Whatever the original etymology, it seems labels quickly get co-opted and conveniently slapped on someone whenever views or actions encroach on others comfort zones or just plain annoy them. Just as some speculate that some white knights have ulterior motive then perhaps it's fair game to suggest that chronic "labelers" do too. It's a magic spell that snares the target square in that old damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum and frequently shuts up dissenting voice that really doesn't have the time, sense, stomach or stamina for the brain bashing and mud slinging sure to ensue.
Back pockets are bulging with them - tree hugger, chauvinist, loser, fem-naz, c*$t, racist, soccer mom, momma's boy, deadbeat dad, golddigger, slut, pervert, troll, ad nauseum - handy to toss at opportune time. Particularly handy to folks who are easily threatened or have much at stake in a polarized view, but in lazy or cynical moments they can be awfully tempting to reach for, just like junk food you always regret after the fact.
This is just my bias, but I feel they're frequently handy to those who intrinsically don't really give hoot or holler about the principle of a discourse, just have to win or appear to win. In such instances I don't find it so baffling that some find it impossible to believe that a WK is actually speaking on principle as opposed to a "point scoring" agenda. If you got no real principle at stake then maybe you assume no one else does either. And again, it's my bias, but I feel that these types (I won't label them, but I'm sure someone has/will) are probably more prevalent than WK's trying to score points.
