Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Personally, I agree with them to an extent. However, for the majority of us, not all of our political ideologies align perfectly; for example, I would consider myself a moderate conservative. They are pretty contradictory. So, how valid, and, to an extent, how useful, are political labels?

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

Well, considering there is a political label for nearly every single belief nowadays, I'd say it depends on the individuals knowledge of said labels.

For example, I consider myself to be an Extreme Liberal/New Atheist.

But even so, why are they necessary? Like, if I claim to be conservative, great. But do all of my values and beliefs systems line up to conservative ideals? Absolutely not. So why would they be needed for political justice?

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

I'd imagine if someone asks you you're political views, they would allow you to elaborate on any deviations from the ideology.

You could say "I'm mostly conservative but I differ on some points... [insert points here]"

It's just a matter of elaboration and explanation.

But why is the differnetiation necessary? On another subject, has the labeling of political labeling increased or decreased government efficacy?

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

I don't really care to be honest. I don't care who it is; I don't care about their political stance.

I also know absolutely nothing about politics so, that is all.

I'm not going to lie, I straight up do not understand the second part of your sentence, bt the differentiation is possible so people have a name for their beliefs...

Imagine this:

"Hey, what are your views on politics?"

"There's no name for it, but I could write a manifesto and give that to you, we'll call it 'Ambiguityism'"

Validity? Hm, I don't find them any valid at all, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. We all know nothing is Black & White, everything is Grey. But, how can you fully explain your opinions, beliefs and outlooks if you have no terms or labels for them? Well, here is where these labels become useful.

Political labels are as close to being true as social labels or religious labels. They're never close to your beliefs, but you can use the closest one to describe your beliefs. After all, it's near impossible to describe your beliefs/outlooks/feelings 100& accurately, and using labels makes it easier.

In short, I consider them invalid but useful.

Mistakes are made, and regrets are our luggage; we will drag them with us to slow us down.
The victories are flashes of light, sudden and unlasting, which allow us to glimpse the road ahead before darkness descends.

Love is bitter, yet it is the bread that keeps us. Over and over it fills us up, only to starve us.
The people whom we love shape our destinies and our strengths,yet leave us cold and alone in the darkness.

i think if you analyse anyones views be them left or right they will find elements of the opposite contradicting their stance somewhere

I find them fairly useless and not valid either for the most part. In general, one usually does not agree with every stance and position that the label they assume implies. If you accept this assumption, then if all you know about the person is a political label, there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to which of those positions or stances that they disagree with. That leaves you with not much of where a person does stand politically.

Continuing on though, I would agree that if a label were descriptive enough to inform a bystander of the majority of their political beliefs then I suppose it can be useful to some extent. However, most political labels (especially in America) do not inform but rather confuse and distort someones understanding. Specifically, I would point to the labels "Liberal" And " conservative". A Liberal, in its purist meaning, is a term that suggests that one puts liberty first when thinking about politics. However, in recent years, a liberal has become more synonymous with bigger governments, social programs, and personal freedom, sometimes at the expense of liberty. Those are two distinct categories in which a person who says he is liberal can be addressing. That could end up confusing rather than informing. A "conservative" used to be thought of, and sometimes still is, as someone who prefers to preserve the status quo. Recently, they have been described as returning to smaller forms of government involvement, which would not be the status quo. There are many different occasions in which world leaders have been called both liberal and conservative by different groups of people (Notably Gorbachev and Jiang Zemin). In that case, as in most cases, political labels are confusing not informing and are therefore useless.