A substantive universalism argument of developing the meta-awareness of how it operates linguistically.

Absolutism is often a universalist choice to exclude options and not the actual reality, and people have always taken issue with absolutism. People go to the extreme for a couple of reasons when arguing. Sometimes it's in bad faith but a lot of times it's to show exceptions or flaws in an argument, or to point out the absurdity in the argument. I myself have done this when people say "violence is never the answer." I respond with "so the allied forces should never of gone to war against the Nazis," or "so you're saying the US shouldn't of fought the British in 1812?" Both times it gets them to admit violence should always be an option, and changes, even if not preferable. Use reductio ad absurdum as an epistemic tool, not to mock but to stress-test a claim to its logical breaking point, to highlight over claiming positions. There is almost always an exception to every rule, meaning when using finite terms, as absolute or infinite, the finite must be called out, because of historical truth of the human existence. Validation of an option, is not Validation of selecting that option, which is two different things, that need to be understood, when reading my message; linguistic precision and epistemic honesty. There's a reason why options exist, even if you deny them, and absolutist language is almost always epistemic laziness, rhetorical compression, or rhetorical overreach. While we want people to stay in domain when doing this, it's not always possible, and staying in domain is not how every mind functions because some are non-linear thinkers, with different cognitive logic and reasoning processes. Necessary is epistemic hygiene in language, for precision in language is a moral obligation in argumentation, not a pedantic preference. I guess to simplify what I am saying is: don't linguistically foreclose what reality keeps open because imprecise absolutism in language directly enables imprecise absolutism in action. I'm sure communism will tie this to class education and consciousness somewhere but I haven't come across this yet in my studies because it seems sometimes absolutism is class-interested language made to look universal, but most of the time it's individualist language and the difference should be evaluated and categorized because ideas produce consequences. Maybe this is my challenging or defamiliarization of bourgeois universalism we've been indoctrinated with, and the distinction between formal equality from substantive equality linguistically from bourgeois hegemony, or maybe I'm talking in circles, trying to come to an understanding... I mean, language that presents class interests as species-wide truths and genuine conditions or options aren't always the same, and lord knows the elite feed on this, especially when we use the language without them. When absolutist language is used, is it truth or something to comfort our own perception‽