I don't particularly object to being called a 'druggie' and nor did I particularly object to being called a 'junkie' - in a narrow sense they are (or maybe were) factually accurate. It's the limiting nature of labels I object to. Putting such narrow labels on people seems to me to be an attempt to define and box them in ways that are almost inevitibly innaccurate. Often wildly innaccurate. It's not so much that it affects the labelled so much as the labeller. If all you see is the label ('druggy', 'junkie', 'prostitute', 'addict' and so on) then not only does it somewhat dehumanise the individual but also prevent the person doing all the labelling from having any real chance to ever see much beyond that label. If you've got an image in your head of what a 'druggy' or whatever is then that is all you are likely to see in the person whether it bears any real relation to them or not.
Yes of course, terming someone "Junkie/Druggie/Prozzie/" is often an attempt to defame someone, by reconciling their character as a whole with what could be considered a bad trait.
Shambles said:
As a minor and fairly innocuous example, when Brimz mentioned he happened to like listening to Radio 4 and is quite into birdwatching a certain label fetishist could only react in mockery and disbelief because those things don't happen to be included in his 'junkie' or 'crackhead' labels. Does this hurt Brimz? Not for me to say but I doubt he lost sleep over it. But it did make the labeller look a bit silly. Wonder if his (or indeed anybody else who happened to have shared that belief) definition of 'crackhead junkie' now includes "likely to listen to R4 and birdwatch". Probably not but do they become extra labels or just get discarded because they don't fit the preconception? How many labels does each person need? Or do they perhaps not really need labels?
No, I do object somewhat here. I think you're misperceiving my attitude and intention of that post completely. I see what you're thinking, that I'm guilty of "judging" someone because of the music they listen too.... but this really wasn't the case. I have no intention of putting Brimz down, for no other reason than as a poster I've got on with him. He's one of the very few that actually digs my humour.
One of the very few.
I'm fully aware that hip-hop listening and crack/smack smoking is only a facet of his personality. By ascribing it to him as a whole and showing shock and disappointment at radio4 listening, I was more or less poking fun at him, in light of all the many gangsta rap songs uploaded.
There's a differentiation in incentive between poking fun at someone and being contemptuous towards them.
In this case; considering all his voyage into the Bath and Bristol Crack scene and love of gangsta rap, he deserved a bit of fun poked at him for listening to Radio 4. But to call me mocking, judgemental or condescending is taking the post completely wrong.
We all express various online character traits (except Albion), and using some of those traits to poke fun at them is pretty light-hearted with no ill-intent. For instance, when people poke fun at me and my religion, it's not judgemental or aggressive but light-hearted as it's part of a notable character trait. Or me poking fun at Knock for plugging so many drugs, dancing in his room scaring off neighbours. These aren't genuine attacks or judgements, but cheerful jest towards posters and their notable doings.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
