The problem with labels in arguments
And how to have meaningful dialogue when a label is weaponized
This post is for paid subscribers only. If you are still able to read the article, it probably means you have already paid. Ευχαριστώ. Do check your bank account though. We care.
A high school physics teacher once enforced a rule in his classes which still stands out to me as the single best method in learning — ‘You’re only allowed to use a new word once it’s been defined and everyone agrees on its meaning’.
What did this look like in practice? When learning about objects moving at a constant speed, for example, we weren’t allowed to use terms like force, acceleration, or gravity. If we wanted to introduce a new word, we had two choices: take the time to define it for the class, or stick to concepts we’d already established.
That same principle of establishing shared understanding before using a term feels increasingly rare in social discourse.
During conversations about policies, politics, and beliefs, I’ve often heard someone in the group make a quip along the lines of, “That is an X argument” where the X could be ‘communist’, ‘conservative’, ‘sexist’, or the like. It seems intelligent in its premise: someone is able to summarize a nuanced and lengthy argument into a single, succinct label.
Sometimes however, the single, succinct label ‘X’ is used to discredit someone’s nuanced argument. Instead of moving the discussion forward, it’s weaponized to attack the speaker and discredit their argument quickly. Too quickly. Now, the burden of proof shifts: the speaker must defend herself against the label, rather than have her original argument considered on its own merits. And because labels come preloaded with assumptions and baggage, choosing not to reject the label can imply tacit acceptance of everything that comes with it.
Scott Alexander calls this the Non-Central Fallacy—when a label technically applies to something but leads us to reject it based on extreme or unrelated associations. His article shows someone dismissing a scientific concept as “sexist,” not because it devalues women, but because it talks about sex differences at all. The word might technically apply, but it’s doing more to stop the conversation than to clarify it.
″Evolutionary psychology is sexist!” If you define “sexist” as “believing in some kind of difference between the sexes”, this is true of at least some evo psych. For example, Bateman’s Principle states that in species where females invest more energy in producing offspring, mating behavior will involve males pursuing females; this posits a natural psychological difference between the sexes. “Right, so you admit it’s sexist!” “And why exactly is sexism bad?” “Because sexism claims that men are better than women and that women should have fewer rights!” “Does Bateman’s principle claim that men are better than women, or that women should have fewer rights?” “Well...not really.” “Then what’s wrong with it?” “It’s sexist!”
So what can I do about it? The next time a label gets thrown into a conversation in an attack, this is a note to myself to pause, turn around, and ask the label-lover to define it.
“What do you mean by X?” or “Why do you think this is X?”
Maybe that way, the onus of defense goes back to the wielder of labels, and we can open the door to more meaningful dialogue with respect, nuance, and shared understanding.