Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Labels

Brian,
.
Your original statement, which prompted my response, was:
I categorically and passionately reject **all** the cynical, anti-US, leftist conspiracy theories and accusations paraded by the anti-war movement. And paraded here.
.
Now, Sheehan may have been what started this particular line of discussion relating to anti-war protest, but your statement did not mention her by name, and in fact **implied** a blanket condemnation of ALL anti-war protest.
.
I responded:
With all due respect, Brian, I wish you would stop labeling everything as leftist, or Marxist, or radical, or traitorous or whatever simply because you disagree, however strongly, with the opinions expressed.
.
IMHO that's intellectually lazy, and it seeks to persuade with emotion, not logic.
.
My protest was general, pertaining *not only* to this particular discussion but *any* discussion in which you have (forgive me) flung labels instead of really stating your case.
.
you responded:
I understand the problem with labels. But is it a coincidence that the most hardline anti-war voices - the ones saying that the US is corrupt, unjust, etc. - are all sitting in the left hand political bleachers?
.
Some labels DO fit, PT.
. . .
.
I would submit to you that those whose answers reveal them to be Left or Far Left are also - almost universally - strongly opposed to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.
.
You said you understood, and yet your response is only further justification for labeling, and *further* labeling.
.
I responded
But it seems to me that using *certain* labels amounts to loaded language, with the implication being that people of sense, or people with strong morals, or people who are patriotic, would NOT be such-and-such. This is unfair, and may not necessarily be true.
.
. . . as I see it, assigning the label "liberal" or "conservative" to someone might NOT enhance my ability to understand,and/or appreciate what they have to say. . . . What does it ultimately prove?
.
And does that label really help me understand the other person? I think it does just the opposite. Once the label is in place we Don't have to listen, because we already know what they will say.
.
. . . I find labels do not improve my opinion about whether or not the writer is credible. In fact, the moment I spot loaded language I'm apt to completely tune out--because it seems to me the writer is incapable of being objective.
.
you responded:
I generally agree with what you say here, PT. Don't really think we differ much on these points, except that I think my labeling of SOME of the stronger voices in the current anti-war movement is on target. Cindy Sheehan, for example, is NO moderate. Anyone who calls Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" - and this including those blowing up troops like her own son - well, such a person can hardly be called "moderate." Her remarks have defined her as a radical.
.
Brian, I'm really not picking on you, but all I see here is more justification and a return to "rant" about Sheehan. Perhaps you're familiar with a line from Shakespeare: "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." I have to wonder just why you feel you have to keep hammering about Sheehan, when the real point is the use of labels and how they detract from the message and cloud one's credibility.
.
If you really agreed with what I said, you would not have responded as you did.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle