-Søren Kierkegaard
People resort to labels when they’re unwilling to have a challenging conversation. It’s the fastest way to dehumanize your opponent.
This has permeated the leftist elite. The Atlantic economic policy writer attempted to label those who disagree with her as “Facts Man”. She fabricates a label for people she admits are difficult to label. Labeling is so ingrained in her approach to debate that she manufactures labels to attack ideological opponents. Perhaps the label gives her the moral high ground… at least in her distorted view of the world. The right does this too.
Each time the right labels someone an SJW / Antifa / Groomer, they dehumanize them. They put them in a box, and say they’re part of a group. “They should be ashamed to be part of that group!” “They promote cancel culture!” Even if there’s truth in how people who believe certain things correlate with the worst of these groups, it’s still labeling. It’s dehumanizing. It’s not treating people as individuals who should be judged by their individual actions.
Imagine you're a high school student attending multiple clubs/extracurricular activities. You’re in chess club, theater, track, and soccer. Someone you don’t know in the theater club kills their teacher and commits suicide. Everyone at the school ostracizes the entire theater club. “If you’re in the theater club, you’re pro murder and pro suicide!” And you thought you just liked theater.
Labeling is powerful. Labeling puts people into groups then associates them with the worst actions of the worst people in those groups. Guilt by association.
It’s work to judge each person individually. You have to learn about them as individuals. You need to understand their actions and the intentions behind those actions.
One should be judged by their actions as a whole and the expected value of the consequences of their actions. One shouldn’t be defined by only their worst actions. This applies to historical figures as well as us still living. Society must have an adult conversation. Avoid phrases like
“There are people who disagree”
I’ve seen this used from people of all political spectrums. This is not an argument.
There are people who are communists. There are people who are flat earthers. There are people who rape infants. “There are people who disagree” is not an argument.
“You shouldn’t comment” / “This doesn’t affect you”
People care more about issues that affect them. In business, this is referred to as a conflict of interest.
Imagine a board member of company A screaming at company A executives to acquire company B. The board member owns company B and would massively profit from this transaction. Of course the board member wants to acquire the company they’re heavily invested in. Is their opinion valuable? Sure, they know more about company B than others. Is their opinion the only one that should be trusted? Of course not. They have a conflict of interest. It’s the law to have the board member recuse herself from any decision regarding this matter.
In the political realm, the narrative is flipped. Only those who are conflicted can have an opinion on public policy. Imagine if we left it to 6 year olds to decide if they should be able to drink and smoke. This is ludicrous.
“You shouldn’t comment because you don’t run a business.” “You shouldn’t comment because you’re a man.” “You shouldn’t comment because you’re not a doctor.” “You shouldn’t comment because you’re straight.” “You shouldn’t comment because you’re [insert immutable characteristic, sexual preference, gender identity, or profession].”
Saying “you shouldn’t comment,” shows that you don’t want a third party opinion on the matter. Our ideas should be challenged, not treated as holy.
Those who are conflicted should be listened to, but we should realize their bias. The more conflicted someone is, the less their opinion should be taken at face value. They’re the child asking for candy, the politician voting to increase their salary. Of course people want things that benefit them and make them feel good.
An objective third party is the group that should make the decision. During a divorce mediation, the groom’s best man shouldn’t be the mediator.
“Check your privilege”
This asserts dominance by attacking another’s immutable characteristics.
It’s a very privileged thing to say. Check your own privilege.
Identity
I have no idea what it's like to be a woman. Even if I was a woman, I'd have no idea what it's like to be a particular woman. A woman has no idea what it's like to be a man. Even if a woman were a man, they'd have no idea what it's like to be me.
There's some truth to this, and we can acknowledge it. But it isn't very helpful.
It's not helpful when discussing ideas. It blocks constructive dialogue. Defining oneself off immutable characteristics only widens gaps. The great idea of the enlightenment was to treat people as individuals, not as parts of a group. It's regressive, not to mention racist and sexist, to value opinions more or less solely depending upon what group someone was born into.
Only being able to have opinions on things that affect you directly is an awful lens to view the world. It assumes a complete lack of empathy or value in a third party opinion. Not to mention, there are second and third plus order effects of any action or policy.
It's also impractical to operate this way in the real world. If you're sick, do you only request doctors who share your immutable characteristics and have personally experienced the same symptoms?
When discussing policies, it should be based on the merits of why one policy leads to better consequences vs others. We should look at the cost benefit analysis of the policies.
There will always be things we don’t know about each other. How we grew up and our own experiences that affect how we view the world. We all have our own stories. These are important, but they should be completely separate when discussing the merit of ideas.