Thoughts Paradigm: What's with these labels?

[Thinking Skins]

This is from http://thoughtsparadigm.blogspot.com/

Today's rant is focused on people who try to say that my thinking does or does not fit into a certain way of thinking, and thus must generalize into other concepts. I had two recent conversations that inspired this rant. The first was when a friend (one who calls herself an activist) blatantly told me I wasn't an activist. I started to say a few words about that, but then I decided that its just a label, so why bother. The second was a more passive conversation where a friend asked me if I was a feminist. I nonchalantly answered, "I don't know" because I really don't know all the different definitions of feminist and I'm not sure if I meet all the requirements to be one.

So this brings me to my point, what’s the point of these labels? And when I say 'these' labels, I'm not referring to 'activist' and 'feminist' in particular, but just labels in general. Do we really need them? Do people need to know if I'm a democrat or republican before I give my opinion on politics? Does saying one or the other make my opinion more or less valid?

But as I go on this rant, there's a voice of contention in my head questioning if there are any good labels. But to me, it seems that the only good labels are the ones that are universally agreed upon. But I wouldn't call these labels at all. I'd probably refer to these as just definitions.

But maybe that’s the problem with labels in the first place. Maybe the people who are using labels, don't realize that there are multiple definitions for the term they're using. For instance, I've referred to the multiple definitions of 'feminist', but are there multiple definitions of terms I think of as more concrete, like 'mathematician'?

As a mathematician, I'd say no - a mathematician is one who studies math. But could there be a debate about the definition of the word "study" (meaning 'does research' or 'teaches' or 'has a degree in' or a variety of other things)?

So I guess I've gotten nowhere in this rant. I just don't like people putting labels on me, trying to characterize my way of thinking. I feel like they're trying to put me inside of a box, and so whenever I think outside that box (which I often do), then I'm told that I'm contradicting the label they put on me. But if they hadn't put the stupid label on me in the first place, we wouldn't be in this conundrum.

Aight, the problem's not solved, but my rant's over.

[Teller]

Labels are a tool used by people of lesser intelligence in an effort to allow them to participate in the debate. They're easier than actually thinking; or responding to the other person's words (rather than their own pre-conceived notions.)

It's the most frustrating tool that I see used in tailgate debates on a daily basis.

[Corcaigh]

Labels are useful in context. Otherwise they can be worthless.

Relative to 90% of the population, "feminist" might be a fair description for you. But if you're in a gathering with Andrea Dworkin aficionados, it may not be.

Or another example, "Bob is in great shape" has a different expected meaning if Bob is a 25 year old pro athlete, or if he's 80.

[Thinking Skins]

Labels are a tool used by people of lesser intelligence in an effort to allow them to participate in the debate. They're easier than actually thinking; or responding to the other person's words (rather than their own pre-conceived notions.)

It's the most frustrating tool that I see used in tailgate debates on a daily basis.

I don't know if I'd agree that using labels signifies lesser intelligence. I'd be more inclined to say that its more convenient - particularly in an argument. If I can get my opponent to admit to being a member of a much broader class than he has openly admitted, then I can get him into a contradiction that he doesn't even know about.

But the problem is when my opponent notices this improper usage of labels, but I refust to let up. Lets say my opponent puts up an argument which has some principles of communism. In trying to trap him, I call him a communist. If my opponent disagrees and shows how his principles are not communist, then my argument is (should be) over with. But there are many people who will not let me define communist in any way other than the way they define it. So we are forced into an argument of labels and the definition of the label instead of whatever our original argument was about. Thats what frustrates me.

[Thinking Skins]

Labels are useful in context. Otherwise they can be worthless.

Relative to 90% of the population, "feminist" might be a fair description for you. But if you're in a gathering with Andrea Dworkin aficionados, it may not be.

Or another example, "Bob is in great shape" has a different expected meaning if Bob is a 25 year old pro athlete, or if he's 80.

I've heard a Malcolm X type definition of feminist, practically saying that men can help with feminism but cannot be feminists. This is not the only definition I've heard of feminism though, and some of the other definitions directly contradict this notion.

But when possible, I'd like to see labels used only as placeholders for well defined concepts. But I feel like this is a bit of circular reasoning that'll get me into something like Russell's Paradox. Even still, if I'm in a conversation/debate with somebody and I hear one of these things used to a point where I may disagree, before I get into a heated argument about whether or not a given claim is true, I try to at least get more specific as to what people mean by a given label (like "in great shape").

[Teller]

I don't know if I'd agree that using labels signifies lesser intelligence. I'd be more inclined to say that its more convenient - particularly in an argument. If I can get my opponent to admit to being a member of a much broader class than he has openly admitted, then I can get him into a contradiction that he doesn't even know about.

Why label in the first place? Why not argue the merits of the point, rather than trying to "trick" someone into admitting to a label and then pinning your definition of said label onto them?

I got so -- frankly -- pissed off during this election season, because EVERYONE on both sides wanted to label me. If I agreed with Bush or McCain on something, well, that's to be expected from an arch-conservative. When I finally decided to vote for Obama, suddenly the right-wing crowd was calling me a socialist.

The bottom line is that in general, labels are stupid, lazy and/or ignorant. If you have the intellectual capacity (not you personally, speaking generally) argue MY POINT instead of arguing with what your pre-conceived notion of me is. And if you can't do that, that shows your weak debating skills (again, generally speaking) not mine.

But the problem is when my opponent notices this improper usage of labels, but I refust to let up. Lets say my opponent puts up an argument which has some principles of communism. In trying to trap him, I call him a communist. If my opponent disagrees and shows how his principles are not communist, then my argument is (should be) over with. But there are many people who will not let me define communist in any way other than the way they define it. So we are forced into an argument of labels and the definition of the label instead of whatever our original argument was about. Thats what frustrates me.

We're in complete agreement here.

It really aggravates me when people come into a debate and try to argue with what they "expect" me to say. Or who they "think" I am.

It's true that I'm generally a pretty solid right-leaner when it comes to politics. But it's also true that there are plenty of instances when I veer pretty wildly from the party line. If someone comes into a debate thinking they know in advance what my position's going to be (based on their pre-conceived label) we're probably not going to get anywhere.

This is generally where I find myself posting something like, "You just put words in my mouth and then argued with them." Some people are so sure they know what I'm going to say that they'll respond to that, even if I don't say anything of the sort.

But again, IMHO, labels -- especially as they're often used in the tailgate -- are either ignorant or lazy, generally speaking.

(BTW, this is a great thread on a topic that's bugged me for quite a while. Thanks for the chance to try to articulate why.)

[NavyDave]

Why label in the first place? Why not argue the merits of the point, rather than trying to "trick" someone into admitting to a label and then pinning your definition of said label onto them?

I got so -- frankly -- pissed off during this election season, because EVERYONE on both sides wanted to label me. If I agreed with Bush or McCain on something, well, that's to be expected from an arch-conservative. When I finally decided to vote for Obama, suddenly the right-wing crowd was calling me a socialist.

What is funny is that Conservatives do not see President Bush or McCain as true conservatives. Yeah they threw a few bones to our group but on a whole they were more moderate than anything.

Obama is viewed as a socialist because of not only his associations, some of his appointments but how some of his words and responses are from a socialist viewpoint.

But hey the people did vote for it so lets see what he will do.