tedsta.com >> tedy

there are many times when i am in the positions to argue with the so-called “right-wing” and “left-wing” povs. but why the label? people tend to forget that this type of politicking is neither justified nor verifiable. life is so complex that it cannot be divided into two main streams. well, not according to them. apparently, they can divide them into so many other divisions: social conservatism, neoconservatism, compassionate conservatism, classical conservatism, socialism, social democrat, liberalism, progressive, and god knows what else…..

given in the past two years, my social circle has been inundated with ‘left wing friends and views’, i have no choice but to argue with them from the other side pov. but it is not for the sake of arguing. merely, developing the belief system that our society has already imposed on us, prior to our births. even so, i have always been ready to admit and concede on many grounds my povs on certain matters. they didnt want to concede, because they cannot justify why they are wrong. but the so-called label of ‘right wing, conservative, bush supporters, and even confused:P’ stays with me. im not whinging. i just want to make a casual observation of how things are shaping up among the young people, because they will be standard bearers of what the future will be.

the notion that if one argues strongly from a right-wing view, then they must belief in all the right-wing arguments or povs (or vice versa) is completely mindblowing. This makes politics of politics like a teamsport. people are willing to support their so-called ‘team’, even when they are wrong. i dont want to go as far as ‘labeling’ them ‘blind devotion’, not just because it is as old as time, but because they are smart, intelligent, engaging and open minded individuals.

the paradox of labeling can not be clearer than ‘if you agree with Bush on one thing, you must be right wing, you must be on agreement with him in all his beliefs, you must vote Republicans, you must support the war, etc etc – otherwise you dont know what you are talking about’. how silly is that?

in any debate, the use of language and the choice of words you use will define the whole debate. you will find however, that many people who argue about ‘choice’ neglects other things that require choice. yet their choice to use the word ‘choice’ is misleading if not exagerrating to the point of trolling. take for example, the whole ‘left’ argument about ‘pro choice’, but where do they stand on education or pension?? how is it that government control over those will create ‘choice’ for private citizens?? or even the ‘right’ argument that ‘war is a necessary evil, especially in human pursuit of freedom’. if evil is bad in any case, how could it be necessary?? wouldnt you say that ‘dictatorship can be a necessary evil’ to bring about order in a society?

ironic isnt it?

perhaps our extensive usage of ‘labeling’ is ultimately, for convenience. but this elaborate use has taken a new meaning. people are attaching certain sentiments with certain words, be it negative or positive connotations. many people forget (or neglect) that it is by itself: divisive, pointless and does not advance the quality of any arguments.

lets call it a quid-pro-quo (or is it a ‘tit-for-tat’). no more labels. and the politics of politics will be much better.