The "broad brush" diversion. Effective or lame?

Idk sometimes it works but other times WTF

If others believe the same then when were you elected as spokesperson of the opinion. Basically, it's a lie, doubt the people who use this, actually know anybody else

"not ALL of us are that way. You shouldn't generalize and paint with a broad brush".

-This is true, you can't just make broad accusations. Saying this isn't DENYING that everyone isn't doing what you are saying, because some probably are.

"Example: "Guys are pigs and only want sex". Someone may respond...not ALL guys, but not challenge the accusation."

Well yes, because some guys do just want sex sometimes, as do some girls. Just because your right about some doesn't mean you are about the others. Maybe you're right about one small thing but your still wrong in the big picture. And that can easily be pointed out with the broad brush argument.

It's very effective. It is an effective response to someone making ridiculous accusations about an entire group of people. If someone says "Guys are pigs ad only want sex" that person is clearly a moron. And they are clearly wrong. Their argument is speaking about and ENTIRE group of people, that's pretty stupid.


If I said "All conservatives are racist bigots who want to take our country backwards".

The proper response would obviously be "You can't just make broad accusations" and that would be correct. If I said "All conservatives are wonderful people and they support Obama", again I would make the same response.

I really don't think it's a tactic...It's just what comes to anyones mind when they hear something so ridiculous.

Well that's because something is always going to be true about some people. No matter what group you are talking about. That doesn't detract from the argument though. When people make this argument they are seeking to just say the person can't be right about everyone. Defending everyone would just be doing the SAME thing that the person who made the broad statement was doing.
You can't argue against an argument style using the SAME argument lol.

I think it is effective, when I hear some people on SH talk, they speak in such generalizing terms, as if to say "ALL (blank-type of people) are this/that way"--when it's not the case

That is one of the FEW things on Sodahead that PISSES me OFF!!!

Using the "broad brush" tactic, is very effective for those who prefer not to think beyond their particular prejudices.

You will prefer to do what you want. I prefer not to paint individuals, or groups of people, with a broad brush. When it comes to politicians, and looking at their voting records and what they say, the broad brush is sometimes understandable. Other than that, I've never been the goose.
To not cop out on your question, hmmmm.......responding with "not all", or "some might be", doesn't seem like a diversion tactic, necessarily, to me. It sounds like not judging the whole, by the actions of some. Usually, those who do make those kind of judgments, are not interested in hearing facts about those they are attacking. All animal right's advocates are terrorists, all Conservatives are selfish, all Liberals are immoral.......I see it all the time, and disputing such generalizations is often a waste of time.

Unless you do what?

The answers really don't match the questions anyway. So I was silly to choose one answer(:

If that scared you, well, I don't know how you will manage it in hell(:

Heehehehe, It's OK, take your time!(:

I think you need a lesson in expressing yourself clearly :-)

Oh, I'm sure there is no shortage of dumb people !!

It is as lame as the "blame Bush for everything" poor excuse!

Or "blame Obama for everything"

in say so one does make his point know and avoid any argumnet.......smart way to skip debate and shower INsult

If it were effective, people would stop painting with a broad brush.
But it is accurate, to say that everyone under a certain label does not think the same way on all issues, or behave the same way as that being attributed to them.
Unless one is very careful, using the broad brush is Lame.

Not merely an effective tactic but true in a lot of cases. Therefore, I don't view it as lame. There are outliers on a distribution of almost anything, but the important question is "do they characterize the group?" Of course they don't, but to ignore what is typified by the distribution, i.e. the "broad brush," would be a mistake. While the outliers and their defenders can rightly protest being included in "broad brush" generalizations, their existence doesn't negate the significance of what the distribution shows about those who are typical.

Oh dear, somebody upset you ?

On the one hand, if someone says "all progressives do X" and I don't do X even though I'm a progressive, I think saying "not all of us do" is a valid response. But on the other hand, the assertion itself, if left unchallenged, just continues to divert people. The best answer to give (assuming it's accurate) is "I'm a progressive and I don't do X. Not only that, but most progressives don't do X. Here's some evidence."

PS - SOME guys are pigs and only want sex. I think it is wrong for a guy to objectify women as mere sex toys. And I don't only want sex even though I'm a guy.

I disagree.

If someone wants to accuse me of something, then accuse ME of it, don't lump me in with a group and assume that because I support that group, or maybe even belong to that group, that we are all alike. I'm still an individual. That is, unless I'm in the Borg Collective.

http://blogs.epfl.ch/document...

It is yet another tactic and for the dullards out there who number in the millions - it works but not for long...

it is an effective tactic but there are always exceptions to the rule of any type cast.