# Accusing a Group of Malice in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 22, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062 "2024-08-22T20:42:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/161 "2024-08-29T03:25:40Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > The rule doesn’t apply to off-board people/groups. > > “Conservatives,” “Republicans,” and “MAGAs” are all off-board people/groups. > > There. I said it. Okay, that’s a totally different argument than the one I thought you were making in that last post. The rule against personal insults doesn’t apply to off-board _individuals_, such as Donald Trump or Barack Obama. However, I am a member of the message board. So if the insult is directed to me, it is against the rules. Which brings us back to the point I _thought_ you were making, which was that I wasn’t personally within the scope of the insult. And when I say no, I really am within the scope of the insult, as I understand it your response is: I should re-evaluate my views because I’m defending the indefensible, on the wrong side of history, **Der\_Trihs** was reasonable to insult me, and I should learn from that feedback. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/162 "2024-08-29T03:28:50Z")
If you are not directly insulted, then somehow represent yourself as one of the insulted, do you think that counts as “That person insulted me personally”? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/163 "2024-08-29T03:30:04Z")
Yes, but not for that reason. ETA: If you _are_ insulted _indirectly_, then somehow represent yourself as one of the insulted, do you think that counts as “That person insulted me personally”? If you are under the misapprehension that all personal insults must be direct insults, please see the following: > “Do not directly insult **or** personally attack other posters.” The word “or” indicates that not all personal attacks are direct insults. Example, “only a racist would say such a thing”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/164 "2024-08-29T03:59:48Z")
The difference, as I see it, is that it’s permissible to insult a group of people as operating with malice, and that’s not outside of the rules, _irrespective_ of whether you identify as part of that group. If someone said ,” @Max_S , _you_ are operating with malice,” that’s a personal insult. If they insult a group to which you happen to belong, it’s within the rules because you’re not being singled out. Does that make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/165 "2024-08-29T04:34:52Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Have you noticed that no mod that’s posted agrees with your reading of said rule? I’m of the opinion that they aren’t being consistent. And this is the place for me to make that claim. For example consider this mod note, and this goes to @superdude’s point as well (thank you for making it): > [@Nuclear-fusion power plants](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-fusion-power-plants/933368/65): > > **Modnote** : @Ruken: the “fear-mongering” line is also attacking the poster and not the post. > > > [@Nuclear-fusion power plants](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-fusion-power-plants/933368/58): > > > > Bringing up irrelevant source materials constitutes fear-mongering. They’ll need a license for their tritium inventory. There’s already a framework for byproduct materials. Why was it against the rules for **Ruken** to say bringing up irrelevant source materials constitutes fear-mongering? Because this was a backhanded insult against **Stranger\_on\_a\_Train**. The latter member had cited the source materials. Fear-mongering is an accusation of bad faith, purposely exaggerating a claim to create unnecessary fear. Since **Stranger\_on\_a\_Train** clearly made the cite, and one can reasonably infer that **Ruken** was referring to him since the post quoted **Stranger\_on\_a\_Train** directly. **Ruken** did not explicitly single out **Stranger\_on\_a\_Train** in that remark but he was clearly the target. It follows that **Ruken** indirectly accused him of fear-mongering. **What\_Exit** described the post as attacking the poster, not the post. There is no difference between what **Ruken** wrote and “people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers”. Now look what happens when I do a little substitution. People who think being gay is a choice are malicious. I’ve replaced “bring up source materials” with “think being gay is a choice”, and “fear-mongers” with “malicious”. What if instead of “people who think being gay is a choice”, I just write “conservatives are malicious”? What have I done that makes the rule no longer apply? What difference is there? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/166 "2024-08-29T04:44:09Z")
Yes it does make sense Superdude. The board has always permitted broadsides against groups for reasons given upthread. Unless they are protected groups - which liberals and conservatives are not. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I didn’t see it as a sociological question. When I think of a debate, I think of a back and forth between a proponent and an opponent. Not two proponents discussing between themselves what they think opponents are doing. If, for example, you put together a debate on whether creationists believe evolution is taking place today, you try to invite creationists to represent their beliefs. A proponent is better than a straw man. It’s a live debate, not a post-mortem. It’s a debate about what conservatives as a group believe. One example of what one conservative believes is of limited use. For perspective, I’ll quote from the OP: > [@If conservatives think being gay is a choice, what do they think are the benefits of being gay?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-conservatives-think-being-gay-is-a-choice-what-do-they-think-are-the-benefits-of-being-gay/1006014/1): > > But given that many conservatives think that sexual orientation is a choice, they must think there is some benefit in being gay - nobody chooses to be something without thinking there’s some benefit or advantage therein. > > What do they think those benefits are, though? Being gay entails more disadvantages than advantages in almost every nation in the world. … These are questions about what conservatives as a group believe. Now I grant that there _could_ be a thread entitled, “In what sense is being gay a choice? In what sense is it not a choice?” Indeed when I joined this message board I seem to recall that we had such debates (though the board was considered by and large gay-friendly at the time). We certainly had discussions about homosexuality. I didn’t find Max\_S’s posts to be objectionable, just mildly uninteresting. Miller’s remarks were more insightful IMnecessarilyHO (this isn’t my wheelhouse). Anyway, it sounds like Max\_S has a beef with Der: I don’t know how serious it is. This board has an escape valve for such situations: it’s called the Pit. I’m not trying to be overly snarky here: that really was the Pit’s original purpose. Not entirely incidentally, conservative posters from time to time advocate a higher civility bar for this message board. Back in the early part of this century, 2 boards spun off from this board: one had higher civility, the other had lower civility. Conservatives voted with their feet and largely favored the lower civility satellite board, though I’m happy to say the higher civility one is still in service. This disparity between conservative words and actions has been noticed by myself. > [@Max\_S](#): > > _I_ did not _segue_ into my discourse on the conceptual advantages of states’ rights. I believe you miss my point here. Best practice when discussing why society shouldn’t cut more slack towards an oppressed group is to pause to take note and measure of the oppression. It’s good manners and displays self awareness. (Are conservatives an oppressed group? No more than liberals I believe.) ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/167 "2024-08-29T07:30:05Z")
There’s no protection when discussing a large, broad group, even if you are a member, unless there is an attack on you personally. The exception carved out for the statement above is for protected groups. This is not. I don’t see a personal attack in the referenced thread. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/168 "2024-08-29T07:43:14Z")
The statement you referenced by Ruken, incidentally, wasn’t indistinguishable from“people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers.” The implied subject was (you). He was addressing Stranger directly, and it’s clear it was not an indirect attack on a group he believes Stranger to be in. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/169 "2024-08-29T10:26:16Z")
I believe mine was a 100% appropriate statement and the mod note isn’t credible given that mod’s performance. But I’m assuming being quoted wasn’t an invitation to litigate inaccurate statements that cause fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/170 "2024-08-29T10:31:09Z")
Curious if @Max_S would also forbid statements like: - Klansmen are racist. - Hamas supporters wants Jews to die. - Sovereign citizens are some dumb motherfuckers. Should I, before posting things like this, worry whether there are Klansmen/Hamas supporters/Sovereign citizens on the board? Should I stop myself because there might be someone in the Klan who really just likes how he looks in white, and who disagrees with all the lynchings? If a sovereign citizen shows me her Ph.D from MIT, must I apologize and retract? When a person is part of a group that they’ve joined willingly and that’s defined by a set of beliefs, they should expect criticism of that group. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/171 "2024-08-29T10:48:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Anyway, it sounds like Max\_S has a beef with Der: I don’t know how serious it is. This board has an escape valve for such situations: it’s called the Pit. I’m not trying to be overly snarky here: that really was the Pit’s original purpose. Yeah, the more I read this thread and the more I, _personally_ keep coming up the more it comes across like an attempt to Pit me outside of the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/172 "2024-08-29T13:57:02Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Okay, that’s a totally different argument than the one I thought you were making in that last post. I’ve made _quite a few_ arguments. > [@Max\_S](#): > > The rule against personal insults doesn’t apply to off-board _individuals_, such as Donald Trump or Barack Obama. Then I would argue that we clarify that the same exception _also applies_ to groups. The conversation about “MAGAts,” to me, seemed very reasonable, particularly outside of the Pit, because it’s a dehumanizing slur. Ascribing ill will and bad faith to a broad political group seems … Idunno … a delicate blend of accurate (in this case) and benign. Once again: malign(ant) intent \<\> pedophiles. If you find the generalization too hasty for GD, why not raise the specter of a logical fallacy? ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/173 "2024-08-29T16:57:00Z")
BTW, @Max_S … It only just occurred to me to look further into the **[Terms of Service](https://boards.straightdope.com/tos)**. The TOS _also_ say [bolding mine]: > **Rants.** Criticism of off-board **parties** , including the occasional insult, is permitted in all forums. Rants and abuse, on the other hand, should be confined to the BBQ Pit. The term “parties” generally connotes the singular or the plural, as in the **[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_(law))** definition: > A party is an individual or group of individuals that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law. ISTM, based on the responses you’ve gotten from the moderators, that the _intent_ of the rules – with the notable exception of ‘protected classes --’ IS to permit _some_ level of disparagement of off-board individuals _or_ groups in all forums. I stand ready to be corrected if this is _not_ the case. I also think my Florida examples would probably stand the test, even if you responded by indignantly pointing out that _you live_ in Florida. Nobody’s extrapolating from the tens of millions to the one, nor is anybody extrapolating from the individual to the tens of millions. And – again – if you feel that’s happening (to you) in GD, then why not call out what you see as a logical fallacy? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/174 "2024-08-29T17:41:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, the more I read this thread and the more I, _personally_ keep coming up the more it comes across like an attempt to Pit me outside of the Pit. To be fair, I think Max\_S is also arguing for making conservatives a protected class (via the don’t-attack-the-poster route). This isn’t the first time I’ve seen such a proposal, though this is more explicit than is usually the case. To be doubly fair, Der Trihs’ _de facto_ posting privileges in GD have fluctuated over time. During his problem poster days he was one of the few or only member of that category that scrupulously obeyed moderator instructions. I believed at the time that his now vindicated posts were unhinged, but I did notice his iron discipline and absence of line dancing. * * * Why not raise the civility bar and disallow broadsides in GD? Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness provides one downside upthread: it becomes more difficult to criticize groups if you regulate broadsides, hampering the fight against ignorance. I provided another perspective: nothing stops anyone from forming a board with a higher civility bar - and doing so is trickier than it may first appear. Here’s another more fundamental point: this is a pseudo-anonymous message board. The civility bar is set higher IRL whether it be a scientific conference or the military. Reputational considerations and a wider range of sanctions regulate behavior there in ways impossible on the internet. It’s just a very different context. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/175 "2024-08-29T18:13:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > @Max_S I’d argue that your personal beliefs are really not germane to discussions about (US) conservatives. You may identify as one, but your beliefs are very essoteric, and not at all representative of the general conservative population. > > > > If you don’t hostility towards LGBT people, then you aren’t part of the group of conservatives being discussed. > > ⁢ > > Then what happens if a second poster shows up, and says the same? The remark in question was that “With conservatives it’s _always_ about malice” — does the italicized “always” become problematic if three people, three, can you imagine, three people walking in and saying it and walking out? ⁢ It’s irrelevant no matter how many came in. No one read that statement and actually thinks it means literally every conservative is malicious in everything they say or do. That would literally be impossible. It’s obvious hyperbole. My point is that Max’s beliefs are esoteric and unusual for conservatives. No one when they talk about “conservatives” in general is talking about someone as many liberal beliefs as Max has. Except in the Pit as a form of venting, I do still think that Der\_Trihs’s style of communication is more harmful than helpful. These sorts of comments are easier to dismiss by anyone who actually needs to be convinced, as they just read like partisan swipes. But it doesn’t change that Max’s own reasons aren’t really all that relevant unless he can establish they are actually common amongst conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/176 "2024-09-11T18:51:14Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Now I grant that there _could_ be a thread entitled, “In what sense is being gay a choice? In what sense is it not a choice?” Indeed when I joined this message board I seem to recall that we had such debates (though the board was considered by and large gay-friendly at the time) Yeah, that’s how I interpreted the thread. When I go to a debate the host will often give a quick intro explaining how one prominent group or other stands on the issue, then introduces a participant with some tie to the group. I can see how you might say this debate thread is not about the actual substance of the questions put forward, but rather how conservatives poll on the question. I consciously chose not to interpret it that way because the thread was in #Great Debates, not #Politics & Elections. But _even if_ the thread was about the political aspect, the claim made was universal, > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > One example of what one conservative believes is of limited use. It is a valid counter example to a universal proposition of the form, conservatives are always X. Even putting that aside and assuming it is only an insult if the target is specific rather than general, we run into the problem - raised in-thread and which I acknowledge: You say these people are always malicious, I say I’m in the group but I’m not malicious, and then what do you do. You aren’t allowed to say I’m malicious. This is the actual sequence of events from the linked thread. The moderators who have chimed in in this thread have not actually weighed in on that problem, so far as I can tell. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Anyway, it sounds like Max\_S has a beef with Der I don’t, actually I generally value **Der\_Trihs** ’s contributions more than most other posters precisely because his viewpoint is so far from mine. I cite him so much here because he made the other posts in question. Those are real posts, and real views, as opposed to hypotheticals. Here’s a non- **Der\_Trihs** hypothetical. Saying “all adult My Little Pony fans are perverts” would be inappropriate in a discussion about some aspect of My Little Pony, because it’s insulting to call someone a pervert. A fan could reasonably object, “I’m not a pervert.” This objection is within the bounds of civil discourse. Normally the first person would then say something like, “oh, present company excluded.” Thus clarifying their argument is that _most_ My Little Pony fans are perverts. They _have_ to go through the motions or it becomes an _un_civil discussion. Does that mean the first person has to lie, if they honestly believe _all_ fans are perverts? No. But if one is unwilling to except present company from a general insult, one shouldn’t make the general insult in polite company. #Great Debates is polite company, good sportsmanship, Marquess of Queensberry rules and such. A good sport does not impugn the motive of his opponent, or if he does, he is willing to take it back. We have the Pit for no-holds-barred discussions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/177 "2024-09-11T18:54:19Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The statement you referenced by Ruken, incidentally, wasn’t indistinguishable from“people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers.” The implied subject was (you). I don’t see the difference, for whatever reason, but thank you for explaining why you disagree. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/178 "2024-09-11T19:09:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Should I, before posting things like this, worry whether there are Klansmen/Hamas supporters/Sovereign citizens on the board? First I’m assuming you are in a debate where it is relevant to question the motives of Klansmen or Hamas supporters, or the intelligence of sovereign citizens. Otherwise you have the hijack rule. Then I’m assuming the thread is in GD. Not P&E or the Pit. So if you make a claim, even in passing, it has to be debatable - with a few explicit exceptions (scientific racism, climate change denial, men’s right activism). A political discussion in P&E is a different context than a debate in GD, so some generalizations of political groups which would be perfectly acceptable hyperbole in P&E, could be taken more literally in GD. The question, if you make any of these statements, is whether you are speaking generally or universally. Are you saying _all_ Klansmen are racist? Probably. Are you saying _all_ Hamas supporters want Jews to die? Probably not. Are you saying _all_ Sovereign citizens are some dumb motherfuckers? Probably not, in the literal sense. So in the one case you might have someone come out and say he is a Klansman but not personally racist. Out of the three that’s the only statement I’m guessing you would be uncomfortable saying something like, “present company excluded.” And if we do have a Klansman on these boards trying to argue that the KKK isn’t racist, well, we have a rule against posters that are more trouble than they’re worth. So you shouldn’t have to worry about it. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/179 "2024-09-11T19:18:43Z")
Is the word “all” when talking about different groups being used on this board, and by who? Examples, please. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062/180 "2024-09-11T19:23:18Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > The TOS _also_ say [bolding mine]: > > > **Rants.** Criticism of off-board **parties** , including the occasional insult, is permitted in all forums. Rants and abuse, on the other hand, should be confined to the BBQ Pit. > > The term “parties” generally connotes the singular or the plural The context in which that quote appears makes clear that it refers to individuals, such as public figure X: > **Rants.** Criticism of off-board parties, including the occasional insult, is permitted in all forums. Rants and abuse, on the other hand, should be confined to the BBQ Pit. For example, if you want to argue that public figure X is a jerk based on some recent revelation, this might unobjectionably be posted in any of several forums. If you simply want to testify to X’s continuing jerkitude, do so in the Pit. Threads that degenerate into rants may be closed; the OP (original poster) may request it be reopened in the Pit. > [@DavidNRockies](#): > > Nobody’s extrapolating from the tens of millions to the one In _this particular_ instance, i.e. “with conservatives it’s always about malice”, the conclusion is actually based on deduction and not a generalization at all. Conservatives are people with such and such views, which views are by their very nature _always_ malicious, therefore it’s always about malice. I did, in fact, object to the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization in-thread. Which was criticized, and not without reason. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accusing-a-group-of-malice-in-gd/1006062.md?page=10)