I'm listening to a conversation on Fascism, a topic that is certainly relevant lately. But I have to admit, I found myself getting frustrated with the self-imposed roadblocks distracting from the actual goal of the discussion.
I often say that I have a love-hate relationship with labels. On one hand, they help me think, categorize ideas, and work out relationships between concepts. But I also know they can become distracting and ineffective. A label is ultimately a tool — a shortcut used to convey a broader idea, establish context, or edify a larger point. But it is remarkably easy to stop focusing on the bullseye and start focusing on the label itself.
What is even more interesting to me is that, depending on the situation, people may intentionally misuse labels to emphasize a point. Sometimes the goal is not perfect precision, but rather planting a giant red flag in the middle of the room so it cannot be ignored by the participants.
The conversation on Fascism — or rather, the frustrating conversation about Fascism — became lost in the pursuit of perfection.
“Are you being hyperbolic when using that word? Maybe you shouldn’t use it then.”
That became the corrective coaching offered by the more experienced conversationalists. The focus shifted entirely. Mislabeling itself became the crime.
The truth is that I can simultaneously grant that a word is being used hyperbolically while also believing the other person should move past the imperfect label and address the actual concern being raised: a terrible freedom-restricting policy, a pseudo-police-force-breaking norm, or some other alarming trend.
Hyper-focusing on absolute precision in labeling can become just as ineffective as paralysis by analysis. I will not go as far as to say the conversation was redirected in bad faith, but it might as well have been.
To steelman the argument for precision, I do want to be clear: yes, if we become too careless with labels — calling everyone racist, fascist, or any other loaded term — the labels eventually become toothless. Words lose meaning, and our broader goals may end up being hurt rather than helped.
I understand the argument. It makes sense.
But it can also be true that someone has already weighed the cost of imprecision and decided it is worth paying for the sake of urgency, emphasis, or simply moving the conversation forward.
Maybe I’m being naive here, but I’m more than OK with someone pushing back.
Ironically, the conversation about labels might not be over yet.
MenO
Really well analyzed.
In the pursuit of academic accuracy we should not completely deny our instincts. This might be the case of "I know it when I see it."
The phrase comes from a famous opinion by Potter Stewart, a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 1964 obscenity case Jacobellis v. Ohio.
The actual quote was:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [‘hard-core pornography’]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”
Stewart was explaining the difficulty of creating a precise legal definition for “hard-core pornography” or obscenity. The Court was trying to decide whether a film was legally obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment.
Over time, the quote got shortened and paraphrased into versions like:
“Pornography cannot be defined, but you know it when you see it.”
“I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.”
The phrase became culturally famous because it captures a broader idea: some categories are hard to define formally, yet people feel they can recognize them intuitively. It’s now used far beyond pornography law — in aesthetics, politics, AI, ethics, and everyday speech.
As an atheist, I know that this is partially hypocritical, because I'm allowing personal experience to have a lot of power in this case. The reason it's partial though, is because I'm basing the experience on a natural phenomena.
It's easier to use the authoritarian/libertarian axis for making distinctions instead of bickering over which flavor of authoritarianism we need to oppose as if the difference really matters. But people are afraid of libertarianism. We need to pick a favorite warlord, because without warlords, warlords might take over!
lol... it is really that simple, and that silly
Words all have a important value to them. Unfortunately, this fact is increasingly overlooked, or ignored altogether in languages. Not to mention the too little attention to this subjet, or none at all, in schools.
Added to this is the fact that everyone has their own interpretation of a word, which further complicates communication.
Conclusion: Unfortunately, many people are now only able to ‘discuss’ matters with a biased judgement.
Lucky us, there is no rule without an exception. Not yet, at least...
right. stay on point. misdirection is a dirty tactic.
#hive #posh