That's the first time I'm hearing this and it's certainly not something I've ever observed. In this broad generally, I cannot believe that this statement is true.
But modern writing instruction tend to prioritize precise verbs and nouns (choose the most precise word) and takes a very critical eye towards adverbs, adjectives, or prepositional phrases that might simply contribute to cadence, affect, and voice. I find it really hostile to style and readability, but it's easy to evaluate in education because you can just call out the flavoring bits as errors and point to a more precise dictionary word for what's left. Plus, it projects objectivity simply in it being "the most right way" to write, leaving the dirty mess of subjectivity, character, and humanity out of the classroom.
But the relevant end result of all that is that there's very little room for qualifiers or tentatitiveness, as those are usually expressed exactly in those subtle modifiers that people are trained to exclude.
And then this does end up coinciding with a truth of rhetoric, which is that -- much of the time -- the receiver of speech or writing will implicitly accept whatever authority and surety you project. If you sound sure, you must be sure, and if you're so sure, you must have reason to be, so you're probably right.
Put these together, and you get dull, dense technical writing with authoritative, objective tone and people are too overwhelmed and passive to bother parsing it enough challenge it.
It is my understanding that this is a very USA-centric trend in writing, probably being exported along with the rest of the complex basket of American cultural quirks that come along with US-led internationalization (hegemony if you like) since WWII.
Look at how many public figures embrace the extreme overconfidence as a mark of tactical genius: SBF, Musk, lots of other SV figures, Trump, etc.
Humbleness, humility used to be admired. Can you imagine someone saying that now?
They are generally praised in the abstract, but in concrete terms of actual people in terms of attracting a contemporary following (and not distant, historical, and academic respect), boldness has usually trumped humility. The idea that there was a time when people didn't flock to the overcompetent people presenting strong-leader images over people with genuine humility is just one of the many ways people create a mythical past to paint the manifestation of long-present aspects of human culture as novel degeneracy into which the world has recently fallen.
I don't think that's true: Confucious, Jesus, George Washington, Lincoln, MLK ... Eisenhower, every president before Trump, the New England culture of looking down on ostentation and displays of wealth, .... I read a New Yorker article several years ago about a culture of Wall Street leaders in the 1980s who purposely wore cheap watches, had homes with low fences, etc.
Jesus had a relatively small band of followers that abandoned him at the first sign of unpopularity with authorities, pissed off more people than followed him, and was murdered by the public authorities at the demand of the local population. He got a bigger posthumous following after (actually or in a myth created by people seeking their own influence) rising from the dead.
Says a lot more about the respect for miracles than respect for humility, however much one might read what is written about him as calling for humility from his followers. Meanwhile the list of historical figures whose rise to influence was fueled by the exact opposite of humility is...not short.
> every president before Trump,
Very many of the Presidents before Trump were...not known for humility in their time. Some have had that added to their popular myth afterwards, but, I mean, plenty not even that, and probably the most recent one that was (I'm...not young, and Carter is probably the only one in my lifetime you might make a case that it was something he was particularly known for.)
> Very many of the Presidents before Trump were...not known for humility in their time.
Who? What did they do? Nobody like Trump or other people I named.
You might want to reread the upthread context: I was discussing the role of humility “in concrete terms of actual people in terms of attracting a contemporary following” and distinguishing that form backward-looking regard (since we are comparing to how Trump is currently viewed, where we can see only the contemporary regard and not what future generations will think of him in retrospect.)
What has happened after the time of Jesus ministry with respect to the impact of works written about him is irrelevant.
Jesus is certainly far, far more influential than 2000 years ago. Christianity was an obscure religion and probably nobody had heard of Jesus outside the immediate region.
Parable of the sower comes to mind: hear the word, but did not follow it.
Except the popularity in that era was due to all the powerful people saying it proved their right to absolute power and sometimes made other religions (including denominations of Christianity) illegal, and popularity waned rapidly as it stopped being required.
Actually reading the bible is a big part of why I switched from Catholic to Wicca as a teen before deciding it was probably all ahistorical anyway.
As I understand it: Humans are complicated, as Jesus depicted them. They are both terminally weak and flawed, and there is also good and justice and mercy in them - the many angels of our natures. Jesus ministered to the weak and flawed, not the good and just, certainly not to the perfect. It's a message of love to people who sin, which is pretty much everyone; Jesus didn't expect differently. His message was to love the sinners and for the sinners to accept his love.
All human institutions are flawed and to a degree corrupt; they are run by sinners. I'm not defending the Catholic Church or any church or religion, my point is that if we throw out the good when there are flaws, major flaws, we are left with nothing. Not even ourselves.