Name Calling and Labeling



One thing that I have observed over the years is that name-calling and affixing derogatory labels to people usually exacerbates any perceived shortcomings in the target.  It is in the nature of people to defend themselves when under personal attack.  When it comes to using labels and name-calling to make nothing of the target, oft times the target reinforces the behavior labeled in an effort to somehow vindicate himself.

Name-calling seems to be an ingrained habit with some.  Folks might take some form of temporary satisfaction by considering themselves greater than those whom they condemn by shouting condemnatory labels. But, in the long run they are not really lessening the target nor are they increasing their own stature by doing so.  To the contrary, they wind up lessening their own integrity by defining themselves in the context of their chosen nemesis.  That fact alone makes them the effect of and thus less than their perceived enemies.

A valued teacher of mine once said ‘when you point your finger at someone, look to where your other three fingers are pointing.’


308 responses to “Name Calling and Labeling

  1. “To win a war, you have to start one” — (tag line from the new HBO movie: The Normal Heart)

    But in any case — what Marty has done I think — is start a war (yes, there were earlier starters of this war) against first the current regime of scientology and then through the years of this blog, progressing to the founder by exposure … and continuing with blog posts that deal with other wisdom traditions …

    This war won’t be — again my opinion — won with a BANG but will be won with a whimper …

    Attrition will win this war, waking up will win this war, sadly death of the old guard will win this war, exposure will win this war …

    People do not leave as a result of a discussion but because something becomes so utterly untenable they say — DONE.

    I welcome everyone who is DONE but I don’t think for 2 seconds that because they are DONE, they are NOW my new best friend.

    De-compressing, de-programming, cult separation, cult awareness is a HUGE big deal and takes whatever it takes by whatever means.

    I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.

    And perhaps IF we were to do this we JUST MIGHT stop calling each other names OR assuming that we are supposed to act in a particular way because we might NOW be buddhists/Christians/xyz religion/OR atheists/reformed Scientologists … etc

    We are ULTIMATELY all wanting the same thing:

    To be happy.

    And one of the best ways that I know to work towards achieving this is by being kind to each other.

    EVEN IF being kind to someone means — telling that person what a rude SOB they were, in one way or the other.

    MIGHT get them to look at their INTERIOR world for a change. Really look.

    • “I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.”

      Maybe this is all it would take:

      • marildi, loved the video and the message!!

        Forgiveness is an ENORMOUSLY effective tech to as-is the ego thought system aka reactive mind aka hate, pain, suffering, insanity, etc. (basically, anything delineated on Ron’s Tone Scale from 2.0 down). However, that being said, the concept of forgiveness, for the biggest part of my journey through space and time as the ‘Monte’ character, has been held in deeply rooted disdain, albeit, not really realized or acknowledged by the character. It just never seemed socially acceptable to overtly show disdain for a concept that was so broadly considered to be a loving or even divine act (God and Jesus eventually always seemed to get pulled into it), thus, out of fear, the character constructed a socially acceptable pretense with regards to forgiveness.

        It wasn’t until I read the book Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard that this long repressed disdain for the concept of forgiveness began to rise up and manifest as a forceful resistance that I was very much tempted to succumb to. But, I didn’t fold. I kept reading and I’m glad I did because in doing so I finally came face to face with the forgiveness that I held such an immense disdain for. And when this occurred, a great many things (understandings) fell into place. Things that I had no inkling of an idea were out of place or even extant.

        The Disappearance of Universe book is sort of A Course of Miracles for Dummies. Being that the ‘Miracles’ referred to in that course is forgiveness tech, Gary’s book addressed that concept quite thoroughly and incorporated numerous excerpts from the course in doing so. Anyway, here’s the particular excerpt that unfixed my very fixed and mishmashed perspective on the concept of forgiveness:

        [Note: the course teaches that the 'ego' is not an entity but is a thought system.]

        “The ego, too, has a plan of forgiveness because you are asking for one, though not of the right teacher. The ego’s plan, of course, makes no sense and will not work. By following its plan you will merely place yourself in an impossible situation, to which the ego always leads you. the ego’s plan is to have you see error clearly first, and then overlook it. Yet how can you overlook what you have made real? By seeing it clearly, you have made it real and cannot overlook it.”

        Of course, I realize that you or anyone else could read this excerpt and there would be nothing particularly noteworthy about it. Indeed I would expect that sort of response more than any other. That noted, I should mention that I had read 200 pages prior to encountering this excerpt in the book and it would be impossible for me to describe all the loosening of bound perspectives and consequent shifts in perspectives that occurred in those 200 pages that set me up to receive this comm i.e., the above excerpt, as being so profound. It’s just part of the story. :)

        The concept of forgiveness that I have found to be so remarkably effective as a tool with which to as-is the ego thought system, as described in the course, is simply seeing and recognizing the ego thought system for what it is not i.e., it is not real (there is no judgment in this). Therefore, the forgiveness is not for what was done but for what was never done. How can what is not real really do anything? This, of course, is completely opposite to the ego thought system’s forgiveness, which acknowledges that something (something wrong) was done. The ego’s concept of forgiveness serves to perpetuate a belief that objects are separate, are real and can cause harm to another object. The ego’s brand of forgiveness requires the prerequisite of judgment. And, of course, the flip side to this sort of forgiveness is condemnation.

        In Gary Renard’s book the forgiveness that is not of the ego thought system is referred to as being “True Forgiveness.” That noted, here is an example, as given in the book, of the thought process of True Forgiveness:

        “You’re not really there. If I think you are guilty or the cause of the problem, and if I made you up, then the imagined guilt and fear must be in me. Since the separation from God never occurred, I forgive “both” of us for what we haven’t really done. Now there is only innocence, and I join with the Holy Spirit in peace.”

        [Note: the course, just like the world, is one big metaphor and numerous times and in many, many ways, it states that God; Holy Spirit; Jesus, are One and the same and that One is ME.]

        marildi, if you or anyone else who happens to read this, is ever interested in getting A Course in Miracles in the proverbial ‘nutshell’….go to youtube and search: Intro – Workshop on “The Real World.” This workshop, not including the brief intro, is 15 parts with each part being aprx 10min in length. IMO, this workshop is ACIM in a nutshell.

        One more thing….see what you prompted marildi :)…here’s another video about forgiveness that I came across a while back. If you watch it on youtube you’ll be able to easily find other videos where the artist tells this incredible back story to this song. Look for Matthew West “Forgiveness story.”

        Much Love marildi ~ Monte

        • Monte, sorry for the late reply. I have less computer time these days.Thank you so much for the great tips as usual. I’ve bookmarked “Workshop on The Real World”.youtube series.

          And thanks for that beautiful song too.
          Much love ~ marildi


          It’s the hardest thing to give away
          And the last thing on your mind today
          It always goes to those that don’t deserve

          It’s the opposite of how you feel
          When the pain they caused is just too real
          It takes everything you have just to say the word…


          It flies in the face of all your pride
          It moves away the mad inside
          It’s always anger’s own worst enemy
          Even when the jury and the judge
          Say you got a right to hold a grudge
          It’s the whisper in your ear saying ‘Set It Free’

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Show me how to love the unlovable
          Show me how to reach the unreachable
          Help me now to do the impossible

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Help me now to do the impossible

          It’ll clear the bitterness away
          It can even set a prisoner free
          There is no end to what its power can do
          So, let it go and be amazed
          By what you see through eyes of grace
          The prisoner that it really frees is you

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Show me how to love the unlovable
          Show me how to reach the unreachable
          Help me now to do the impossible

          I want to finally set it free
          So show me how to see what Your mercy sees
          Help me now to give what You gave to me
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

    • windhorse: “This war won’t be — again my opinion — won with a BANG but will be won with a whimper …

      “Attrition will win this war, waking up will win this war, sadly death of the old guard will win this war, exposure will win this war …”

      Only minutes before reading your wonderful comment windhorse, I heard this question being asked to an audience by someone speaking at a TED Talk…”How do you kill a dinosaur?” The speaker then answers his own question: “You don’t. Evolution will take care of it.”

      IMO, there is no fight or ‘war’ to be had with anything. Evolution will take care of it. In a seeming world of perception that has originated from projection, everything comes and goes again and again and again, but…nothing ever lasts.


      windhorse: “I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.”

      When one works on their OWN interior landscape, they will eventually come to recognize that there never has been anything but an interior landscape. And it was always their OWN. There never really was an ‘exterior’ or an ‘other, or an ‘outside, or an ‘out there.’ In other words, there never was a world that actually existed outside of and separate from SELF that could cause any effect whatsoever.

      As for the name calling and labeling that is intended to in any way diminish another point of view and particularly if you’re the one that is being targeted…Kurt Vonnegut offered (I think) a viable perspective regarding such circumstances. He said: “Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness. Take pride that even though the rest of the world may disagree, you still believe it to be a beautiful place.”

      Much Love windhorse ~ Monte

      • At the end of the video there is quote from the Bible re forgiveness. It is from the gospel of Matthew 6:14-15 NLT (I don’t know what the NLT stands for). It reads:

        “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

        In A Course in Miracles the concept of ‘sin’ aligns more to the Arabic derivation of the word ‘sin,’ which means “miss the mark.” In other words, ACIM teaches that ‘sin’ is nothing evil, wrong or bad, it’s just an error/mistake. Sin is not some evil deed that needs to be condemned and punished or overlooked through ‘forgiveness” (either way makes it real). Instead, ‘sin’ is merely a mistake that needs to be corrected. True forgiveness atones (corrects) the error by recognizing that it’s not real and never was real. And every time True forgiveness is used it disappears (erases) portions of the ego thought system. That said, the concept of sin being something evil, wrong and bad, is a key component in the ego thought system’s desire for self-preservation. Because, with a belief in sin, comes guilt and fear (the unholy trinity) that fortifies a belief in separation, individual persons, identities, objects, levels, and so on. Thus, the ego thought system is perpetuated.

        As for a ‘heavenly Father’ or God(s) forgiving or not forgiving ‘sin’ or anything else…well, per the ACIM teachings the concept of God or whatever other symbol one might choose to use to represent a supreme creator, are just symbols that ‘point’ to that which is irreconcilable with concepts and are thereby inconceivable. If this is the case, then it’s obvious that ‘God’ (a convenient symbol) wouldn’t know sin, forgiveness, condemnation, ego thought system, duality, non-duality or any other concept. In other words, this means that ‘God’ would never be hearing or answering or not answering anyone’s prayers as well as never judging, condemning, punishing, forgiving or saving anyone or anything (all concepts).

      • Hello Monte,

        And thank you for your kind acknowledgement.

        Kurt Vonnegut’s words are wonderful — thank you for sharing them.

        As to your comment about realizing that “there never was a world that actually existed outside of and separate from SELF …”

        ULTIMATELY this is where one arrives hopefully — through whatever means — but still there is a very seemingly real world of the “other” – who is hell bent on ruining ones business, marriage etc … (and is actually a reflection of parts of unresolved self (small s) but that’s a whole book in itself). There is also the “other” who one thought/thinks is a friend but is in fact so mired down in their own “stuff” that bridging over to someone else EXCEPT for their immediate small world – is not possible.

        And there are “others” who because of decades of scientology mind-set are unable to break free with a sense of emotions towards anyone other than immediate family. Friends are often kept as status symbols or pawns in a game meant for only them to win.

        UNTIL the interior of ones self (small s) — matches the exterior of SELF these words from Rainer Maria Rilke – (Bohemian-Austrian poet and novelist born in Prague, he died in Montreux Switzerland in 1926) are wonderful. I found these words of Rilke to be a comfort:

        “I beg you … to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language.

        Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them.

        And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now.

        Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer …” (Rainer Maria Rilke)

        • Nice valance to take on, but it is worth it? It seems when one cant confront ones own realities looks for some other soothing more bearable experiences offered by those who see the universe differently the those new realities are less restimulating for a short period. they are good cover ups.. considered better and more acceptable than drugs alcohol but still take the place for confrontation. My reality!

  2. Interestingly I have encountered 2 times since reading your post that the English language did NOT have a label I needed the time both in conversations with others. What does one do?
    Example ~ referring to cousins and nephews what if you don’t know the gender? Or “Is ‘she/he home’ when I did not know the gender. You can’t say “Is them home”. “Is it home?”

    • Cece: When you are uncertain of the gender OR you don’t want to point out the gender … you can use the singular pronoun THEY or possessive singular pronoun THEM

      This is acceptable grammar.

    • Still Awakening

      You might consider “Are they home?”

    • Generally you’d say “Are they home?”. Even if you’re only talking about one person. “They” is generally used in reference to two or more people, but can also be used for a single person of unknown gender.

  3. Martin Gibson

    Don’t be a side-note.
    You are a liar.
    You know purification Rundown works.
    Stop hiding behind a delusion
    What works, works.
    Don’t be a “see intro” (dick).

    • Martin Gibson

      Actually I take that back. You are entitled to your opinion.
      I just can’t add it up against what I assume your experience is.

    • Martin could you please write to me at I have a question. thanks. Elizabeth


      E. What in the world is this guy Martin talking about? Do you know him?

      >________________________________ > From: Moving On Up a Little Higher >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:07 AM >Subject: [New comment] Name Calling and Labeling > > > > >Martin Gibson commented: “Don’t be a side-note. You are a liar. You know purification Rundown works. Stop hiding behind a delusion What works, works. Don’t be a “see intro” (dick).” >

      • Hi marilyna2010. I am talking about the fact that Marty has been insisting scientology is a belief system, and the fact that doesnt take into acount the practical side of it.
        Are dictionary definitions a belief system? Is the purif a belief system?
        My comment above was not attached to the post above. Name calling is pretty awful, which I agree with. But, saying scientology is wholly a belief system is a belief not based on total fact. I found it insinuated a inability to discern fact from fiction for oneself and I felt it was unfounded and basically unspoken invalidation.
        Thus I was pissed off enough to comment venomously.

        It seemed delusional to think a dictionary definition being advisable to learn is a belief in something insubstantial to ones furtherance in life.

        Hope that s-p-e-l-l-e-d it out for you.


      Sorry. A bit ago I meant to forward this comment and pushed reply by mistake.

  4. And as an addendum to my response to Monte:

    I realized during a trip to visit my sister and friends in Texas that in actual fact not everyone is on a quest to discover their interior world/exterior world.

    As someone who came up in the late 60’s – I kinda assumed we were all on the same page: 1) interested in our own personal spiritual quest 2) anti-establishment — think student protests 3) wanting to create a better safer world FOR THE BENEFIT of everyone — not just “non-dbs”

    SURPRISE — this isn’t the case.

    We are not all wired the same until you dig VERY deep. There really are people who vote republican or independent or democratic OR don’t vote at all.

    And it always surprises me. Always. Since of course

    I’ve got all the answers :)

    Much love to you all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s