The Ambiguity of Labels
The simplicity of applying a label to an idea speeds conversation, but when labels have distinct or even mutually-exclusive definitions depending on context, it adds confusion instead of clarity. The evolution of language over time and deliberate obfuscation by malicious parties makes the problem even worse.
Liberal: 1. An advocate for individual liberty. 2. A supporter of central planning in the economy and intervention in the name of "social justice." 3. A communist.
Conservative: 1. Someone who favors fiscal restraint and traditional virtues. 2. A warmonger and puritanical authoritarian busybody. 3. A fascist.
Anarchist: 1. An opponent of all usurped authority and political control over individual life. 2. Rioters. 3. A communist.
Capitalist: 1. One who participates in the free market of voluntary exchange for mutual benefit in the absence of government intervention. 2. Corporate cronies using regulatory capture, bailouts, subsidies, and other forms of political intervention to profit at the expense of others. 3. A fascist.
Fascist: 1. Someone who supports government control and regulation of nominally private industry, usually accompanied by militaristic foreign and domestic policies. 2. Anyone who disagrees with me.
Socialist: 1. A believer in worker-owned industry. 2. A believer in government-owned and government-controlled industry. 3. Anyone who advocates social programs. 4. A god-damned COMMIE!
Labels are also often chosen to appeal to emotion. I doubt many elected officials or party leaders in the UK Labour Party have engaged in manual labor or otherwise economically productive activity. There's nothing like poisoning the well by calling yourself a "progressive" and then declaring anyone who opposes your ideology an opponent of progress. Legislation is given flowery names or convoluted acronyms to encourage public support regardless of the content of that legislation, with the US P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act standing as the most blatantly Orwellian obfuscation following the September 11th, 2001 World Trade Center attacks. The application of a label to silence an argument is also common. "You don't like Trump? Shut up, commie!"
In this internet age, it is necessary to use language precisely. Define your terms to avoid ambiguity. Apply labels with caution. There will always be trolls out to stir up trouble, but the more you strive to clarify your meaning beyond single ambiguous or contentious terms, the less effect the trolls can have on civil conversation.
Since words tend to change shape and take on different meanings to different groups of people over time when used colloquially, I think what you are saying here makes a lot of sense.
Especially since labeling a thing is to put that thing in a box. When people apply labels to themselves, they are limiting or restricting their entire being into that one label and only live in that one box. When people are applying labels to others, they are taking the whole of that person and categorizing into a box because the person applying the label has a world view that identifies with said labels and the (usually false) dichotomies associated with them. That can become quite hairy when the label has taken on multiple meanings.
To the point that @vander made, people have been retarded to the degree that they will see something like the Patriot act you mentioned and assume it's good by the label alone. Quite sad indeed.
I also agree with your lessons here to use language more precisely. There is a lot of food for thought here. Well done!
People have been infantilised; just like in Orwells "1984" a paucity of words leads to a paucity of thoughts. The confusion is not just incidental. The less we understand, the more docile we are: the harder it is too stand up and fight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Another ingredient in the increasing and intentional polarization of our populations.
Good post.
Someone has been hounding me by email, insisting that the "right vs left" political spectrum must be "reclaimed" by libertarians, and that "the Right" is for moving toward less government so they are my natural allies. He claims I should embrace the label "Extreme Rightist". I told him I'm as likely to start calling myself a Nazi or a Communist.
No amount of reason and no number of reasons is getting through to this guy.
One could argue with more legitimacy that we need to reclaim the term "liberal" for liberty. That won't happen either.