I agree mostly Micheal!
And a convenient label is an easy way out for someone who can't defend and argument or ideology!
But particularly where such defense may well be accompanied by the smell of burning emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits!?
Or even worse, if the mouth only flaps when a strong west wind blows?
All levity aside, no comprehensive thought or thought process, or reasoned logic is required to pin a label; bur rather, its complete lack!
Rhrosty.

It goes both ways too, if people responded to being labeled with a pejorative with silence or the words "So what?" instead of indignation and embarrassment the puritans and wowsers would soon find someone else to annoy.

Michael, you do not have to look beyond the pages of this site to see regular examples of commenters proffering their views on other commenters with the use of such labels as anti-American; conspiracy theorist etc. It is nearly always the same small group, hiding behind anonymity. It is nearly always also a substitution for thought. So much easier to attack the assumed stances of the writer than it is to address the issues raised.

It is not helped in Australia by the almost complete absence of a critical mainstream media. I used to think that they were simply ignorant, but in more recent years I have reached the reluctant conclusion that this is deliberate policy. A line of argument is chosen, presumably by the editors, and nothing is ever said that deviates from that line. Not so much from deliberate falsehoods, although those abound, but by the suppression of information.

The TPP, the demonisation of Russia and Putin, the MH17 crash, the origins of ISIS, the Eurasian projects of China and Russia, the apartheid horror that is modern Israel, the constant Warren Commission propaganda on SBS, are only some of the current examples. You could no doubt add many of your own.

In my view this raises a serious question about the nature and durability of our democracy. When the government and the Opposition are an echo chamber on so many issues I doubt that we have a functioning democracy any more.

I agree, though I think there are worse examples than those quoted.

My pet hate is when the media uses labels that are laden with value judgements, and effectively identify goodies and baddies. Political figures (especially overseas) are sometimes labeled "moderate", "hard-line" etc. When a journalist wants to endorse a paticular person's views it is not uncommon for the person to be labeled "highly respected" etc.

Favoured political policies are often labeled as "reforms" or "progressive". I could go on.

I totally disagree, Michael.

It is perfectly normal and natural for human beings to categorise everything. Science is largely in the business of the categorisation of everything in existence.. But even ordinary human beings categorise and form judgements about groups of people every day. Human beings rarely think in specifics, we usually think in generalities by forming opinions about prejudged concepts. We form concepts about the values, attitudes and behaviours of the particular groups we categorise, and we form good and bad judgements (prejudgements) about them. We would not be able to form opinions about groups of people if we did not.

It is not the act of forming prejudgements of groups of people which is wrong, it is being sloppy in our thinking, not being objective, and not bothering to form realistic and accurate judgements about other groups which is the problem.

The deliberate attribution of negative characteristics to entire groups of people that have no basis in fact can be considered reprehensible. But forming general opinions, both good and bad, is also called "thinking." To say that people should not form judgements about others is akin to saying that a person should not think.

If there is nothing wrong with making positive generalisations and saying that Italians have a flair for design, or that that Asians respect education, or that Australians are generally laid back people, then there is nothing wrong with making negative generalisations either.

Although it is now illegal in Australia to make negative generalisations about certain protected minorities because we may collectively "offend" them. The degree of Freedom of speech in Australia is now the thickness of the skin of some self spokesperson for some aggrieved minority group

No, not the rise of Labellers but the response of the Labelled (Liabled?). It's just that productive members of society have worked out that they have to also play the word games of "Progressives tm". Suck it up petal, its obviously just an unexpected consequence of decades of abuse, manners no longer protect you.