If you fight for “ change ” all you need to do is buy a different brand of juice than you normally do. Congratulations, you have succeeded in your bay for “ change. ” That does n’t change the fact that everyone wants “ change. ” If you do n’t want “ change ” then you ‘re happy with the hapless condition quo and you ‘re a atrocious person. You ‘re a atrocious person if you do n’t want “ freedom ” and “ safety ” and “ equality ” and “ technical progress ” and “ democracy ” and “ bequest ” and “ success ” and blah bombast bombast bombast bombast. “ I am fighting for equality. ” The big thing about “ equality ” is that everyone wants it, everyone has a different opinion on what that constitutes, and everyone has a different opinion on how to get there, but they are 100 % surely that that is absolute “ equality. ” Despite the fact that person somewhere is probably going to get screwed in some way, human body, or form. I want “ equality ” and I ‘m sure that everyone in my consultation wants “ equality ” or they ‘re credibly some kind of socially backwards giant. You need to ask for clearing, constantly. To the people who use glittering generalities, they become shorthand. Everything this politician does is for “ freedom. ” Everything this activisit does is for “ equality. ” And you know what, they might be correctly. But the trouble comes from exception. They ‘re not fighting for every campaign for “ exemption ” or every cause for “ equality. ” It ‘s not feasible, potential, or in some cases, even coherent. not all aglitter generalities are convinced words either. It ‘s going to be a “ challenge. ” Yeah, it sounds tough, but it could mean a million soldiers dying and 20 trillion dollars of debt. Or it could be a in truth unmanageable game of chess. Both things constitute a “ challenge. ” It ‘s going to take “ hard study. ” What do you mean by “ hard employment ? ” More taxes ? Community service ? Slavery ? Dealing with having some freedoms revoked ? All of those fall under the umbrella of “ hard workplace. ”
And yes, glittering generalties can be shorthand for “ the foe. ” If we do n’t do this thing, then “ the communists ” winnings. This collides a lot with another propaganda technique, just called “ name-calling. ” It ‘s a distribute more sophisiticated than resort area school bullying. It ‘s when culture or politicians invents or builds the concept of some atrocious people or thing, and then places anyone who disagrees with them under that deed. only atrocious monsters do n’t want “ future electric potential. ” If you do n’t support the war then you ‘re clearly a “ hippie. ” It ‘s a character of our “ national pride ” to conquer. ( Name-calling can get a fortune worse than this, as I ‘ll get to in a former post ). With glittering generalties anything can mean anything. Using them you will constantly meet your goals under person ‘s definition. They tell us nothing about you, or who you stand for, or what you want. If person ever uses a glitter generality, you should decidedly ask for clearing. There ‘s a large chance that they—intentionally or not—are supporting something wholly different than what you think that word means. Besides the examples, or having a list, how do you figure out what ‘s a glitter generalization ? A glitter generality is normally abstract. You can come up with a video of the concept of “ peace, ” but you ‘ve got to do a large amount of the workplace yourself. If you ask person else what they think of what this parole would be like, you ‘re largely going to get a different picture ( some commonalities aside ). Remember, Thomas Moore ‘s Utopia had slavery. even if you do agree on what “ peace ” would be like, changes are you can find a deviation in opinion on how to get there. Or you know … you could just look at the words that pop out the most in advertising, or the words that a politician says more than any other.
many of the “ entreaty fallacies ” are the consequence of glittering generalities. “ It ‘s natural ” ( natural things can be both dear and bad ). “ It ‘s traditional ” ( Traditions can be both good and bad ). “ It ‘s new ” ( New things can be both good and bad ). I ca n’t make a complete list of this, because that would credibly use every abstract bible in the dictionary. It does n’t in truth matter, since I ‘ve used the ones that I see here most much. Remember, equitable because person ends up using a glitter generalization does n’t mean that they ‘re evil or trying to trick you into buying snake petroleum. however, the people that are evil or are trying to sell you snake oil will have to use propaganda techniques. adjacent time, I dunno “ angelization and demonization. ” Sound effective ?