In my experience, so far, with ‘online journaling,’ words once in print are permanent and overshadow the fluctuating nature of human personality. My own, specifically. My opinions about many aspects to our modern world change in time. But, once included in print (any print, anywhere, but particularly on the internet) — links, graphics and all — options are to either live with the later contradictions (opinions change, again I write) or otherwise edit the earlier that contradicts the later change: once edited, no contradictions, or, at least, contradictions made more moderate by later editing.
I’ve deleted a few of my more boisterous, even ridiculous on later read, “political” comments from BIRD because I changed my opinion as to whatever issues and personalities I’d earlier made a fool of myself in words about. I have fixed and committed opinions about some things in my social, ethical, creative (and, therefore, professional) life, but about the political, what sometimes seems clear is later proven to be cloudy and I’m learning to think twice before I wax on or wax off about any one person who is active in our political times. That is, unless any one person is so extreme as to be pretty clearly outrageous.
Even with the outrageous, though, sometimes it’s later shown that there are other aspects, more information, about someone and they look far more reasonable in time. Again, I write, sometimes. Some people, I realize, have crossed an definitive line into permanent dive and there’s little to be rethought there on their behalf, unless you’ve professional incentives related, some need or reason to work through the abhorrent.
But, for me as a general citizen, I’m learning that no one person, group or body of politics — including me — is any one label or another. Actually, I already learned that, but, for the sake of internet commingling of opinions, I’ve found that to even interact publicly about politics and political figures pastes a label of one sort or another onto everyone by fact of perception alone. It’s as if to enter a discussion bestows the name tag of one label or another in the perceptions of others and that’s where the difficulties begin: trying to dodge being labelled or avoid the predictable screed-labels by people who can’t explain themselves beyond the grunt level (mostly the Left in my experience) is tasking. Sometimes I just delete content to go onto the next hill.
I’ve mostly tried to avoid self-labeling or applying a label to most anyone else (sometimes the labels are effective, I realize, such as are “bad” and “good” and certain other decisive identifications that I don’t regard as labels), and try — I mean, really, really try — to get this point across in online discussions about political and social issues with others. However, try as I may, it seems that many people need the labels. Need to self-identify as a label. Lost without them. Not me.
This puts me at odds with self-labelers. If you don’t say, “hey, yeah, I’m a (label here)!” it sets the gossipers to going and you’re subject to suspicion and even worse among our online world of humanity. To express specifics is to be labeled.
Labels aren’t an indication of efficiency but try explaining that to the labelers. You can write, “labels aren’t an indication of efficiency” and unless you have forty hours (thereabouts) and a lot of patience, it’s impossible to explain that concept to those who need labels.
So, labels seem to work for some. Which is another reason why I tend to avoid crowds: the mumble of the crowd, the unreliability and inexactness of the labeled tags, the efficiency of unexplained phenomenon. Mumble, internet fast-food, chewed.