Comment: Disagree. Labels are not imaginary

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Fictitious labels (see in situ)

Michael Nystrom's picture

Disagree. Labels are not imaginary

They have meaning. They may not have meaning to you, but they do to others. How many people didn't vote for RP because of the (R) after his name? To all of those people, labels have meanings.

Nor is "Michael" imaginary. It is deeply embedded and intertwined with who I am. If my name had been "Pete" from the beginning, my eyes would be the same color, but there would be thousands of subtle differences in my life which would lead me to being a different person.

If you don't think so, imagine if my name were "Snoodle" from the getgo. Would I be a different person? Michael is a popular and well liked name; it is identified with the Archangel Michael, which works to my advantage. My name attracts certain people to me in a way that "Pete" or "Snoodle" would not. So a name is just imaginary.

The beauty of taking over the GOP is that we know the label is just an illusion. One fake name or the other. What do you really care?

Good for you. What do I care? Most of the GOPers I have met in my life are people I don't really like.

Again, the two party system is the status quo, and I'm not interested in working to reinforce the status quo.

Is this discussion really about Republicans, or is it more to do with the ego and make-believe titles? More to do with team-thinking? More to do with polarization instead of unity.

I don't know. You're getting pretty abstract here.

If you're on humanity's team, what use do you have for a political party?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.