Ideological Labels

Consider these two lists:

• White, gay, woman, and
• Liberal, Christian, Empath

These are both lists of "labels" that a person applies to themselves or has applied to them by other people.

The first list contains properties of the person themselves. These types of labels are those of identity. A person's actions or physical portrayal dictate which label is appropriate, and it is hard to change this label. People use this label as a descriptive tool for other people's identity. This label has two uses: the first is simply a description to help distinguish a person from another; the second is to state or imply some social expectation in societies which enforce such expectations. Thus, these are 'falsifiable' identities which can often be dismissed upon viewing contradictory evidence.

The second list contains claims about the person's interiority.11I note an inherent contradiction I hold here. Someone's sexual orientation is a part of their identity but manifests mainly in the person's interiority. However, the functional manifestation (and thus, the label others will put on them) is a physical behavior and not one of expression. These types of labels are those of ideology. A person's thoughts or motivations dictate which label is appropriate, but these thoughts and motivations are only truly ever visible to one's self. In order to determine which label is appropriate for someone other than themselves, one must observe some expression22Broadly what we Americans would call 'speech' by the person in question and determine which label fits best. These identities are inherently difficult or impossible to falsify, are easy to claim, and require a form of diagnosis to apply.1I note an inherent contradiction I hold here. Someone's sexual orientation is a part of their identity but manifests mainly in the person's interiority. However, the functional manifestation (and thus, the label others will put on them) is a physical behavior and not one of expression.2Broadly what we Americans would call 'speech'

Knowing someone's ideological label provides context33Of the stereotypical kind to what they will say and what they believe. Having a certain label applied to you can make you more believable to some people and less believable by others. For example: an atheist talking about Christianity44All other variables held equal is less believable to Christians than another Christian saying the same thing. This implied context is effective at opening or closing doors in discourse. A person's identity label doesn't seem to have the same effect in our current society. Outside of conversations about 'lived experience,' identity labels do not engender this contextual reliability.3Of the stereotypical kind4All other variables held equal

What interests me about this list is the difficulty of accurate ideological labeling versus identity labeling. If I want to figure out a person's ideological label, I have to look at the expressions performed by the person in question and draw my own conclusion. To sidestep that, many people will self-label.55My label is "difficult and without conviction." This presents an issue: you can claim something you aren't to change the implied context of your speech. This is used by demagogues and grifters regularly to convince you to either believe them or not believe another.5My label is "difficult and without conviction."

Here are a few examples that come to mind right now:

• Bill Maher calls himself a liberal66In the 'not on the right' sense, not in the liberal-vs-left sense. In leftist spaces, liberal is a negative thing because it is essentially conservative in the 'conservative application of government to the markets' sense... See what I mean about definitions being amorphous? and yet is racist against people from the middle east, anti-trans, anti-labor. He invites and speaks to more far-right people than many right-wing pundits, and he does so while saying that 'he's the only person on the left who will talk to people on both sides.' However, because he uses the 'liberal' label, he reaches a different audience than he would if he were properly labeled as a conservative pundit.6In the 'not on the right' sense, not in the liberal-vs-left sense. In leftist spaces, liberal is a negative thing because it is essentially conservative in the 'conservative application of government to the markets' sense... See what I mean about definitions being amorphous?
• Steven Anderson is a Christian Pastor77Which is a label you can simply apply to yourself and perform. while claiming to know what god meant when it comes to who deserved to be killed. This man is Westboro Baptist Church levels of hate and advocates the death penalty for gay people88See this article from the SPLC and preaches that all gays are pedophiles. He spews fear to his congregation about the Democratic party and further equates Obama with Hitler, Stalin, and Dahmer.99A transcript of these selections from his sermons have been compiled at this site. The people who I speak to about pastors like this1010There are plenty more. will respond with "well they aren't real Christians."1111This is one of the purest forms of the No True Scotsman fallacy Well, he claims to be a Christian, and his flock believes him.7Which is a label you can simply apply to yourself and perform.8See this article from the SPLC9A transcript of these selections from his sermons have been compiled at this site.10There are plenty more.11This is one of the purest forms of the No True Scotsman fallacy
• The empath label shows up more on the influencer/meme side of things, particularly in apology videos to avoid having to deal with the consequences of their own statements. Recall all of the 'I'm an empath' posts and memes you may see. This label is quite annoying because it is a vacuous one1212Empathy is a rather common trait among people... that implies a deeper caring towards other people than the average person.12Empathy is a rather common trait among people...

This is akin to stolen valor but is harder to police because there are no analogous service records to check. It is difficult to fake being black,1313See Rachel Dolezal but it is not difficult to fake being Christian. One might be able to argue that it is easy to fake your sexual orientation, but it does require quite a bit of effort to maintain this facade, one which evidence to the contrary would dissolve.13See Rachel Dolezal

Be aware that this is something people do to disable your rhetorical defenses. The only real defense against this is to be critical and reflect. Don't distrust by default, that makes for a crappy world. Instead, go back and reviewIntellectual Hygiene2026-08-22 · mental_toolingKnowledge is like a garden:← 2 links hereopen → your conversation with them and what your impression of them was at a later time when they aren't available. Form your own conclusion free from their further interference.