In Defense Of Sweeping, Broad-Brush Generalities

[Rage for Order]

I often see members here denounced or challenged because that person made a general statement about a certain group of people. The standard response is that you can't make a broad, sweeping statement about a group of people because not all of those people don't behave in that manner. However, would you consider the following generalities to be accurate?

* Italians eat more pasta than Germans
* Women aren't as strong (physically) as men
* White people don't make good rap music
* Black people don't make good heavy metal music
* Men won't ask for directions
* Toyotas are more reliable than Fords

These are just a few examples, but they are accurate statements in general. It should be understood that the poster is not implying that every Italian eats more pasta than every German. Is it really necessary to ask someone if they think "all" of the members of the referenced group exhibit that behavior? Of course some women are stronger than some men, some white people can make good rap music (at least one, anyway: Eminem), some black people can make good heavy metal music, some men will ask for directions, and some Fords turn out to be more reliable than some Toyotas. Speaking in generalities is not in and of itself bad. Hell, if people didn't speak in generalities we wouldn't have a need for statisticians.

How about a break for people who don't put a disclaimer in their post stating "I understand that each member of this group is an individual, and the individual members of this group may or may not exhibit the tendencies ascribed to this group as a whole"?

[mudesi]

1. Those are not "bad" generalizations

I've noticed that people only complain when a generalization is relatively negative.

[Rage for Order]

4. But what if the generalization is both accurate and negative?

Such as "domestic violence harms women more than it harms men". That does not mean that men aren't abused by women or that all men are abusive of women, but it is both negative and accurate.

[TwilightGardener]

2. You've just opened yourself up to a dozen posts saying, "I'm Italian, and

I hate pasta", or "My Ford Festiva was the BEST CAR EVER!"

[Rage for Order]

5. LOL

I was hoping the disclaimer at the end of my post would cover me :)

[madeline_con]

7. Isn't spaetzle a type of noodle? n/t

[datasuspect]

3. i have patented a "universal disclaimer generator."

opportunties abound for any potential licensees.


btw, i understand what you are saying.

i think people are persnickety because it's easier to be an ass to someone you don't know on the internet.

i try to overqualify for the inferentially-impaired. you know, the same people who demand "sources" like web URLs and wiki pages.

oy!

[madeline_con]

6. Have you heard of Eminem? n/t

[Rage for Order]

8. Case in point

Thank you for proving my point. And yes, I have heard of Eminem. In fact, he is referenced in the latter part of my original post :)

[BlooInBloo]

9. Or: low-post-count recent-joins are freepers. Gotta love broad-brush generalities.

[Rage for Order]

10. Well.

I was referring to behaviors that have been observed repeatedly over a long period of time. Based on the limited time I have been reading and/or posting here, I can't speak to the veracity of that statement.

[BlooInBloo]

11. lololol

[Rage for Order]

12. I'm not sure if my post was funny or not...

See, I just thought you were presenting a generality that is used that isn't necessarily accurate. In doing so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to not violating DU rules by insinuating that I'm a freeper, because I'm sure you have more integrity than that and, if you did care to call me a freeper, you'd actually have the courage to do so directly rather than doing so in a childish, watch-my-subtle-play-on-words manner :)

[BlooInBloo]

13. They have rules against doing that.

[Rage for Order]

14. I'm aware

So then, which was it? Were you pointing out a generalization that isn't accurate, or were you exhibiting a lack of courage and integrity by trying to call me a freeper without using the actual words? I'm curious.

[BlooInBloo]

15. False dilemma. I already told you the third alternative.

EDIT: But whatever brings more attention to this thread is fine by me.

[Rage for Order]

16. Enjoy your verbal masturbation

Where'd I put that "ignore" button?

[BlooInBloo]

17. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[canetoad]

18. Good points and thanks for posting

Sometimes it's the scope of the discussion that suggests the appropriateness and corresponding size of the generalities. If you are comparing say two individuals, or small interest groups, then IMO it is better to be fairly specific. If on the other hand we are comparing health care between nations or other broad subjects, I can't see any way to do it without broad-brushing.