From 7c48441eb48e82c4c3d8305f8f5cd4e830f67ea1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Katharina Fey Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:39:31 +0000 Subject: Releasing article about political labels --- content/blog/110_labels.md | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ content/blog/xxx_labels.md | 86 ---------------------------------------------- 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-) create mode 100644 content/blog/110_labels.md delete mode 100644 content/blog/xxx_labels.md diff --git a/content/blog/110_labels.md b/content/blog/110_labels.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7faa20d --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/110_labels.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +Title: Labels are language +Category: Blog +Date: 2019-09-20 15:38 +Tags: politics + + +A phrase that I've heard way too fucking often recently (this edition +will contain swearing and might not be suitable for children of ages +below `NaN`) is "I don't care about labels, I want to do politics!" + +As one might expect, this sentiment often comes from centrists. But +more often than not, it comes from fellow leftists. People who are +otherwise somewhat radical in their approach of the world, people who +think capitalism's gotta go and (sometimes) that states and borders +are bad. And it's a stance that has confused me, and keeps confusing +me and which is why I'm now writing a blog post about it because +apparently that's what I do. + +The problem I have with "I don't care about labels" is that it's +analogous to "I don't care about language". + +Labels are a linguistic tool to talk about `$stuff` without having to +build up an entire language from first principles in every +sentence. Labels are very useful for general conversation about +things, like "what is a table?", "what is a train?", "what is art?", +etc. + +When we look at the definition of labels, there's usually three +kinds. There's labels for **natural things, with natural +definitions**, such as the definition of a prime number. These are +farely rare. Neither the definition of prime numbers, nor prime +numbers themselves are going to change due to cultural context. + +Secondly, you have labels that refer to **natural things, with +cultural definitions**. These are things like planets, mountains or +rain. Definitions can change and they're also subject to cultural +differences. What you and I consider "rain" will most likely depend on +where we grew up, if there was frequent rain at all, etc. + +The last category are **cultural things, with cultural definitions**, +such as art, sub-categories of it (movies, games, etc), as well as any +identity label. Calling myself an anarchist doesn't naturally depend +on anarchy as a concept occuring in nature, nor can I define it just +by pointing at other properties of natural definitions. Rather, I need +to pre-define a whole bunch of cultural context, for you to be able to +understand why I am an anarchist and what that means. + +**And that's the fucking job of labels!** We can't have the same 5 +conversations over and over again and we can't rely on the trust that +people around us are always gonna be on our side. We should have +conversations from time to time about what these labels mean to us, +especially when it becomes clear that there's miscommunication. + +But also, just because we're having a conversation about labels, +doesn't mean we need to start bikeshedding their definitions and scope +(whether it be anarchy, libertarian socialist, libertarian +communists - these are all kind of similar enough to work with). Their +context is still there to be used. + +That doesn't mean that I am okay with any vaguely leftist label. I +have, over the last year or so, become more sceptical of communism, +talking about how you want to guillotine people and similar. Being an +anarchist means being opposed to state violence, no matter who's state +it is. But this isn't a conversation that is easy to have if I don't +already know a bunch of labels and can refer back to them. Furthermore, +maybe I don't _want_ to have this conversation in certain situations +so why would I have to engage with tankies when I don't want to? + +Most of the time the people who say "I don't care about labels, I +wanna do poltics", never do any politics due to lack of a platform or +language to engage with similarly minded people about strategy. +That's because political action depends on the people doing it having +some understanding of the work they're doing, how it relates to others +and themselves. There's a reason why minority groups rely on labels +(such as people in the LGBTQ community), and they serve an important +role in our discourse. + +This is not to say that we should try to make the onboarding easier +and use less jargon language when dealing with outsiders. Making +people more sympathetic to the radical left is important, albeit not a +job everybody might want to do. + +Still...I feel labels are important, especially when we deal with +internal discourse. For the sake of the conversation, and everybody +involved in it. diff --git a/content/blog/xxx_labels.md b/content/blog/xxx_labels.md deleted file mode 100644 index d19253b..0000000 --- a/content/blog/xxx_labels.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,86 +0,0 @@ -Title: Labels are language -Category: Blog -Date: 2015-09-17 15:30 -Tags: politics -Status: Draft - - -A phrase that I've heard way too fucking often recently (this edition -will contain swearing and might not be suitable for children of ages -below `NaN`) is "I don't care about labels, I want to do politics!" - -As one might expect, this sentiment often comes from centrists. But -more often than not, it comes from fellow leftists. People who are -otherwise somewhat radical in their approach of the world, people who -think capitalism's gotta go and (sometimes) that states and borders -are bad. And it's a stance that has confused me, and keeps confusing -me and which is why I'm now writing a blog post about it because -apparently that's what I do. - -The problem I have with "I don't care about labels" is that it's -analogous to "I don't care about language". - -Labels are a linguistic tool to talk about `$stuff` without having to -build up an entire language from first principles in every -sentence. Labels are very useful for general conversation about -things, like "what is a table?", "what is a train?", "what is art?", -etc. - -When we look at the definition of labels, there's usually three -kinds. There's labels for **natural things, with natural -definitions**, such as the definition of a prime number. These are -farely rare. Neither the definition of prime numbers, nor prime -numbers themselves are going to change due to cultural context. - -Secondly, you have labels that refer to **natural things, with -cultural definitions**. These are things like planets, mountains or -rain. Definitions can change and they're also subject to cultural -differences. What you and I consider "rain" will most likely depend on -where we grew up, if there was frequent rain at all, etc. - -The last category are **cultural things, with cultural definitions**, -such as art, sub-categories of it (movies, games, etc), as well as any -identity label. Calling myself an anarchist doesn't naturally depend -on anarchy as a concept occuring in nature, nor can I define it just -by pointing at other properties of natural definitions. Rather, I need -to pre-define a whole bunch of cultural context, for you to be able to -understand why I am an anarchist and what that means. - -**And that's the fucking job of labels!** We can't have the same 5 -conversations over and over again and we can't rely on the trust that -people around us are always gonna be on our side. We should have -conversations from time to time about what these labels mean to us, -especially when it becomes clear that there's miscommunication. - -But also, just because we're having a conversation about labels, -doesn't mean we need to start bikeshedding their definitions and scope -(whether it be anarchy, libertarian socialist, libertarian -communists - these are all kind of similar enough to work with). Their -context is still there to be used. - -That doesn't mean that I am okay with any vaguely leftist label. I -have, over the last year or so, become more sceptical of communism, -talking about how you want to guillotine people and similar. Being an -anarchist means being opposed to state violence, no matter who's state -it is. But this isn't a conversation that is easy to have if I don't -already know a bunch of labels and can refer back to them. Furthermore, -maybe I don't _want_ to have this conversation in certain situations -so why would I have to engage with tankies when I don't want to? - -Most of the time the people who say "I don't care about labels, I -wanna do poltics", never do any politics due to lack of a platform or -language to engage with similarly minded people about strategy. -That's because political action depends on the people doing it having -some understanding of the work they're doing, how it relates to others -and themselves. There's a reason why minority groups rely on labels -(such as people in the LGBTQ community), and they serve an important -role in our discourse. - -This is not to say that we should try to make the onboarding easier -and use less jargon language when dealing with outsiders. Making -people more sympathetic to the radical left is important, albeit not a -job everybody might want to do. - -Still...I feel labels are important, especially when we deal with -internal discourse. For the sake of the conversation, and everybody -involved in it. -- cgit v1.2.3