I find that simpler base understanding and principles are so, so important. Values such as "sunlight is the best disinfectant" or pure first amendment freedom of speech principles.
So what of
-minutiae/bullshit microfacts about whether communists/feminists/whatever behavior or factoid about any corporation are or are not doing this single line item.
-all the other shit they do do.
I don't fucking care about nuance bro faggotry anymore.
The ability to speak or understand basic concepts does not make one intelligent. I do not want to overly simplify things because low IQs can't understand the concept of a subset, or analyze complicated data. it's the kind of thinking that leads to "All whites are rich kids who deserve no sympathy", " All gays are pedophiles", " All blacks are thieves", etc. etc. etc.
I'm fine with finding out the person I'm speaking to is incapable of subtlety as well. If every point circles back to a generality instead of an exploration of the point that I was trying to explore, then I'll know they aren't worth conversing with.
At best, I hope to bring them along when I convince a plurality of reasonable people later. But more likely I'll just be ignoring them in the future.
I'm most interested in developing a reasonable thought with capable people and reinforcing their bravery so we don't have to live in fear or intimidation of a mob of simpletons. Something that is easy to fall into if you find yourself alone.
Even if you convince silly people to join you, they're only as loyal as your ability to convince them (since they never understood your point or reason), and your enemies' inability to offer them something momentarily more attractive.
Do we have to throw up the disclaimer that “not all blacks are violent murderers!” when discussing race? Not all immigrants are rapers, not all women vote like retards? There was a similar post complaining about the right always doing that and how it makes their arguments sound weak.
Generalizations are good, not being able to accept exceptions to generalizations are bad.
Boilerplate disclaimers are cowardly midwit nonsense. The biggest problem with them is they're thoughtless. It's always true that exceptions exist. therefore they could be applied to everything and so are meaningless. Their main purpose is to soothe the speaker's fears that some mob will do something unpleasant. Just pure cowardice.
When discussing specific cases, though, nuance is required. You have to be able to tolerate flaws in people or organizations to get anything done because we don't live in a perfect world. The question is, what magnitude of flaw is disqualifying and therefore intolerable, even when examined in detail? That's when you have to be able to weigh complicated factors.