Are we saying then that people are only put into these groups because of the way they dress?, sure i have long hair and wear flares, I like nature (doing a degree in conservation i like it so much), I campaign for alternative energy sources, and i hate war and aggression of all kinds (except in films). However i don't call myself a hippy, but in order to avoid all kinds of stupid conversations with chavs, scallies, goths, (or whatever person i'm talking to), about if i am not a hippy what am I? I find myself calling myself a hippy, which proves that although we all may think of ourselves as individuals, others (i guess including myself) have to put people in boxes to compare themselves to other people. Otherwise there are too many variables floating about and so labelling allows the chance to focus on a difference between them and other people and make fun of.
I think a lot of the time this is simply a convenient form of verbal shorthand. Calling yourself a hippy, for example, is simply a time-saving way of giving people an inkling of what you're about without the need to spend half an hour rattling off a list of political/spiritual/social beliefs. A word can never encompass the complexity of an individual, but without such labels communication would be a lot more difficult. Even labels that we don't question such as 'christian' are gross simplifications of complicated concepts. How many different varieties of christian are there? How many different beliefs does this encompass? Using words to label ourselves only becomes a problem if we start to believe that we're defined by those words. So long as we look beyond the label for the individual behind it, then I don't think it's an issue.
chavs round here dont take kindly to being called chavs...i remember once askin one what they thought they were and they replied with NORMAL! what is normal i said...that scared them and they were forced by the chemical reactions in their brain to start taking the michael and being obnoxious
i dont think any of that matters thou, about the labeling. the words for groups/ cults , stuf dont realy mean anything anyway. everyone knows that everyone is individual anyway, there just there own version of that name. the name fits you not you fit the name.
I don't know but I think it's funny that in this morning's paper there was an article about chavs... (in a Finnish paper! Why?)
Using words to label ourselves only becomes a problem if we start to believe that we're defined by those words. So long as we look beyond the label for the individual behind it, then I don't think it's an issue.[/QUOTE] Yea , but unfortunately a lot of people don't look past the labels, and there are some who seem to value labels over individuality!!! When someone says 'are you a hippy?' these days I'm not sure how to answer, because it can mean many things. Here's a list of some of the criteria of being 'hippy'. To some, a hippy is 'someone with long hair who is vegetarian and smokes pot'. To some, a hippy is someone who is into astrology and/or feng shui. To some, a hippy is simply someone who eats organic. To some, a hippy is someone who is anti-war. Etc, etc.
So what do you suggest? What's the alternative? If someone asks a christian, "are you a christian", should they respond with a yes or no, or should they then provide a definitive list of their beliefs in order to secure an understanding of their individuality? It seems to me that the problem's not really labels - it's tribalism. Two different things. Oh, and can someone explain what's so fucking great about individuality? Being a hippy has no real meaning beyond a general assumption that one is anti-establishment. I've met people who'd never dream of calling themselves hippies who are so fucking hippy it's untrue. And vice versa. If anything, it's a convenient rallying cry for the counter culture. Most people found this forum through googling 'hippy', for example. In that respect, a label is just a tool for bringing similarly minded people together.
I agree that in an ideal world, this would be preferable. Unfortunately, we're not always in a position to have the time or inclination to elaborate at length on our beliefs. If you say to someone "the Dok's a bit of a hippy", it gives a rough indication of the sort of things I'm likely to believe. Further specifics can, if necessary, be clarified through future conversations. It's just shorthand. I disagree. If they weren't much use, then we wouldn't use them. Rather than thinking of a label as a map of our personality, think of it more as a road sign that points you in a general direction. So then individuality isn't something that we can be or not be, it's what we intrinsically are. Labels or no labels. Woah. They're some far reaching assumptions you're making. First of all, that's a very Euro-centric viewpoint you're adopting. Not to mention one that only takes into account relatively recent history. Furthermore, on what do you base the assumption that this is true of all humanity, and not just those in power? And on what basis do you assume that the 'mistakes' of previous generations have been due to a lack of individuality? It's still possible to be an individual asshole! Startlingly original, unique and truly individual then? You're not illustrating a lack of individuality. You're illustrating a lack of free-thinking. If everyone had thought through the Nazi argument, approached it rationally and then rejected it, they'd all have reached the same conclusion. That's not individuality. I disagree. Here on this forum you have a bunch of (mostly) free-thinking, liberal hippies. And I doubt we've got an original idea amongst us. It's not individuality that offers hope of progress - it's free-thinking. If we exercise our free-thinking to think the same thing as a bunch of other people, then is that individuality or collectivism? Challenging our primitive nature does not necessarily make us 'individuals'. In fact, individuality is an obsession of Western society that's probably caused more problems than it's solved. We're so pre-occupied with our rights as individuals that the good of society often gets overlooked. We're all entitled to have babies, for example. It's our right to decide, individually, how large our family should be. When does this right get forcibly curtailed? Will we still be defending people's individual rights when we have a world population of 20 billion? 40 billion? 100 billion? No, without opposable thumbs we'd still be in the stone age. Or earlier You've just described consumerism. A philosophy that reduces us all to homogenous commodities. I'm surprised to see that used as an example of individuality! The reason we don't all drive the same cars and wear the same clothes anymore is because companies are competing harder and harder for our money. A taste for brighter and more elaborate trinkets is not an expression of individuality. Strange then that despite the apparent radical individuality of the hippy movement, one of the main political thrusts of that movement has been co-operation and collectivism - surely the antipathy of the cult of the individual? I'd suggest that progress is far more likely to be achieved when we stop worrying so much about our individuality and concern ourselves more with the collective good of humanity. There is no accurate description of your character. Language is all shorthand. You can spend forever and a day trying to describe yourself, but it's ultimately a futile effort. Far more important to concern yourself with just being than worrying about what labels to apply. Of course, a lot of this debate is just semantics. 'Individuality' is very much like 'hippy' in that it means what you want it to mean. In one sense, we're all individuals anyway. It's our inherent nature. No two humans are the same. On that level, it's not a political, social or spiritual philosophy - it's just the way we are. On another level, individuality can be described as the selfish pursuit of limited goals at the expense of the good of the whole. On yet another level, individuality can (as you illustrated) be reduced to an expression of consumerism. I suspect (yet again) that if we want to find a meaningful philosophy for life, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Individuality (as defined by our unique nature) is clearly an important part of who we are. But on the other hand, a concern for the whole is equally important if we're to progress as a species. Which, when you think about it, is very much in keeping with the Eastern philosophies that describe our spirits as fragments of the divine - individual, yet part of a whole.
the most annoying thing anyone can do is turn something into an argument. it scares me also that chavs/scallies call themselves by those names. they were made for insulting purposes. they're not supposed to know that they're being purposely annoying, its supposed to be a natural instinct. i think the fabric of space/time is being ripped, to cause........................intellegent chavs! The Apocolypse is Nigh!
i did meet intelligent ones a while back. but after a long conversation, they resorted to the usual "get ya fookin hair cut!"
I would have thought they said "I'm a Peep or I'm really cool" You know how they can be up their own arse sometimes and the way they look down on everyone else because they own a Car with alloys and a low skirt.
>>>>>>>It's still possible to be an individual asshole!<<<<<<< Yes perhaps but a genius is almost never conformitive. >>>>>>>In fact, individuality is an obsession of Western society that's probably caused more problems than it's solved. We're so pre-occupied with our rights as individuals that the good of society often gets overlooked. We're all entitled to have babies, for example. It's our right to decide, individually, how large our family should be. When does this right get forcibly curtailed? Will we still be defending people's individual rights when we have a world population of 20 billion? 40 billion? 100 billion?<<<<<<< I'm discussing the ups of individuality. There is indidiuality and then there's abusing it. Sure I don't think of laws against murder or robbery being against my individuality, assuming I'm a murderer or robbery and describing those acts as part of my individuality (of course they're not and neither am I a murderer nor robber). I'm not saying individuality can't be abused, but individuality wether you see it as manifestation or catalyst of human progress, seems to me to have it's valid place in society. >>>>>>>>No, without opposable thumbs we'd still be in the stone age. Or earlier <<<<<<<< I wonder how more advanced we might be with four thumbs? Or even two extra hands? :sunglasse >>>>>>>You've just described consumerism. A philosophy that reduces us all to homogenous commodities. I'm surprised to see that used as an example of individuality! The reason we don't all drive the same cars and wear the same clothes anymore is because companies are competing harder and harder for our money. A taste for brighter and more elaborate trinkets is not an expression of individuality.<<<<<<<<<<<< But earlier in time companies were all promoting the same kind of car, and same kind of product. Now there are many. Nowadays you've also got all these 'stand out from the crowd' type adverts. I'm just curious dude as to why you think this marketing has changed? Why aren't companies promoting us to drive all the same cars like back in the '50s? And things like music. Why do people now listen to many different styles yet in the past only listened to one or two? An excercise of increasing individuality or free-thinking? What's your definition of individuality? Sorry to sound like a crazy questioning machine dude but I am a curious cat. >>>>>>>>>>Far more important to concern yourself with just being than worrying about what labels to apply.<<<<<<<<< Yeah, and that's one of the reasons why I'm not too keen on labels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On another level, individuality can be described as the selfish pursuit of limited goals at the expense of the good of the whole.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Quite, but I forgot to mention that, whilst I believe (as a theory, not a fact!) that our individuality is on the up, so is communication. I mentioned the 'personalised' technologies earlier, like cellphones, MSN, etc. They're all very good for bringing lots of people together as well as enabling us to do something very personal. So, whilst we're excercising free thinking, individuality, flogging convention or whatever, we've got the means to connect with more people than ever before too. I believe individuality to be very significant but I don't believe it to be the be-all-and-end-all of society our our existence. There does seem to be a kind of inward-outward thing going on in society. The inward representing the looking within for truth, free thinking, meditation etc. Then on the other hand there's the outward: the United Nations, the global telecommunications, the Euro, etc. It's an interesting blend. It's nice you brought that up point Dok, as it reminds me of something I read in a book called The Celestine Prophecy which is a great book if you ask me, a charcter in the book asks that question and the other basically says something like 'yeah, we're looking within more and more, but the more people which are doing that collectively, will trigger a positive collective human evolution'. >>>>>>>I suspect (yet again) that if we want to find a meaningful philosophy for life, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Individuality (as defined by our unique nature) is clearly an important part of who we are. But on the other hand, a concern for the whole is equally important if we're to progress as a species. Which, when you think about it, is very much in keeping with the Eastern philosophies that describe our spirits as fragments of the divine - individual, yet part of a whole. [/QUOTE]<<<<<<<<<< Yeah, that's kind of my belief also. I don't think that individuality has little or no value, I think it has lots, but ultimately as far as I'm concerned I'm one body in an infinite cosmos. I'm not personally too concerned about the idea of too much individuality, so long as there are moves to bring society together as a whole (which it would seem there are). I do think there can be a compromise between the individual and society as a whole, I even think the compromise is being reached as we speak. Like I say, I value individuality highly but am also very pro-collectivity. I'm just glad I've been born into an age where I feel the elements of self-fulmiment/self-nurturing, and social or global communications/uniting nations and states are both very prominent within the world.
Shit, you mentioned 'chav'! *gets agravated and twitches with anger* If anyone has visited Bacup or Rawtenstall (near Bury), you would know it's home to the most evil breeds of chav. Luckily, I've grew up around them and as I've matured, they've stayed at their 2-year-old mental state. I've not learned how to control them but I've realised that if you just say something they don't understand, they generally walk off thinking that they've victorious, although you know you are! Example (from the other night as I was waiting for a bus) Car (noisy Nova, of course!) drives past. Passenger shouts "Fuckin' scuffy mosher!". I retaliate with "Fucking scruffy chav!" and stick both middle fingers high in the air. Their tyres sceach and they pull screaching into the petrol station and turn round. I think the screaching was supposed to scare me ... either that or the tyres were fucked! They halt in front of me and passenger gets out, pushes me, squares up and says "are you fuckin' startin', you scruffy twat?!" I respond with "I started nothing. I retaliated to your infantile comment regarding my dress standards. Now we're even. Now if you don't mind, my bus is due." The driver is shouting "knife the bastard!" and "kick his fuckin' head in!" but chav gently pushes me, walks off and calls me "Dick head" so I called him "cock-end" and said "Now we're even again". He gets back in car and they both laugh and driver says "He fuckin' shit himself". What they didn't realise is that I see this behaviour too often to be fearful of it. I just lit up a cig and sat back down. Then the bus came ... lighting a cig tends to make that happen!
Seems many places have the most evil breed of charver, as they are called north east ways. I think Merlin and Dok's bit debate explains away being shocked that some of these charvs do label themselves, charve. Some of them will think it's cool, your poser level charve. But I've met many a canny scally over the years. Met a whole bunch at a house last week actually and every one of them was sound. Smashed on cider and E, but still, friendly and pretty funny really. Then there's this evil breed, just crazy-pisshead-nasty bastards who wouldn't think twice about stamping on your head! I think they're getting all this news coverage now because of all the ASBO's flying around. They've been identified as little hoodlums and there's a new punishment to dish out. And holy shit, there's loads of them. Actually, Dok again, said free thinking is more the way, and that society working together would probably provide a greater 'movement'...or something very similar! Anyway, if the charvs did do a bit of the old free thinking they'd be a very strong group. If only they had a common goal like overthrowing the government or something. I reckon they'd give it a shot :H
