generalizations
Generally speaking, people don’t like generalizations. People are very predictable that way. Of course, people generally make generalizations all the time. Some are benign, others not so much. It’s the subset of generalizations that are generally considered “non-benign” that are so bothersome, of course. And hence, in our world of (often coerced) political correctness, people generally shun generalizations, often calling them “sweeping generalizations,” “stereotypes,” or some other negative term.
They never talk about political corruption on the news!
It’s really nice outside!
Dogs are so obedient.
Those are all generalizations. I’m sure they do talk about political corruption in the news; it’s not nice outside to everyone, everywhere; not all dogs are obedient.
Of course, there is no national uproar over generalizations such as these. People only object when generalizations are offensive to them, due to their own personal biases. Generalizations against their “enemies”—often political, or of particular people or organizations they find distasteful—are entirely acceptable, of course. Again, no national uproar over this sort of hypocrisy.
Some generalizations truly are offensive (to the general population). For example, I find the idea that I “can’t dance” (due to my complexion) or that I am “aesthetically ignorant” (due to my gender) entirely offensive (though both observations happen to be true). But, like it or not, the absence of any kind of generalization at all would make communication extremely cumbersome. Imagine a piece of legalese where every single provision is spelled out ever-so-carefully; communication of that sort in the general sense would be incredibly unmanageable.
So why are people generally so opposed to generalizations? What’s wrong with a rhetorical short-cut or two? And why are people only outraged when the generalization contradicts their own personal or political preferences?