct?

So the question for this topic is at what point should a group name be dropped? How many in the group have to dislike it?

[Guest ~Brenda~]

A very wise man said the answer to everything is......forty two

[Guest Kaylee234]

A very wise man said the answer to everything is......forty two

That wasn't a man... it was the second most powerful computer ever constructed!

~ Kay

[Guest Cherry]

This question is easy:

ONLY ONE