The Problem is Veterans, Boomers, Millennials, Christians, Atheists, etc.

[MineralMan]

I see posts like that all the time on DU. People often attempt to put the blame for whatever problem is current on some group that is easily characterized by a label everyone recognizes. Such blaming is wrong, every time it is used, because no qualifiers are used in blaming whatever group is being named.

Veterans Voted for Trump! No, they didn't. Some veterans voted for Trump. It's difficult to break down the votes of veterans, because they're not a group that is specifically polled in most cases. I know that I'm a military veteran and sure as hell didn't vote for Trump. DU is chock full of veterans who would say the same thing. So, it is incorrect to say that veterans voted for Trump without qualifying that statement.

The same is true for every group that can be lumped together. Boomers didn't save for retirement? Well, some didn't, or couldn't, but many could and did. It's a too-broad statement to make without qualifiers.

Millennials don't vote? Well, some certainly don't, and turnout rates are lower for that age group than for other age groups, but I know and everyone knows millennials who did, indeed vote. Some voted for Hillary. Some voted for Trump. Without qualification, it's an incorrect statement.

Christians supported Trump? Some did, it's true, particularly evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, but walk into most Lutheran churches and ask for a show of hands. Without a qualifier, saying that Christians supported Trump is incorrect.

And so on and so on.

And that's my little advice post for this weekend. I doubt it will change posting habits, but I wish it would. Thanks for reading it.

[LongTomH]

1. K&R for Truth!!!! Thanks for trying to bring some rationality into the shouting match!!!

[MineralMan]

2. My pleasure.

Did you know that Hispanics are drug dealers and rapists? No? That's good, because it's simply not true, but is the same sort of incorrect statement as the ones I mentioned. We shouldn't be like Donald Trump. We should be better about lumping people together in condemnation of them.

[First Speaker]

3. Stop making sense...you're confusing us...

...the late, great writer and mad genius Robert Anton Wilson had a word he called "sombunall"--short for "some, but not all." Using it helps a little with one's mental sanity, and it helps you avoid some of the more blatant logical errors we all indulge in...

[MineralMan]

4. Well, confusing people is the last thing I want to do.

There are plenty of qualifying adjectives that can be used. Some. Many. A majority of. A substantial number of. That's all it takes to keep a statement true. Just a qualifier. It's easy. It's the thing to do.

[stopbush]

5. I'm sorry, MM, but this post exposes a complete lack of understanding on your part

of the way polling works.

Good polling is based on scientific principles. While we all have said "no one ever polls me" at one time or another, many people obviously do get polled. If enough people are polled from a certain demographic, those responses and results can easily be extrapolated over the whole of that said demographic.

Accurate polling results are not dependent on asking every single person their opinion.

So, when someone at DU asserts that vets or Xians or atheists or whatever did or didn't vote for someone, they are not saying that 100% of vets didn't vote for someone. They are saying that more than 50% of vets didn't vote for someone. If 50.1% of vets vote a certain way, then a majority of vets voted that way.

As a demographic group, millenials do not vote in the same perecntages as do other voting groups. That's what the polling tells us. It doesn't purport to say that no millenials vote.

Sorry, but your "advice" for the weekend smacks of fake news to me. It's an exercise in "I don't like what the poll results say, so I'm going to say the results are meaningless...or fake, if you will."

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks for your reply, with which I disagree.

No harm is ever done by qualifying a broad statement to make it more accurate. Much harm is done by omitting such qualification.

If a majority of a group did something, the words "majority of" should be used. Qualifiers are very useful when discussing things.

[stopbush]

7. There is no reason to state a qualifier when said qualifier is a given.

[MineralMan]

9. No qualifiers are given. Statements read as they read.

Since no effort whatever is needed to supply a qualifier, one should be supplied, unless you actually mean to refer to an entire group.

For example, if I am talking about Trump voters, then that is a self-qualifying group. However, if I assume that all registered Republicans voted for Trump, then I will be incorrect in lumping all Republicans together and assuming that all voted for Trump. That's because all Republicans did not vote for Trump, any more than did all Democrats vote for Hillary Clinton. Most did, in both cases, but not all.

Few groups of the type I mentioned in my OP are self-qualified as uniform when it comes to voting, political positions, or many other things. It's easy and accurate to supply a qualifier and reduces confusion.

[WinkyDink]

8. I can confidently say, "The problem is fools who believe Republican lies."

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. That is a self-qualifying group.