>
I mean, it's a pretty easy concept, right?
People hide behind labels to avoid responsibility. People use labels to gain benefits. People use labels to belittle and diminish value.
Labels can be used to come together, but of course they can be used to divide. It's "US" vs "THEM". >

People can use anything to avoid responsibility or gain things, the thing they're using to their advantage isnt the problem (ie. labels) but the tactic...which is called manipulation. So, I don't think that's a solid argument.
But I like that you mentioned the "us vs them" phenomenon. Labels can and do fuel that mindset, which isn't ...good. But I also think that the 'us vs them' has been a thing long before people started having "official" labels. People do the us vs them based on differences, its fueled by competition and to be better. So, point is, getting rid of labels won't directly get rid of this mindset either. 
Main point is that yes, labels can separate people and has done so even when you look back at history, but to a larger extent I'd argue they unite people. >

Categorization (labelling) is key for humans to understand the world around them. Our brains are not able to live in a world without categories. Try as you might, it ain't gonna happen. 
It's a functional device that we use, always have, always will. 
We use labels to manage our perceptions. It isn't possible for us to have 1 million labels to describe 1 million people, as it negates the point. 
The reason some people aren't happy with the exponential creation of labels for people is because it defeats the purpose of labels (to be able to generalise). 
The other argument against it is because everyone is an individual. EVERYONE. Whether they're young, old, tall, short, fat, thin, gay, straight, masculine, feminine etc. 
If you keep going with creating labels for every aspect of self then you'll eventually wind up at the individual level. >

You can have a strong community without needing labels. In fact it is probably better since the community will be more welcoming, rather than only consisting of people who fit inside the small definition of your label. >

I don't think that's possible. Say, you have a person who has one identity trait that sets them apart from the people around them, that person will...no matter how supportive or welcoming, feel isolated. It's good to surround yourself with people who're like you from time to time to get genuine empathy, labels create that. People like being apart of something instinctively -- labels define a more specific distinction among billions of people... so that naturally satisfy the feeling of being apart of a group. >


en if 70% of labels seem useless to you, there are a community of people who value it as a part of their identity.

That still doesn't invalidate the premise that labels divide. Something done with good intentions can still produce bad outcomes. It's also possible something can produce short term good and long term harm and vice versa >

It isn't stupid narrative, it's the truth. Labels are a primal leftover from tribal roots >

I supposed you're talking politics. The problem with labelling here is twofold.
For starters, ideologies naturally change over place and time. This is actually good, because you want parties to reflect current realities as much as possible.
Next, you don't actually want people to identify to their label. You want them to identify to the ideology behind that label. As noted above, ideologies change. If that label no longer aligns with you, you're less likely to continue identifying with it if you never did in the first place. >

I'm not talking about labels in terms of politics. >

stupid.....but true. >

Labels don’t divide people. Shitty people divide people.