Harv wrote:
" It's not name calling, it is citing that you are in a particular state."

Or...
Some folks resent even being told they're "good" by someone who seems to have usurped the role of evaluator in the first place. If that person can give me an "approved" label, then by implication they're setting themself up as the person who can give me the "disapproved" label.

Harv wrote:
"Name calling is a negative classification of a person that has to do with something that person cannot change by changing a state. For example, if I said that you were ignorant, you can come out of ignorance either by showing that you know the knowledge that you said not to know, or by learning what you are said not to know. If I called you 'dumb', then there is nothing you can do but remain dumb."

If someone calls me ignorant, I am angered because I think they've disregarded my attempts to communicate responsibly. If they call me "dumb," I cannot help but wonder if I've finally met someone who can say that by comparison to themself. You can call me dumb. I won't mind. Nobody will really believe you.

Harv:
"The former is appropriate if said under certain situations, and the latter is never acceptable. Name calling is often centered on words like 'idiot', 'dummy', 'stupid', etc."

I think I've just dealt with that. The latter is never acceptable if it is a sensitive point with the receiver. If the person you say it to has never been privileged to experience that, they might even feel a rush of pleasure at feeling included in the mass of humanity, if even for a few moments.

Not teasing,
Mike

• LOL - harvey1 - September 19, 2002 - 12:21 UTC
  • Why don't you respond with substance? - carefuluniverse - September 19, 2002 - 16:29 UTC
    • Not at all - harvey1 - September 19, 2002 - 17:11 UTC