@oralloy,
The use of "all of X" (X being a symbols/classification/proxy etc) always leads to problems, whether it be:
- innacurate definition of 'X' (despite dictionaries, people tend to have their own definitions)
- uncertain application of the definition of 'X' to a person (who may sit at the very edge of X, or oscillate in and out of X, or swing both ways in relation to the definition of X)
- frequent but misplaced beliefs that all of X = Y (humans are incredibly complex and highly variable by nature - even after you account for the significant similarities)
....and that is only scratching the surface of the problems associated with attempting to classify a person and then equate an outcome as to who they are.
I use X because it doesn't matter what symbol/classification/proxy is used in place of X, the problems found are almost always exactly the same.
I recall reading a book that suggested the reason we humans do this, harks back to the caveman days, when humans had to make instantaneous decisions in order to survive. So we developed the ability to instantly:
- categorise (accurately or not didn't matter, as it had to be instant for the second part to work); and
- to associate X with danger or survival
- so that we could immediately react to any possible threat
Ideology almost never played a role in life or death back then, so there were no survival traits written into our DNA for it. But in days where shelter wasn't strong, warning was often non-existant, and law was truly non-existant, accuracy wasn't necessary - instant decision making was an ability that frequently saved your life. Lack of ability frequently (eventually) lead to death Ie. the world had to black and white to them, in order to survive long enough to procreate
That ability became written into our DNA. It carries over into todays world (which now included ideological issues) in multiple problematic ways, like using and believing in categorisations for people, when categorisations are known to be rarely fully accurate, and often highly inaccurate. Many still actually believe in the accuracy of categorisations, without ever understanding where their belief in categorisation comes from.
Given all of the above, the more vague the concept associated with danger, the more inaccurate it is likely to be ie. man looking at me with hate, holding gun, pointing it at me = danger...is still valid, being based on actions directly in front of you. But Ideological or Conceptual categorisations are rarely encompassing, even when self confessed, and any belief that all of X = Y will often both be inaccurate at the start (the definition/classification stage) and at the end result stage
Individual actions & ideas are still up for judgement. Total classifications face problems.
