Nuance is weakness in a polarized political climate.
For a recent example, say you're arguing with a leftist about the January 6 pardons. The leftist says they're all violent insurrectionists. You reply that the overwhelming majority were peaceful. The leftist jumps on the words "overwhelming majority" as an acknowledgement some amount of violence happened. You're now arguing from a position of weakness.
Even if you insist this example proves your theory correct, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. You must work in a binary, because the opposition will use ALL nuance and exceptions to their advantage. It's no different from the phenomenon of the right becoming less conservative over time, because each compromise drags them further to the left, while the left refuses to compromise on their own ideals.
You need to be unyielding, and even if you acknowledge a situation has exceptions, you cannot vocalize them.
Nuance is weakness in a polarized political climate.
For a recent example, say you're arguing with a leftist about the January 6 pardons. The leftist says they're all violent insurrectionists. You reply that the overwhelming majority were peaceful. The leftist jumps on the words "overwhelming majority" as an acknowledgement some amount of violence happened. You're now arguing from a position of weakness.
Even if you insist this example proves your theory correct, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. You must work in a binary, because the opposition will use ALL nuance and exceptions to their advantage. It's no different from the phenomenon of the right becoming less conservative over time, because each compromise drags them further to the left, while the left refuses to compromise on their own ideals.
You need to be unyielding, and even if you acknowledge a situation has exceptions, you cannot vocalize them.