> It is possible to say that is an outrageous act or that is an outrageous
> idea _without_ judging that the person is outrageous. Also, see Bertell
> Ollman, Alienation. Chapter 4, "Is There a Marxian Ethic?" Judgments
> need not be _moralistic_ judgments: they can be political or social,
> with no attempt to judge the person.
(BTW, I do know how to spell "Carrol" after all this time...)
I'm pretty much in agreement with the above, as written. One only merits a label like 'racist' or 'imperialist' when all evidence indicates one is completely beyond being persuaded to take another course. Actions or ideas can justifiably be labeled as racist or imperialist, but the people identified with same can at times recognize the negative consequences of their positions or behavior and make amends or alterations.
In general, and especially in a discussion or dialogue, it's counterintuitive to label someone in such a way that they find the very core of their 'being' under attack, as opposed to harboring ideas that could conceivably be jettisoned without too many consequences. (One sees it happen repeatedly every day in online interactions.) If they refuse or are unable to do so, then the only relevant consideration is whether they will exert a widespread influence on the ideas or behavior of others. If all indications are that that's not the case, then they can be ignored. If, however, they show every sign of continuing on whatever path they're on and multiplying the effects, then more drastic measures would need to come into play.
Labels in general are very problematic. Doesn't the 'fixed' nature of a label run counter to everything we know about the ephemeral, organic processes of life and interaction? Maybe I'm just underlining one of the paradoxes of being human (language, etc.).
If a label is found to be justified, it usually implies a verdict of some sort, and a corresponding prescribed action on the part of others. Where that 'verdict' applies to an adversary, of course, it's wise not to give said foe the satisfaction of knowing he's subject to action until the dagger appears and it's too late for him. Politics is not a genial game of checkers, after all...
--
/ dave /