. I can't think of any instance where labels are inclusive. They are usually used to exclude some group from some other group. Can you?
I didn't say labels, of themselves, are inclusive, only that they can be useful - especially when
seeking inclusion. Just to use an example from history... last week ... the Circuit Court struck down the voter ID laws in NC because they were drafted with
. How would we know that unless the voters has not been categorized or labeled. In this case the labels were used to
ensure inclusion.
In this case the label was used
solely to identify a group that shares one or other
provable trait and decide whether they had been targeted or not. It doesn't ascribe anything other than that to this group.
Example: you may say that a group of people is comprised of folks of Northern European descent. You can even get more specific and say that they hail from the UK. However, what doesn't make sense is to attribute any monolithic trait or behavior to a diverse group of people, even when they share some common provable characteristic.
My comments are based on the latter and not the former. Labeling for the purpose of identifying some factual and provable trait, i.e., born in the UK, is not the issue. The issue is the extrapolation of that fact into a
trait that generalizes ways of thinking, ways of behavior, etc.
I believe my comments were quite clear on that point.
