NationStates Jolt Archive

This is kind of an offshoot from the various sexuality threads going on at the moment.

I was thinking about how Chandelier, in particular, seems to define herself by her sexuality, as in, she considers it a major part of her. Similarly, I have a gay friend that considers it a big part of him: it was repressed for a long time, and then the 'coming out' was difficult for him, and now he is quite involved with the uni LGBT and things.

Now, I understand why they have done what they have done, but in a sense, I dislike this 'coming out' culture, because it seems to me that it is just emphasising the taboo nature of it: repressing it and then declaring loudly, 'I am different'. Perhaps they feel the reactionary nature of it will make their parents/friends accept it more easily. I feel that, if my parents/friends asked, I would answer truthfully, but I won't be sitting them down and starting nervously with, 'I have something to tell you...'.

But this is not just about sexuality. Do you feel that labelling in this way is a positive or negative thing? It relates to anything from personality, political leanings, to music and other entertainment interests. Do you consider a particular aspect of you more important than others?

(Hmm, I probably should have added a 'None' option to the poll)

I think, as it is in most things, that it can be a smidge of both. It all depends on the connotations of the label, the person, etc. What one might see as detrimental, another might wear like a badge on their sleeve.

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery—
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy—
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

Other for me.

You can't define yourself.

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery—
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy—
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

Ah, G&S. :)

I'm more curious to see how others define me, honestly. I'd probably be quite surprised at how different a perception I have of myself.

I believe my name speaks for itself.

I think, as it is in most things, that it can be a smidge of both. It all depends on the connotations of the label, the person, etc. What one might see as detrimental, another might wear like a badge on their sleeve.

Indeed, many people wouldn't talk generally about their interest in, say, RPGs, unless there were sure the people wouldn't form negative opinion about them based on that. Or maybe they wouldn't care less and do it anyway.

Snippage

Hehe, G&S are very amusing at times :)

Other for me.

Would you like to specifiy anything? Or is it an 'Other' on account of it being nothing you define yourself by?

Ah, G&S. :)

I'm more curious to see how others define me, honestly. I'd probably be quite surprised at how different a perception I have of myself.

Yes, I'm the same, I expect others may have widely differing perceptions of me, all of which may be different to my own one. My mum for one was genuinely surprised when she found out I wasn't the happy child she thought I was.

Wayne Campbell put it best when he quoted Kant in Cantonese as saying, if you label me you negate me. Its meaningless to put people into boxes, which people themselves can do to each other, its lazy and dictatorial, and reflects a lack of any real understanding towards someone else when one just defines them in terms of categories, people are complex and multifaceted.

I don't really know how to define myself. My best guesses are what I voted on... *shrugs*

I think the Lord God the Almighty, Lord of the Universe, Master of the Cosmos said it best.

I am that I am.

I am the composite parts that make up who I am. To define myself by one part, or to give one part too much credit in its role in who I am would be inaccurate and dishonest.

I am the composite parts that make up who I am. To define myself by one part, or to give one part too much credit in its role in who I am would be inaccurate and dishonest.

I'd agree with this. Words aren't enough to fully describe anyone, humans are far too prone to categorising instead of just accepting the huge spectrum of things there really are.

I am an Otaku, an all around nerd, video gamer, and a band geek.

What's with all this nonsensical Gestalt crap? Labelling is the only way to understand things. Of course you can imagine an infinitely variable spectrum, but you can't actually explain something using it, because infinitely variable is just too alien for the mind to digest. We need to impose arbitrary labels on things because without them, nothing could make sense! There wouldn't even be any sense to be made, just chaos, utter animalistically unintelligible chaos I tells ya!

(Woah, deep breaths . . . deep breaths.)

Ah, G&S. :)

I'm more curious to see how others define me, honestly. I'd probably be quite surprised at how different a perception I have of myself.


Ditto on that

Language is a series of labels. We label everything else, why not ourselves?

I define myself at the moment through my family. But for a loooong time I was single and expected to remain single until I die... so it's not a surprise. In other phases of my life I was defined more by my phobias, or by my interests, or career, in the sense that those were the most important factors in how I perceived myself. So the answer is other - many others.

I use to difine myself as goth before it was cool. Then I came to the conclusion that because someone likes the macabe doesn't mean they should lable themselves as part of a dieing sub-culture.

So, bleh.

I'm more curious to see how others define me, honestly. I'd probably be quite surprised at how different a perception I have of myself.
That damned kitten doesn't help matters any. It's cuuuute... but all it says is "nice but dangerous" and while presumably true, somehow that covers up the rest.

Re: the poll - all of the above. Some more than others, of course. My political beliefs are nowhere near as important as my taste in tacos. ;) Easy on that cilantro, if you're using it, Mexican restaurant chefs. *Nod* :p

I use to difine myself as goth before it was cool. Then I came to the conclusion that because someone likes the macabe doesn't mean they should lable themselves as part of a dieing sub-culture.

So, bleh.

When was it cool, again? :p Just kidding, mostly. ;)

I think the Lord God the Almighty, Lord of the Universe, Master of the Cosmos said it best.

I am that I am.

Very true. God (and Popeye) had it right. :)

I think the Lord God the Almighty, Lord of the Universe, Master of the Cosmos said it best.

I am that I am.
I thought that was Popeye?

I like to think I lack definition, and am instead constantly changing and unpredictable, like the oceans that I wasn't born anywhere near.
That's utter bullshit, of course, but the truth has never bothered me before.

Yaweh: I AM THAT I AM

Popeye: I am what I am and that's all that I am.

René Descartes: I think, therefore I am. (COGITO ERGO SUM)

Me: I'll choose D) all of the above.

Partly political leaning because mine isn't a particularly common one (though it's definitely more common on the Internets), partly religious views, but mostly personality.

Mix of musical tastes, political inclinations and other such things.

In truth, I try not to set much store by labels when socialising; to label somebody "metal", or the like, and leave it at that allows for no depth or subtle shades of character, and tends to impede socialising a bit.

I'm that guy sittin' in the corner mindin' his own business. You can talk to me if you wish, but don't expect me to start. Don't assume that I do or do not care what you are talking about or that I will have something to say about it, but I'll try my best. Sit down and order something and I hope you like a dry wit.

I really don't know how to define myself.

I define myself by tacos.

Where is the fuckhead category on this poll? You'd find most people would belong there.

I define myself by tacos.

Where is the fuckhead category on this poll? You'd find most people would belong there.

Simple: anyone not listed under "tacos." :p Tacos are the stuff of life.

I define myself by tacos.

Where is the fuckhead category on this poll? You'd find most people would belong there.

Ah, my bad, I should've thought of that. Though, even if they were 'fuckheads', they would probably be too proud to vote it.

This is kind of an offshoot from the various sexuality threads going on at the moment.

I was thinking about how Chandelier, in particular, seems to define herself by her sexuality, as in, she considers it a major part of her. Similarly, I have a gay friend that considers it a big part of him: it was repressed for a long time, and then the 'coming out' was difficult for him, and now he is quite involved with the uni LGBT and things.

Now, I understand why they have done what they have done, but in a sense, I dislike this 'coming out' culture, because it seems to me that it is just emphasising the taboo nature of it: repressing it and then declaring loudly, 'I am different'. Perhaps they feel the reactionary nature of it will make their parents/friends accept it more easily. I feel that, if my parents/friends asked, I would answer truthfully, but I won't be sitting them down and starting nervously with, 'I have something to tell you...'.

But this is not just about sexuality. Do you feel that labelling in this way is a positive or negative thing? It relates to anything from personality, political leanings, to music and other entertainment interests. Do you consider a particular aspect of you more important than others?

(Hmm, I probably should have added a 'None' option to the poll)

How I define myself:

1) Birds.

2) Cynicism.

3) As a people-pleaser in offline situations.

4) My sexuality is in here a small amount, mostly because I feel Richard is such a huge part of my life I can't lie about who I am, as it would be lying about my love for him.

5) My sense of humor.

And a myriad of smaller things, and things I'd rather not mention.

Simple: anyone not listed under "tacos." :p Tacos are the stuff of life.

I like the way you think. :)

As I defy labels, defining myself represents a bit of a challenge.

However, I'd like to think that I am equal parts Polymath and Yurodivy.

But more likely, I am just an attention-seeking wacko. I can live with that. :)

I define myself by my gender, sexuality and academic level since I am in the minority in all three (and thus, it becomes more noticeable.)

I used to use political leaning to define myself back when I lived in the boonies and everyone was a God fearin' neo-con, but in the city, everyone is liberal so I just feel normal instead of liberal.

I'M METAL

Seriously though, I don't think that anyone can define themselves by just one thing. It's very limiting.

Edit--- Oh, almost forgot. I label myself with my politics, musical tastes, heritage, spirituality and being a musician.

That damned kitten doesn't help matters any. It's cuuuute... but all it says is "nice but dangerous" and while presumably true, somehow that covers up the rest.

LOL, so so far, "nice but dangerous", eh? ;)

Religion.

Well, the few people who know me here will probably be able to guess that gender is a fairly major defining thing for me, then political leanings, then personality. I guess that's just me, really.

You can't define yourself.

True. But you can know yourself, and that usually goes beyond labels.

Someone who defines himself with labels is a complete idiot.

I answered gender because I find myself being very set in my ways that girls and boys are, in fact, different, they are unequal, but that neither one is better.
I answered music tastes because when I think about music I like, it seems to reflect my life and personality.
I answered academic area because I believe I am intelligent and feel it defines a large part of who I am and how I speak.
I answered personality because I take that to mean who we are, how we think.
I answered tacos because-ok, no I didn't.
Personally, I'm against labels, but I believe that there are ways people label others and themselves. The ways I label myself are the ones I picked.