> and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements
So, are the assumptions unjustified or not? polarization is self-fulfilling, if people believe that it is "us" vs "them", then it is "us" vs "them".
> Do you disagree?
Disagree with what? The statement is very general.
The statement "some things are True, some things are not True" is tautologically true, and utterly unproductive.
but I think you've missed the point, the intersection of the two:
> it's well known that our perceptions are often wrong
If this is an example of a "generalizations across large groups of people", then you claim to believe that it "degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists".
You can't be exact about large groups of people to absolute resolution, there is always a degree of generality. Your own statements show that, either a) there are some statements, perhaps due to their passivity, can be made about large groups of people (but as a result, say very little) OR b) there is some acceptable level of generality when talking about large groups of people.
My conclusion is that either, there is a correct level of generality (that you don't establish), or that you can never talk about large groups of people, or at least say anything productive about them.
> I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread
I think everyone speaks at some level of generality about many things, whether they realise it or not; so simply language policing others on that basis begs a lot of questions.