Sweeping Generalizations

THE NUKES OF DESTRUCTIVE LANGUAGE

I’m really trying to steer away from politics, but I can’t intentionally steer away from reality. Doing so is destructive to the human mind whether it’s via mental illness, drugs, or propaganda. When a nation starts to deny reality, it undermines its own existence. Our country has devolved to the point where we’re struggling to agree on even the most basic of facts.

In 2023, we can’t even all agree that what we witnessed on January 6th two years ago was a domestic attack on the United States government and democracy itself. A large portion of Americans refuse to acknowledge how serious it was or that we should do everything that we can to assure that it never happens again. As pathetic as all that is, it is the reality we have to work with.

So What Can We Agree On?

First, for perspective, please step back with me. Imagine, it’s twenty years ago, and you’re one of a thousand people sitting in an auditorium. The key address is entitled: “What America Needs.” The speaker starts out by asking: “How many of you here in this room would agree that the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of innocent people is a very bad thing? Can I see a show of hands?” I ask my current readers - is it a stretch to guess - a solid majority of hands would have gone up quickly? Maybe a hundred people would have been paralyzed by indecision thinking it’s a loaded question.

Now imagine that he asks a very similar question. “How many of you here in this room would agree that the indiscriminate maligning of innocent people is a very bad thing?” My hunch is that a majority of hands would have gone up in agreement, though it would probably not be quite the same degree of consensus.

Now imagine the same two questions being asked today. I think we’d we lucky if we hit 50% on either question. As a society, we have to a large degree normalized amoral behavior when the conditions “warrant.” All too many people in my imaginary scenario would be pondering, “well it depends.” I dare say that American ethics and morality as a whole have taken a hit in the new millennium - and pointing fingers toward one group or another emanates group think.

Making sweeping generalizations and assumptions about people we know very little about is indiscriminately maligning them. As unhealthy as that might be, it’s a critical step toward turning a stranger into an adversary. And that’s a slippery slope with frequently unintended consequences.

A few days ago I wandered onto a very conservative Substack newsletter from a guy with some credentials. As is sometimes the case, I found myself uncomfortable reading views that articulately challenged my own. The article in this case was so philosophical, esoteric, and linguistically nuanced that I dared not make my comments directly to this Harvard alum, knowing he could clearly out-BS me.

So, I made comments to some of the people writing commentary - including “KG.” We commented back and forth about the article, but more importantly from my perspective - about the generalizations she had made. I explained that all liberals aren’t the same, any more than all conservative folks are . . . we are each very complex. She defended her generalizations since they were “from my experience” even though she hadn’t originally acknowledged that.

Over the course of six posts the tone went from antagonistic to what I consider encouraging. Her last post ended with: “ I agree as a society it seems we (L and R) have lost the art of true and civil debate, genuine concern for the COMMON good, and the ability to engage in true compromise on serious issues.”

My final response was that I concurred with what she wrote with one caveat - I think we just had a brief ”true and civil debate.” Who knows what might happen if we put aside assumptions, sweeping generalizations, and rhetoric making room for conversation?