Agree. I suspect that people who love to remind us of exceptions aren’t really concerned about the exceptions; they just want to demonstrate that they are more enlightened than the rest of us. It’s virtue signaling. If we could stop putting ourselves on the pedestal and showing off our enlightenment, then we could begin to actually listen and communicate. It all comes down to pride.
For me it’s more of a that’s-how-my-brain-works thing. I wish I didn’t always see the exceptions. Asperger’s? TBI? Vaccine/toxic accumulation? OCD tendencies? I don’t know— I’m just a literal thinker.
Holy shit, reading this was cathartic. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of communication today. The preemptive (and often futile) statements people make reminding their audience of what should just be assumed when presenting any kind of argument is particularly exhausting. Every conversation or presentation on an issue inevitably gets bogged down in these braindead preambles.
I wish there was a way to filter these idiots out somehow; normally I’d advocate for the creation of some way to ruthlessly mock these people, but I reckon there are too few of us and too many of them for this to get off the ground and be effective.
If this is indeed a simple matter of intelligence, then this problem really was inevitable once the internet expanded to include more and more of society — inevitably the idiots will outnumber the non-idiots and public discourse will descend to the level of the majority. Worse yet, because the internet allows idiots to network with one another (creating a kind of positive feedback loop of stupidity), I believe it has emboldened them and made their behavior extra obnoxious, both online and IRL.
These idiots are who Scott Adams calls "NPCs," i.e. non-player-characters. NPCs state out loud the points that everyone else takes for granted, such as "there are always exceptions."
So true. There will always be exceptions. There will always be outliers. But we should not make policy based on outliers and exceptions. Policy should be based on normative realities, not outliers.
We need to keep IN MIND, that the mind is fallible and often in conversation and other exchanges becomes habitual and competitive, rather than creative and cooperative . Much of this tendency is related to the nature of the individual.
What pops up as original thought is highly influenced by your subconscious and the life conditions that programed your subconscious without your permission.
You can come out a winner in this complex game if you have the will to NOT believe your mind. Treat it as a tool that is easily misused. A tool that has very sharp edges and is capable of injuring you. Watch it closely. Don't automatically trust it.
The obsession with creating new labels for every fringe thing is so frustrating to deal with. And the limited boxes that some try to put everyone in - we were more broad minded than this crap a few decades ago. It’s so hard to have a normal conversation with some people.
Going with the colored haired, weird clothes/tats/ piercings, screaming free Palestine, while claiming to be gender-fluid is meh-inspiring at this point. Nobody cares. Move along. None of it is particularly rebellious because it’s been normalized. Admittedly- I don’t care for the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ look some of the young women at my church have opted for either, but at least they are trying to do better than what the dominant culture offers.
These “what ifs” are highly problematic in the classroom regarding rules. As soon as you allow 1 exception, many more students ALSO claim their own personal exceptions, trying to convince the teacher why the rules don’t apply to them, either, in the name of “fairness.”
When you allow for all that, you have no time left to teach, especially if they wolfpack the teacher with their communal outrage at having to follow a rule.
Man, I want to thank you so much for this! I've been talking about this problem for more than 20 years. Somewhere in the past 40 years -- since I left school, at any rate -- schools must have stopped teaching basic logic, so that the expression of any generalization is instantly met with "what about Exception X?" The people who insist on making such objections will, however, not hesitate to make their own categorical judgments when it suits them, but seem to think that others are less competent to judge. So your generalization is not acceptable, but their is.
This is a form of totalitarian thinking. Believing that everything must be accounted for, but not realising that at the edge of every category is a fuzzy area which can’t be defined. If we focus too much on the edge, the main category then collapses.
BTW Commonsense is the wisdom held in common amongst the folk. It is the ancient wisdom of that people group. It is expressed through stories, proverbs and fairy tales.
As usual, Zuby is 100% correct here, and is able to put into words thoughts I have floating around my head but have a hard time verbalizing.
So many conversations go this way. We obsess so much about what makes us different that we’ve lost the thread of what keeps us together.
We can have a range of “normal” without ostracizing or hyper-focusing on the exceptions. We can acknowledge and accept the “edges” without having to bend all of society to over-accommodate them.
We can have our difference and accept them as realties without having to celebrate them.
We need to be able to talk about societal norms and their overall “good” without fear of offending anyone and everyone that doesn’t fit neatly into them in every conceivable way.
This isn’t meant to offend. This is simply acknowledging a norm. And that isn’t a bad thing.
Here's the thing: Generalizations, even grotesque overgeneralizations and unfounded stereotypes, are allowed without caveat by the exception-obsessed interlocutors you mention, as long as the generalizations have the effect of harming or undermining the people they think do not deserve the type of defensive throat clearing, "not all", and whataboutisms that they usually deploy.
We all have blind spots in our sensitivities, and most people try to be graceful and understand as well as try to be understood. However, the hyper exception focused people are usually from a group that plays a game with language; predictably, the goal of their language is to upset what they see as traditional power structures, and protect what they see as the historically oppressed. All their word choice flows from that consideration.
I haven't seen other groups play the same language game that you describe.
"Leftists use language to manipulate, not communicate." - Michael Malice
The pedantry is intentional. It's meant to do as it has. It's why leftists always claim anything or anyone that disagrees with their political beliefs is "a danger to our democracy" - aka their political power/hegemony. This language is purposeful. In the states, this is used to fool the public that the states are a democracy, not a Republic. Sadly, it is very effective.
Agree. I suspect that people who love to remind us of exceptions aren’t really concerned about the exceptions; they just want to demonstrate that they are more enlightened than the rest of us. It’s virtue signaling. If we could stop putting ourselves on the pedestal and showing off our enlightenment, then we could begin to actually listen and communicate. It all comes down to pride.
100%
It's often a status thing.
For me it’s more of a that’s-how-my-brain-works thing. I wish I didn’t always see the exceptions. Asperger’s? TBI? Vaccine/toxic accumulation? OCD tendencies? I don’t know— I’m just a literal thinker.
Holy shit, reading this was cathartic. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of communication today. The preemptive (and often futile) statements people make reminding their audience of what should just be assumed when presenting any kind of argument is particularly exhausting. Every conversation or presentation on an issue inevitably gets bogged down in these braindead preambles.
I wish there was a way to filter these idiots out somehow; normally I’d advocate for the creation of some way to ruthlessly mock these people, but I reckon there are too few of us and too many of them for this to get off the ground and be effective.
If this is indeed a simple matter of intelligence, then this problem really was inevitable once the internet expanded to include more and more of society — inevitably the idiots will outnumber the non-idiots and public discourse will descend to the level of the majority. Worse yet, because the internet allows idiots to network with one another (creating a kind of positive feedback loop of stupidity), I believe it has emboldened them and made their behavior extra obnoxious, both online and IRL.
😂 Glad you liked the article. I can sense the frustration in your words.
These idiots are who Scott Adams calls "NPCs," i.e. non-player-characters. NPCs state out loud the points that everyone else takes for granted, such as "there are always exceptions."
So true. There will always be exceptions. There will always be outliers. But we should not make policy based on outliers and exceptions. Policy should be based on normative realities, not outliers.
Yes!
Agreed. Well said. The exception dissonance is the inclusion delusion.
We need to keep IN MIND, that the mind is fallible and often in conversation and other exchanges becomes habitual and competitive, rather than creative and cooperative . Much of this tendency is related to the nature of the individual.
What pops up as original thought is highly influenced by your subconscious and the life conditions that programed your subconscious without your permission.
You can come out a winner in this complex game if you have the will to NOT believe your mind. Treat it as a tool that is easily misused. A tool that has very sharp edges and is capable of injuring you. Watch it closely. Don't automatically trust it.
The obsession with creating new labels for every fringe thing is so frustrating to deal with. And the limited boxes that some try to put everyone in - we were more broad minded than this crap a few decades ago. It’s so hard to have a normal conversation with some people.
Going with the colored haired, weird clothes/tats/ piercings, screaming free Palestine, while claiming to be gender-fluid is meh-inspiring at this point. Nobody cares. Move along. None of it is particularly rebellious because it’s been normalized. Admittedly- I don’t care for the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ look some of the young women at my church have opted for either, but at least they are trying to do better than what the dominant culture offers.
Some of the kids are alright. Some, well, aren’t.
These “what ifs” are highly problematic in the classroom regarding rules. As soon as you allow 1 exception, many more students ALSO claim their own personal exceptions, trying to convince the teacher why the rules don’t apply to them, either, in the name of “fairness.”
When you allow for all that, you have no time left to teach, especially if they wolfpack the teacher with their communal outrage at having to follow a rule.
Sorry, kids. No exceptions. Moving on.
Perfect!
Outstanding!
Man, I want to thank you so much for this! I've been talking about this problem for more than 20 years. Somewhere in the past 40 years -- since I left school, at any rate -- schools must have stopped teaching basic logic, so that the expression of any generalization is instantly met with "what about Exception X?" The people who insist on making such objections will, however, not hesitate to make their own categorical judgments when it suits them, but seem to think that others are less competent to judge. So your generalization is not acceptable, but their is.
You're welcome. I'm glad you liked the article! It is a frustrating experience.
This is a form of totalitarian thinking. Believing that everything must be accounted for, but not realising that at the edge of every category is a fuzzy area which can’t be defined. If we focus too much on the edge, the main category then collapses.
BTW Commonsense is the wisdom held in common amongst the folk. It is the ancient wisdom of that people group. It is expressed through stories, proverbs and fairy tales.
As usual, Zuby is 100% correct here, and is able to put into words thoughts I have floating around my head but have a hard time verbalizing.
So many conversations go this way. We obsess so much about what makes us different that we’ve lost the thread of what keeps us together.
We can have a range of “normal” without ostracizing or hyper-focusing on the exceptions. We can acknowledge and accept the “edges” without having to bend all of society to over-accommodate them.
We can have our difference and accept them as realties without having to celebrate them.
We need to be able to talk about societal norms and their overall “good” without fear of offending anyone and everyone that doesn’t fit neatly into them in every conceivable way.
This isn’t meant to offend. This is simply acknowledging a norm. And that isn’t a bad thing.
Thank you Zuby!
You're welcome. Glad it resonated.
The Devil really IS in the Details. You said it !
Here's the thing: Generalizations, even grotesque overgeneralizations and unfounded stereotypes, are allowed without caveat by the exception-obsessed interlocutors you mention, as long as the generalizations have the effect of harming or undermining the people they think do not deserve the type of defensive throat clearing, "not all", and whataboutisms that they usually deploy.
We all have blind spots in our sensitivities, and most people try to be graceful and understand as well as try to be understood. However, the hyper exception focused people are usually from a group that plays a game with language; predictably, the goal of their language is to upset what they see as traditional power structures, and protect what they see as the historically oppressed. All their word choice flows from that consideration.
I haven't seen other groups play the same language game that you describe.
This is the "tyranny of the minority", in legal history.
You're missing one observation.
"Leftists use language to manipulate, not communicate." - Michael Malice
The pedantry is intentional. It's meant to do as it has. It's why leftists always claim anything or anyone that disagrees with their political beliefs is "a danger to our democracy" - aka their political power/hegemony. This language is purposeful. In the states, this is used to fool the public that the states are a democracy, not a Republic. Sadly, it is very effective.