Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The 7 Billion People Rule: Generalizations
I have this rule that I call the “7 Billion People Rule” which states that there will always be somebody a statement applies to or doesn’t apply to. One thing this does is add strength to the proposition that “All generalizations are false.”
I’ve always found generalizations to be useful, and especially for that reason. You can’t cover everybody, but something can be true enough of the time to convey good enough information to be worth repeating.
Recently, I have noticed that people are uncomfortable with any generalizations. They preface and follow any generalizing statements with a mountain of disclaimers. I said today in an online chat that I wish people would stop doing this. After all, when somebody makes a generalization to me, I understand what they mean. I trust that both of us realize the statement does not literally apply to the entire specified group. They shouldn’t have to make any apologies! I can then go on to judge their generalization on the merit of its usefulness (which usually relates to how widely applicable it is).
Nobody else felt the same. Instead, they gave me some Education. Generalizations are bad! Because…they exclude people. And that leads to harm. Or something.
I say: What’s wrong with a little exclusion? For some reason, inclusivity makes progressives feel warm and fuzzy. I don’t understand that at all. Do you know what should make you feel warm and fuzzy? Boundaries, and the understanding that not everything is about you. So, one statement didn’t apply to you? Maybe the next one will.
In my opinion, people who respond to generalizations with “That’s not true; I know somebody it doesn’t apply to” are kind of missing the point. But this turns out to be yet another opinion that we are not supposed to have. It’s inclusivity or nothing.
Published in General
What you are participating in here is something that I think is long overdue: we need to learn again how to talk intelligently, thoughtfully, and practically.
Throughout the coronavirus panic and into the BLM and Antifa fiascos, the dearth of meaningful news and thoughtful commentary has been depressingly consistent. The nation needs to have several conversations — actual, serious conversations. Instead, we get cutsie “memes,” half-true headlines, and invective.
Yes. Let’s all start talking more effectively.
[heavily redacted] I guess. :)
I’m still grappling with their paradigm too. I really can’t tell, yet, how much they’ve been conditioned to pretend we live in a hive-mind, vs. how much they’ve simply internalized rubbing their parents’ noses in conscious absurdity as a control technique. Some, maybe many, of them think they create reality in their minds. Some, maybe many, have been trained to get their way by insisting.
Either way, the one predictable thing about the left is they will betray. They’ll always take your words in the most objectionable way they can.
We do pretty well in our little Ricochet bubble, I think.
About the OP: I don’t think that the problem is inclusivity. I think that it is deliberate avoidance of arguments that undermine their position. The generalization typically proves that they are wrong in one of their Leftist views. They evade this by focusing on the exception, which somehow allows them to avoid reaching the logical conclusion.
It is surprising that this works for them, but then I think of Vonnegut’s explanation in Harrison Bergeron:
For the more intelligent, it allows them to put you in one of the “ist” or “phobe” categories, so that they can comfortably conclude that you’re a reprehensible person and ignore your point.
“Generalizations are bad.”
“Um, that’s a generalization.”
“What’s a generalization?”
“That generalizations are bad. That statement is, of itself, a generalization. There may be some generalizations that are good. ‘You shouldn’t eat poisonous mushrooms.’ It’s a generalization, but it’s a good one.”
“But it’s the dosage that determines whether something is poison.”
“No, that’s another generalization. It’s also wrong. The dosage determines whether it kills you. It’s poisonous either way.”
I’m with Jerry on this. They use it to dismiss inconvenient arguments while accusing their opponents of sloppy thinking and bigotry.
Further, they are fully capable of generalizing when it comes to their enemies “Republicans”, “Trump supporters”,etc.
They generalize in the extreme when they employ words like ‘racist’ since the definition is very broad. They never qualify. Do they mean cross-burning KKK racist, or Jesse Jackson crossing the street when being followed by black teenagers racist?
Me: “Would you like to place a small wager on ….?”
When I see a black dude, I assume he votes democrat if he votes at all because that’s how they’ve traditionally voted. Same with a Jewish guy who doesn’t wear a Kippuh. It would be vulgar to assume that everyone is exactly the same but it would be foolish not to notice strong patterns in groups.
Many, many, many years ago, David Brenner did a bit on David Letterman the theme of which was “Some Jews are good with money. Some blacks do like watermelon.”
Probably couldn’t get away with that today.
I’m trying to think whether half-true headlines would be an improvement over what we have now.
That is the second thing I thought of, myself: These same people freely generalize that all conservatives are evil.
The first was that, “All generalizations are false” is itself a generalization and thus self-refuting, as @arahant pointed out above.
While a good point is made in OP, the single most disturbing thing to me in the culture right now are generalizations being thrown around about cops. I’m seeing any example of a bad cop being used as an emblem of police officers as a whole. Every cop is now either Derek Chauvin or the cops that stand silently by. There’s no nuance or compassion, just hostility and self-righteous fury and even a sentiment that any hardship befalling a cop is their just desserts. It frightens me.
I agree 100%.
Also, there is too much petty policing, which prompts animosity. Tickets, fines, and worse. Once you are in the criminal justice system, they bleed you. This can turn normal sane people into holding complete contempt for the corrupt system. The unfortunate cops are tasked with enacting these procedures.
As someone supposedly privileged I’ve had quite a few experiences with cops. Good and bad. Most of the good encounters happened earlier in time and worse encounters later. Bad encounters range from petty to despicable. Good encounters were when they wanted to help. One time, hitchhiking outside of Cincinnati as long hairs freaks a policeman stoped and literally “ picked us up” as hitchhikers to take us along the way. Sadly, we could not retrieve our drug stash, which was a film canister of 23 hits of acid and some white powder purporting to be cocaine. So we had to go back to retrieve our stash! We had to hitchike back! All the while feeling guilty about that nice cop who gave us a ride.
Many, many more experiences.
I believe we have badly over-policed some things and under-policed others.
Ok. Another
The time I was caught red handed shooting heroin in a gas station bathroom by Philadelphia police. Ultimately, they took our names and let us go. 1971?
But then there was a time when police sabotaged my van in four corners New Mexico. 2005?
My blind-drunk friend who insulted everyone in his rage, was being especially provocative to the arresting police officers. I begged them not to retaliate physically. I told them how he is cursing me his friend trying to help him, etc. They nodded. The next day my friend was beaten black eyes and bruises. But I understand why they roughed him up, on one level, I can’t blame them. On another, I know my friend wasn’t himself.
Your life is much more interesting than my life.