Exceptions aside - look, we all know there will always be exceptions to any generalization, okay? Even to that last one.
But so what? An exception is no insult to the generalization's general validity; any more than the generalization is an insult to the exception's individual and exceptional nature. Right? Right! Of course! Sheesh!
Jesus. It's like I even have to explain these things. "Generalization," people? LOOK IT UP...? I love it when some fucking moron is like "A GENERALIZATION? Hell, buddy I heard you say that! WELL IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME, HUH!? WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY NOW? I AM A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM WHAT YOU SAY IS WAY OFF!" People like that are fucking morons. Are you like that? My insult doesn't apply to you, then: Exception. See, you're exceptional! Now go to the corner and feel good about yourself. Wear this hat!
No but seriously, come on. Go look yourself in a mirror and get over it, please, because yes: boxes and categories can and do apply to you. To me, too. Shocker. Speaking as one homo sapiens sapiens to another, there's not a bit of slight in the fact that any line that encompasses us both can be drawn around us, creating a descriptive category to which we both belong. It's not a fucking insult, okay?
Generalizations are useful, to the degree that they are valid. There is quite a vast wave of experience moving towards us at any given time, and a generalization can guide us so our efforts and analyses can be put where needed most. While it is true that generalizations misused, misconceived or misapplied can fuck shit up for us if we try to go by them, you could say the same about any tool misused!
I generalize even there. I hope you'll admit the validity?
There are quite a few useful things that one can generally say, with general validity, about persons, places and things - and thus do I Hereby Inaugurate This Series of Articles! It shall be called Generally-Valid Generalizations, and therefore so shall I call it! In each post of this series, we aim to make a definite statement that means something, and that has broad, general applicability within the category identified. We'll make the boldest claims we can that we can defend as generally valid. Or who knows? Maybe we'll just throw some non-bold generally-valid shit out there! Why does it always have to be so bold with me? It's like a thing with me. It doesn't always have to be "so bold." Really, what's so great about "bold"? Some things, non-bold in themselves, may yet have bold implications.
Or not. Like I said, "bold" is not really the yardstick around here, or it shouldn't be anyway. It's more a habit than a preference.
Where were we? Man, I got really sidetracked here. How about I let this post stand as just the introduction to the series - a tone-setter! And then I'll come back and kick it off properly in Generally-Valid Generalizations #1 Part 2.
Call it a plan.