Dangerous Labels

“If you name me, you negate me. By giving me a name, a label, you negate all the other things I could possibly be.”

– Søren Kierkegaard (attributed)

Labels can be a useful tool. After all, people want to distinguish salt from sugar without trial and error.

At the risk of stating the obvious though, a label is useful only insofar as it accurately tells people what is inside the box.

There is the remote possibility someone may have played a practical joke and placed salt in the sugar tin. In such a case, the label gives false confidence.

But the dangers of labels extend far further than that, especially when dealing with all the complexity of labelling people, groups, and ideas.

After all, we all know what salt is, and it can’t change to become anything other than salt. But what if there are different or even conflicting understandings about what a label refers to?

• One person’s “far left” might mean socialized healthcare.
• Another hears it and thinks of forced labour camps.
• One person’s “far right” might mean wanting to enforce border laws.
• Another hears it and thinks of forced labour camps.

If we do not agree on what a label means, how useful are such labels in the discourse at all? As argued in No. 9 Healthy Language, using the same words, with different understandings of their meaning, can be worse than speaking completely different languages.

We ought to be aware of the dangers of labels as they can be used to deceive, mislead, or obscure.

The origin of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ can be traced back to the French Revolution in 1789. Within the National Assembly, broadly speaking, those who sought to conserve sat to the right of the presiding officer, while those who favoured revolutionary change sat to the left.

But what happens once the revolution occurs? Do the labels switch as those who sought change, now want to conserve the new system? After all, if you revolve 180 degrees, what was to your left is now to your right.

Do the ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels stick like a nametag, following the same people no matter their changing ideas?

The “right” in one place and time could be considered “left” in another place, or another time. It is rare that such labels are employed with all the context needed to avoid confusion.

If proper context was provided it may reveal more about the person applying labels than the person being labelled. After all, if someone is standing to the “left” of Lenin, even moderate ‘left-wing’ views may seem “far right”.

Labels like “Right-wing” or “Left-wing” flatten complexity, encourage groupthink, and lead to:

• Stereotyping
• Tribalism
• Vilification of those outside the group

When we prioritise the binary labels ‘left’ and ‘right’ over distinctions like ‘moderate’ versus ‘extreme’, then the middle ground is eroded and society becomes polarised.

There are often extreme views associated with any label. Competing groups are incentivised to amplify those extreme voices identified with that label to discourage associating with it and to discredit anyone who does.

People who hold moderate views hear of some of these extreme voices and begin to identify with whatever groups are opposing them. However, the same process occurs in the other direction.

This process discourages dialogue and creates a self-reinforcing cycle; the moderates, ostracised by those who associate them with the extreme, drift toward those very ideas on their ‘side’.

There is a danger of people becoming trapped by such labels. You should not be able to predict all of someone’s beliefs just from hearing one of them.

There’s a significant difference between saying “he holds “conservative” or ”liberal” views” and “he IS a “conservative” or ”liberal”. One describes a set of ideas that might be provisional, limited, or context dependent. The other implies a fixed identity, something total and unchangeable. It assumes you know all you need to know without asking another question. And it quietly suggests that they can’t change their mind. Labels can begin to have the permanence of a tattoo.

This is often simply intellectual laziness, but can also be strategic, shifting attention away from a critical evaluation of the ideas, and toward vague associations and emotional reactions. Labels become a shortcut for discrediting and an excuse to dismiss out of hand, rather than a tool for genuine discussion.

Political views don’t neatly map onto a simple left-right binary. Reality is not black or white… it’s not even every shade of grey. It is a 3D kaleidoscope of every colour in every shade that is constantly changing.

Labels can be a useful way to start making sense of such complexity, but they should be used with caution and transparency. If your only two categories are Red and Blue, what do you label the Sistine Chapel?

Others have described these problems in far more depth and detail than I can here. I am not looking to add another voice to that commentary. As a tech entrepreneur, I’d rather focus on building the solution.

• A solution that meant we could be sure labels accurately reflect what is in the box.
• A solution that meant we would have all the context needed to determine whether the label sticks.
• A solution that makes it so labels open, rather than shut down, further discussion.

HealthyDebate would make it so that people need to justify the labels they pin on others.

• Call someone ‘controversial’… what was the controversy?
• Call someone ‘respected’… by whom?
• Call someone a radical? …What exactly is radical about their views?

The HealthyDebate framework offers an unprecedented opportunity to confront and unpack dangerous labels. Every label can be challenged, sparking a new debate where the labeller must justify their choice, and others can argue why it doesn’t apply.

By making the reasoning on both sides transparent, HealthyDebate empowers people to decide for themselves whether a label sticks. Through HealthyDebate, where clarity, explanation, and engagement are required, true understanding becomes possible.

HealthyDebate.org is a not-for-profit organization, incorporated in Delaware to benefit from First Amendment protections. It will apply for 501(c)(3) status so donations can be tax-deductible. It will be crowdfunded to avoid even the perception of capture by special interests.

Impartiality is more than a principle. It’s a strategic necessity. If we want everyone at the table, we have to build something that earns their trust.

The public crowdfunding campaign has not yet launched, and that’s intentional. People are far more likely to donate when it is recommended by people they know and trust, when experienced leaders are involved, and when it shows clear signs of momentum. Before going public, the goal is to build a strong foundation by:

• Securing endorsements from respected voices across the political spectrum who are ready to publicly support the mission.
• Involving individuals committed to truth-seeking through open, civil debate with a proven record of success.
• Engaging people with influential platforms who are prepared to amplify the message.

Whether that means donating, (constructively) critiquing, connecting via social media, or getting involved, every contribution makes a difference and would be appreciated.

But most importantly I’d ask to please share this. It’s the only way a spark becomes a wildfire.

Or, at least, prepare your arguments. The debates that shape the future are coming.

Be part of the solution. Be seen to be part of the solution.

Support HealthyDebate.org.