Sheeple

[davidtx]

I see the term "sheeple" bandied around a lot. It makes sense to me in describing the blind obedience of some.

I've been reading "The Gift of Fear" and having discussions with my soon to be son-in-law and realized that using sheeple to describe people in condition white was doing a dis-service to sheep. From what I think I know about sheep (and all animals other than humans), they would never wander around in condition white. I think we need a better label for those that spend themselves in condition white.

Any suggestions, or am I misunderstanding sheep behavior?

[VMI77]

I haven't linked the meaning with awareness, but with the willing or unwilling propensity for being sheared.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The problem I have with the term "sheeple" is two fold. First, it's derogatory and highly insulting to anyone labeled as "sheeple." Secondly, people who use the terms tend to apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with them on certain issues, whether or not they are truly anti-gun/anti-RKBA.

If you want to entrench an enemy and energize them to strengthen their opposition to you or your program, just throw a personal insult into your comments. Similarly, if someone hasn't really thought about the RKBA issue, or carrying for self-defense, a sure fire way to make sure they never join our cause is to insult them by labeling them as "sheeple."

Chas.

[davidtx]

The problem I have with the term "sheeple" is two fold. First, it's derogatory and highly insulting to anyone labeled as "sheeple." Secondly, people who use the terms tend to apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with them on certain issues, whether or not they are truly anti-gun/anti-RKBA.

If you want to entrench an enemy and energize them to strengthen their opposition to you or your program, just throw a personal insult into your comments. Similarly, if someone hasn't really thought about the RKBA issue, or carrying for self-defense, a sure fire way to make sure they never join our cause is to insult them by labeling them as "sheeple."

Chas.

Good points. I think I'll stick to using "living in condition white" for my purposes. Hopefully, it won't turn them off and will allow the discussion to continue. Now if I can convince my future SIL who is adamant that he doesn't want to live his life in a non-condition white manner. He's normally a very rational guy, but his arguments on this are very touchy-feely emotional.

[VMI77]

The problem I have with the term "sheeple" is two fold. First, it's derogatory and highly insulting to anyone labeled as "sheeple." Secondly, people who use the terms tend to apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with them on certain issues, whether or not they are truly anti-gun/anti-RKBA.

If you want to entrench an enemy and energize them to strengthen their opposition to you or your program, just throw a personal insult into your comments. Similarly, if someone hasn't really thought about the RKBA issue, or carrying for self-defense, a sure fire way to make sure they never join our cause is to insult them by labeling them as "sheeple."

Chas.

True, but it's one thing to use such a term in a forum like this, applied to people who constitute a certain group --however that group may be defined-- and another thing to apply it personally to an individual, or even a group of individuals. There is usually no call or justification for being insulting or derogatory even if you're not trying to gain an ally or win an argument.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The problem I have with the term "sheeple" is two fold. First, it's derogatory and highly insulting to anyone labeled as "sheeple." Secondly, people who use the terms tend to apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with them on certain issues, whether or not they are truly anti-gun/anti-RKBA.

If you want to entrench an enemy and energize them to strengthen their opposition to you or your program, just throw a personal insult into your comments. Similarly, if someone hasn't really thought about the RKBA issue, or carrying for self-defense, a sure fire way to make sure they never join our cause is to insult them by labeling them as "sheeple."

Chas.

True, but it's one thing to use such a term in a forum like this, applied to people who constitute a certain group --however that group may be defined-- and another thing to apply it personally to an individual, or even a group of individuals. There is usually no call or justification for being insulting or derogatory even if you're not trying to gain an ally or win an argument.

I agree that using a term of art among "our" people isn't as likely to insult someone, but TexasCHLforum is read by a lot of people who are trying to learn about guns and gun laws, as well as those who are researching issues. We're getting between 7 and 8 million hits a month during the "off season" and it'll jump t 10 to 12 million during the election cycle and legislative session. Someone who is considering arming themselves, or who owns guns but is considering their first CHL, may well be turned off by the "sheeple" label.

I should also point out that I'm not concerned solely about the use of the term here; it's used all over the Internet and I've seen people using "sheeple" in interviews with the media. It's my view that we are better served if "our" people try to respectfully educate people rather than ridicule them as being "sheeple." It really comes down to this, do we want a convert, or simply a fight?

Chas.

[glbedd53]

Sorry but I gotta say it: My wife is a sheeple.

[VMI77]

The problem I have with the term "sheeple" is two fold. First, it's derogatory and highly insulting to anyone labeled as "sheeple." Secondly, people who use the terms tend to apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with them on certain issues, whether or not they are truly anti-gun/anti-RKBA.

If you want to entrench an enemy and energize them to strengthen their opposition to you or your program, just throw a personal insult into your comments. Similarly, if someone hasn't really thought about the RKBA issue, or carrying for self-defense, a sure fire way to make sure they never join our cause is to insult them by labeling them as "sheeple."

Chas.

True, but it's one thing to use such a term in a forum like this, applied to people who constitute a certain group --however that group may be defined-- and another thing to apply it personally to an individual, or even a group of individuals. There is usually no call or justification for being insulting or derogatory even if you're not trying to gain an ally or win an argument.

I agree that using a term of art among "our" people isn't as likely to insult someone, but TexasCHLforum is read by a lot of people who are trying to learn about guns and gun laws, as well as those who are researching issues. We're getting between 7 and 8 million hits a month during the "off season" and it'll jump t 10 to 12 million during the election cycle and legislative session. Someone who is considering arming themselves, or who owns guns but is considering their first CHL, may well be turned off by the "sheeple" label.

I should also point out that I'm not concerned solely about the use of the term here; it's used all over the Internet and I've seen people using "sheeple" in interviews with the media. It's my view that we are better served if "our" people try to respectfully educate people rather than ridicule them as being "sheeple." It really comes down to this, do we want a convert, or simply a fight?

Chas.

I don't disagree, and especially when such terms are used in front of a broader audience, as in a media interview, the speaker will come off as both arrogant and insulting. But I'm curious: don't you think the psychology of such a term is such that someone seeking information in a forum like this is likely to believe he is not a part of the group being so classified?

[Charles L. Cotton]

But I'm curious: don't you think the psychology of such a term is such that someone seeking information in a forum like this is likely to believe he is not a part of the group being so classified?

That could well be the case and probably is in many circumstances. Some use of the term, however, is so clear it is an unmistakable insult. For example, I've seen the term used to describe people who choose not to carry a defensive handgun, or to people who refuse to condemn the CHL statute as "anti-gun and unconstitutional."

Again, more often than not, I see the term sheeple used to describe someone who disagrees with the speaker on any given gun-related matter. Therein lies the problem; where does one draw the line in determining when someone goes from being a person with whom we have a legitimate difference of opinion to someone who is so irrational as to be labeled "sheeple?"

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think we need a better label for those that spend themselves in condition white.

How about something more respectful than that?

I have used terms like: "Some people are like sheep, and others are like sheepdogs." And I have made numerous comments to the effect that most people just aren't that observant about what's going on around them.

But I don't like to be deliberately insulting, particularly toward someone who has done nothing to me. In that vein, why would I call someone "sheeple" just because I disagree with them about their choice to believe that the world is not as dangerous a place as I know it to be. I may think it is stupid. I may think it is naive. I may think it is a lot of things. But I don't want to be called names either, so I try not to do it to others. It serves no constructive purpose. So maybe I'm reading things into it that aren't there, but it seems to me like a contemptuous term, most often used by people who are pretty sure that they are the "sheeple's" betters.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, but I still probably won't use the term even if I am.

EDIT: I see that Charles beat me to the point.

[WildBill]

As I have stated in previous posts, I dislike the term "sheeple" because the person who is trying to label other people usually appears to have a feeling that they are somehow enlightened or superior to "the masses" simply because they own firearms.

Whatever their individual reason might be, I respect the choice of a person who does not wish to own or carry a firearm. What I don't respect is a person who, for whatever reason, tries to deny that choice to others.

[Hoi Polloi]

+1 to comments saying the derogatory term used to describe an entire group of people is uncharitable and does nothing to promote one's cause.

[mctowalot]

How about "those yet to be enlightened" ?

[jester]

I forget where I first saw this, but I think of it whenever someone talks about being a sheepdog.

[jimlongley]

But I'm curious: don't you think the psychology of such a term is such that someone seeking information in a forum like this is likely to believe he is not a part of the group being so classified?

That could well be the case and probably is in many circumstances. Some use of the term, however, is so clear it is an unmistakable insult. For example, I've seen the term used to describe people who chooses not to carry a defensive handgun, or to people who refuse to condemn the CHL statute as "anti-gun and unconstitutional."

Again, more often than not, I see the term sheeple used to describe someone who disagrees with the speaker on any given gun-related matter. Therein lies the problem; where does one draw the line in determining when someone goes from being a person with whom we have a legitimate difference of opinion to someone who is so irrational as to be labeled "sheeple?"

Chas.

Since those who subscribe to the brady bunch mantra are generally just acting like unintelligent parrots (I have two parrots and they are more intelligent, in my experience, than the typical anti-gun nut) I don't have any problem with describing them as "sheeple" particularly since they have already said insulting things about me.