Always? Really? Never? Really?
I notice that there is another group of harmful rhetorical expressions.
Which is?
'Always' and 'never'.
As in?
As in "You will never succeed."
Did the bullies tell you so?
Well, . . . yes.
They can prophesy such a thing . . .. Can they also prophesy changes of stock prices or examination problems?
I don't know. At least, they don't seem particularly rich or get very good marks in examinations.
Are they prophets specialized in your doom?
I bet that they aren't prophets, but stereotypists.
After all, wanton usage of 'all' and wanton usage of 'always' come from the same mentality: stereotyping. Wanton usage of 'all' pushes an attribute found in an individual or some individuals onto the all members of a group, sloppily; wanton usage of 'always' pushes a situation observed on an occasion or some occasions onto the eternity, sloppily.
So, they are both sloppy generalization.
What Do Those Rhetorical Expressions Manifest?
In other words, they are rash simplification. And I understand why those rhetorical expressions are so popular among many Earthians: they love simplification.
Certainly, 'all' and 'always' are simple because differences between individuals and changes over time can be ignored.
To take differences between individuals and changes over time into consideration is a bother; it's troublesome, annoying, and inconvenient.
Being said 'inconvenient', the reality doesn't change to be convenient for them . . .
It doesn't matter. If the reality doesn't change, they daydream.
Well, have a happy daydream.
What promotes and executes simplification is the intuition.
Yes. The intuition is supposed to do so.
The intuition does so because the specialty of it is speed, and it realizes the speed by simplification. It's speedy not because its processing speed is fast but because it simplifies things.
It achieves speed at the cost of accuracy.
Nevertheless, there persistently exist some Earthians who claim that the intuition is correct and promote believing in the intuition . . .
The intuition is systematically incorrect, from the viewpoint of accuracy. That's certain.
The intuition isn't correct, because it wasn't developed for accuracy. The process of evolution developed the intuition as it is because it was optimal for survival. It's for survival, not for accuracy.
That's true.
The human body system is basically made up so that resisting the intuition is difficult. If the intuition had been able to be easily ignored, the survival would have been at stake. Usually, to check what the intuition says is cumbersome, unpleasant, and requires efforts. That explains why the promotion of believing in the intuition is so popular: it's sanction to forsake such efforts.
And certainly, the intuition has protected the human species so far. I understand that there are some people who want to keep relying on the intuition.
Well, the problem is that humans don't live in the environment for which the intuition is optimized, any more.
It's certain that the intuition isn't optimized for having nuclear missiles buttons or having the internet.
And a question is, "Is it OK only if you survive?"
No, for me, but there may be some people who answer otherwise.
I understand. . . . Anyway, I doubt that those so-called rhetorical expressions are really just rhetoric: considering the prevalent love toward simplification, I bet that those rhetorical expressions are manifestations of the speakers' inner mental images.
Do you mean that in those speakers' mental images, say, all the Muslims are really terrorists without exception?
Well, sort of.
I wonder. . . . I guess, at least, many of them know that there are some exceptions.
Then, it follows that they think that those exceptions just don't matter.
Being said "don't matter", those so-called exceptions are human beings. What human being doesn't matter?
I guess that those rhetorical expressions are manifestations of speakers' notion that those exceptions are ignorable.
What human being is ignorable? For that matter, no human being is particularly an exception.
Those rhetorical expressions are more toxic because they manifest that exceptions aren't even worth considering or mentioning, than they are just inaccurate.
Harmful Rhetoric Also Tends to Be Used of Oneself, by Oneself, Against Oneself
Those harmful rhetoric expressions aren't used only by bullies, but also by ourselves, which is more harmful.
Ah, that's true.
We say, "Everybody hates me", "I will never succeed", etc to ourselves.
Whatever we say, bullies won't become extinct, at least in near future, and it's more important what we say to ourselves.
The mentality that succumbs to such sloppy statements is the problem. To be inaccurate is not only unfair to others, but also detrimental to ourselves.
It's detrimental at least to some people.
Are there some people to whom it isn't detrimental?
Maybe. I notice that there are some people who can twist their understandings conveniently for themselves at their own sweetest will. Or at least they look so, to me.
Ah, those incredibly, emasculatory, and laughably selfish people who can be inaccurate only to their own merits. . . . How are they made up?
Well, I don't know very well, but I know that they have to be inconsistencies-blind. Inaccuracies inevitably bring in inconsistencies, at least eventually. As we are consistency-oriented, we are inevitably bothered, or rather tortured by inconsistencies. Their capacities for inconsistencies are wonderworks for me.
Anyway, we should beware that harmful rhetoric can turn on ourselves, if we aren't one of those impeccably selfish people.
No Modification? What Does It Mean?
I hear also a type of expressions like "Muslims are terrorists."
Ah, no modification. What does it mean? Does it mean the same thing as "All the Muslims are terrorists"?
I wonder. At least, if a Muslim just heard the expression, he or she would think he or she was declared a terrorist.
That seems natural. As far as no qualification is given to the expression, the expression can be interpreted to claim the statement without qualification.
We can't get away with excuses as "I didn't say 'all' . . .." If we don't mean 'all', we should put in 'some', 'many', or whatever appropriate qualifications.
