Lose the labels

Sadly it seems to be becoming far more common these days. It’s usually a sign that the name caller is bereft of any valid intellectual arguments with which to rebut those of someone they disagree with. So instead they attach a derogatory label to that person in an attempt to demean their views along with the person themselves.

For example, call me slow on the uptake but until the last few weeks I had never heard of the term ‘woke’ other than in its original meaning. It seems that ‘woke’ has now become a term used to disparage anybody who dares to care about things like equality, human rights, social justice, or such like.

I will return to this specific addition to our lexicon shortly but first let’s deal with the more general point of political labelling.

Name calling is definitely a sign of a person’s own political and cerebral limitations, rather than being a sign of incisive wit or sparkling repartee. Unfortunately, though, in this world where shallow populism is strongly in the ascendancy the name caller is likely to get a lot of positive feedback and public affirmation. That’s only likely to make the problem worse in the years ahead.

I suppose it is human nature but many people, if they are interested in politics at all, seem to regard it as a blood sport. So negativity and point scoring get applauded, while those trying their hardest to bring about really difficult policy development on behalf of the community get stoned. As part of that narrative name calling seems to be gaining currency. ‘That’s told him, he’s nothing but a so-and-so.’ Fifteen-love.

I’m definitely not asking for politics to stop being a rough trade where the battle of ideas can occasionally be bruising. Indeed, I warmly welcome powerful rhetoric and occasionally engage in it myself – or try to anyway. Passion – even anger – is a sign that people genuinely care about things. My point is that any oratorical exocets which are launched should be fired at the ideas/arguments/policies, not at those espousing them.

If those people are such wilting flowers that they then get all upset about having their views challenged, or even shot down in flames, then tough. That is what free speech, and the rough and tumble of politics, is all about. All I am asking is for everybody to stick to attacking policies and not those advocating them. In sporting parlance, ‘play the ball and not the man’.

Name calling and label hanging are very much in the bracket of attacks on individuals rather than on their ideas. They are juvenile and reflect far more on the people making such jibes than they do on the butts of them.

There are lots of different examples.

For years now anybody worried about the environment (which should surely be anybody with a modicum of common sense) has all too often been dismissed with derogatory epithets such ‘tree hugger’ or ‘bobble-hat wearer’. It really is feeble.

That is not to say everything that environmentalists say is right. If you think they are talking nonsense then lay into what they are saying with gusto. Demolish their arguments with counter points of your own. If you upset them as individuals, simply because your superior logic has confounded them and their views, then so be it. They need to get over it. That is a product of honest debate taking place in a democracy which enjoys free speech.

All I ask is that you attack what they are saying from first principles and don’t just dismiss it by calling them names. I know name calling is a much safer strategy than genuine debate because there is far less risk of the other person being able to come back on you and show that it is really you who is talking rubbish. But please take that risk. Show everybody that you have the courage and backbone to engage in a war of ideas. It is so much more grown up than slinging insults.

I would say exactly the same to those on the left of politics who dub everyone to right of them as ‘fascists’. That is both pathetic and reprehensible. Fascism is an evil philosophy and just because someone else might believe in a smaller state than you do, or possibly a harsher justice system, it definitely does not make them Hitler, Mussolini or Mosley. Argue back and make your point. Don’t label them.

In the same vein I really hate both racism and xenophobia but I am very careful about when and where I allege it. Not that I am afraid to call out any actions or views which genuinely deserve such labels but it is all too easy to use them as hyperbole for moderate nationalism, cultural conservatism or a lack of exposure to, or understanding of, diversity. I may want to challenge such attitudes but in my experience doing so by simple name calling just results in deeper trenches.

Which brings me back to calling somebody ‘woke’. Not only am I still struggling to fully understand exactly what it means but I have no idea how this name came about. Can someone please enlighten me? Was it something claimed by those who felt they were better informed on social issues than others? That was very smug if so. Or was it a derogatory term coined by those who disliked social progressiveness?

Frankly I don’t really care, but I do know that just like ‘leftie’, ‘fascist’, ‘tree hugger’ or ‘liberal elite’, labelling somebody ‘woke’ to dismiss their arguments is a clear sign of your own limitations. Disagreements are natural and unavoidable. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise but if someone’s views outrage you then for goodness sake argue back using your own critique of the facts, don’t just revert to the school playground.