"Not All *" is just a dumb pattern of argument in general. Of course not all. But enough to be a problem.

@codinghorror @joecarnahan "Not all X are Y" is dumb. So is "enough X are Y to be a problem". You must show a causal connection from X to Y.

@codinghorror “Good news! Not all of the cells in your body have cancer.”

@codinghorror @Malcolm_Ocean How do you know what a typical "this generalization is too broad" argument is, much less whether it's good?

@codinghorror not all uses of the "not all *” argument pattern are dumb. of course

@codinghorror Not all rules have exceptions, you know.

@codinghorror if your argument is well phrased, no one should feel the need to respond "not all *". Programmers don't get that.

@codinghorror Or not enough to be considered a problem. Or not possible to generalize upon closer look. Or not an issue at all.

@codinghorror It's a reasonable, if incomplete, response to stereotyping

@codinghorror Except in the case of “Not all servers in a datacenter should be rebooted at the same time” j.mp/1mn0jhC

@codinghorror So is collective guilt. Just sayin.

@codinghorror It is a nice straw man to divert the conversation. NAFALT or NAWALT were the previous ones.