I think Cenk’s Turning Point appearance makes it clearer how Cenk sees the different parts of the Left. It seems somewhat similar to what I suggested. Not trying to dominate the conversation but I thought considering Cenk’s thinking on this could be interesting.
Two main wings inside the party
“Populist progressive wing”
“Establishment wing”
Outside the party
“Extreme left” (which he uses to describe himself on some issues like gun control)
“Populist progressive”
“Left flank of the populist movement”
People who support the establishment because they watch MSM (no term given)
Since he identifies with the “extreme left” (his words) on some issues, I don’t think he thinks of the outside-the-party groups as exclusionary — you might be extreme on one issue, but not on another.
Last thought is that it was interesting that Charlie Kirk used the terms “progressive left” and “one of the leaders of the progressive movement” to refer to Cenk when introducing him, but Cenk did not use “progressive” in his reply: he said he was on the “left flank of the populist movement”. Only he could clarify for sure how he is using these terms. Just some food for thought!
I see what you mean and agree to some extent. Cenk has asked both in town halls and on air a number of times for the TYT family to think of what to call people. Since TYT is the largest community in the left, it could be useful for us to know who we’re talking about.
Even if we never come up with specific labels we agree on (if labels are needed at all), I think it’s very important for people not to assume all people left of Cenk and Ana are bad. There are bad faith actors. There are good faith actors, including on Operation Hope.
I think sometimes when things get heated Cenk and others lump bad-faith attention seekers on the left who attack others in with others all the far/farther left, when the vast majority to the left are honest folks with sincere beliefs.
If we distinguish the concepts of bad faith actors from far/etc. left, like Ana did in Piers Morgan, I think that’s already a victory for increasing dialogue and building unity.
It depends on what your definition of Unity is. If it’s we have to agree 100% on everything then NO we will never have unity because nobody will ever agree 100% with someone else. If we did then we would just be robots. Now if your definition is being able to agree on basic principles and issues then that is what this country was actually founded on. And I think the best thing is to go for a big Umbrella that encapsulates as many as possible under the Progressive/Populist umbrella. We can still further define the sun-genres of the group but will need to remember that we are all trying for the same basic goals and work with each other to achieve them
I respect all of the efforts and am impressed with all of the visuals. That said, I think creating more labels is ultimately just more divisive. Each issue has to be approached individually, with no insulting or name-calling. For example, as @Galphar said, I want to cease funding to Israel immediately and think we should support Ukraine (and believe if we had defended them strongly from the beginning, we could have shut Putin down). Everything is nuanced, especially people, and labeling just uses time and distracts from what really matters: conversation and progress. Seriously, it’s impossible to create accurate labels that account for each difference, and doing so just highlights differences that have the potential to divide, offend, and keep us on the losing end. I have my ideals and am grown enough to know I’m not going to get them all, at least not just yet.
Yeah, I’m more of the anti-labels opinion, myself. People are too complicated to fit neatly into those.
Probably the best thing to do would just be to simply say “people who are to the left of me on X” issue or “people who have a different opinion on Y” issue as the need arises.
To me it seems like people now-a-days want a label for every little thing. It’s like they want to ID me as a Cis Euro-American left leaning male from the Ohio Valley in Northern Kentucky Comic book enthusiast. Sorry, but that is just way to much of a little pigeon hole. And I am sure that somebody would say I need to specify if I am a Marvel or DC Comics guy. For me I am a Leftie from (Northern) Kentucky. All that other stuff is not needed and usually only creates anger from others. They could get angry because they believe different than you or even because they are more DC than Marvel than you. It just instigates arguments that do NOT need to happen. Using a basic description that casts a big umbrella is the way to go. I am perfectly fine with Progressive/Populist. As people start to come together under a banner like this we can DISCUSS the issues in greater detail and hopefully be able to come to a consensus on them
If labels shape how we see the world, what alternative ways can we organize or classify ideas to promote unity? And what strategies can help us become more comfortable holding seemingly contradictory ideas simultaneously?
There is nothing wrong with “labels”. It’s when somebody needs 20 labels to introduce themselves that it becomes a problem. It’s like when I fill out a job application and I come to “Race”; I select Other and write in Human because that is really all that matters. If it say Ethnicity I will put “White” but they do not need to know where all my ancestors came from. And the same goes for my gender and sexual orientation; beyond Male or Female it is nobody’s business unless I freely offer that info. It just feels like all these little labels that we are putting on not just ourselves but everyone else is DIVIDING us and not teaching people to be more tolerant of certain ways of life. I can see as you get to know somebody better letting them know that stuff but in just general everyday life; It is none of their business.
Before anyone jumps my shit here; if we are talking about something like Trans Rights or Gay marriage or Civil Rights/Racism and you fit into one of those categories and want to let people know how you feel and have been treated then awesome. But even if you tell me that I will still just look at you as a Human Being like the rest of us.
Here is a slightly more in-depth analysis of labeling. Labels are a part of language that serve as shortcuts, helping us navigate the complexity of our world. They are tools we use to group things, people, and ideas into categories that make sense in the context of our experiences and knowledge. When we use labels, we are essentially making approximations of more complicated concepts. This happens because it would be inefficient to constantly spell out every nuance of a person, situation, or object. Instead, labels act as mental heuristics that help us process information quickly, like a mental rule of thumb. It’s a useful system that allows us to function smoothly in daily life, enabling us to communicate more effectively with one another.
At its core, the labeling process relies on generalizations. By grouping similar things under one term, we create a shorthand that helps us to navigate our environment. These generalizations are not inherently wrong; they are just simplified versions of the more detailed picture. They help us categorize and make decisions faster than if we had to break down every detail of a situation. For instance, calling someone a “teacher” gives us a rough idea of their role, without needing to know every specific duty they perform. Similarly, labeling a food as “sweet” gives us a general sense of its taste, even though sweetness can exist on a spectrum.
That said, while labeling is essential for communication, it’s also important to acknowledge that labels are not always perfect. They are, after all, simplifications. Some labels, though useful in many contexts, can fail to capture the full complexity of a person or situation. Labels are fluid and sometimes reductive, so it’s important to recognize that using them doesn’t give us the full story. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using labels to communicate quickly or simplify concepts, but it is just as valid to write out a full description or explanation instead. Doing so might offer a clearer or more nuanced understanding, especially when it matters. Labels may serve a purpose, but they shouldn’t limit our thinking or communication.
In terms of respecting someone’s wishes about labels, it’s surprisingly simple. If a person tells you that they dislike being referred to with a specific label, whether it’s based on gender, identity, or some other characteristic, it’s a matter of courtesy and respect to honor that request. People are often very clear about the terms they are comfortable with, and the act of respecting those wishes shows a basic understanding of their autonomy. It’s easy enough to adjust our language if someone expresses that a certain label makes them uncomfortable or is offensive. The key here is acknowledging that labels are not inherently rigid. They can be adapted and changed based on personal preference, and doing so reflects a level of respect and care for others. The effort required to avoid offending someone by using a label they dislike is minimal compared to the positive impact of demonstrating respect for their identity.
