A lie versus a true generalization - Leftist rhetoric about sexual beliefs

*

Leftists nowadays repeatedly state (perhaps 'shout' or 'scream' is a more accurate term than 'state') that traditional sexual beliefs are lies.

If not lies, that traditional sexual beliefs are so obviously untrue, that therefore they must be based on ignorance, hatred or 'phobia'.

But what they should be saying (if they were honest) is that traditional sexual beliefs are true generalizations, but that there are exceptions.

*

True generalizations, but there are exceptions.

Is that really so hard to understand?

*

No, it isn't - assuming you really do want to understand and communicate reality, rather than dishonestly to mobilize public opinion into hatred against your enemies.

To say that a true generalization is a lie is, when adopted as a sufficient statement of reality, far less accurate and more hazardous than belief in a true generalization.

*

All true and useful generalizations are simplified, and all have exceptions.

Obviously. 

It isn't clever or insightful to point out this fact; it doesn't make you morally superior or intellectual sophisticated to notice that every brief statement is a simplification and necessarily leaves-out mention of exceptions.

*

But it is dumb (and/ or evil) to suppose that humans we can safely dispense with true generalizations.

So, when an honest Leftist (yes, I know it becomes more of an oxymoron with each passing year; but there are even exceptions to the true generalization that Leftist are dishonest...) states 'but that's a generalization' and that there are exceptions - the traditionalist can legitimately reply that (almost) all true generalizations have exceptions.

That is simply the nature of generalizations. 

**

NOTE: You might wonder how to know when a generalization is true? Easy - just state the reverse of a generalization, and the degree of absurdity of the reverse is an index of the truth of the original. 

This might be regarded as a way to win arguments with Leftists, except that arguing with Leftists is counter-productive. 

Is the above generalization true? Reversal gives 'arguing with Leftists is a productive activity'. How absurd is that? Extremely absurd (assuming you have experience of doing it). 

Ergo, 'arguing with Leftists is counter-productive' is a true generalization.
*