> Telling people how everyone in a group of people does xyz is the exact problem you are complaining about.
No, in this case it is actually the opposite. The problem I am complaining about is people ascribing negative aspects (extreme opinions) to people uttering snappy slogans. What I did was ascribe a positive aspects to these same people, namely that they can all describe their opinion as being nuanced. (Obviously the words “every” and “all” do not literally mean “every” and “all” in the mathematical sense, but that’s just how language works.)
I'm sorry, but you don't think "every" means "every" but instead actually means "some"?
That’s how language works, yes. Otherwise, every sentence with the word “everybody” in it would be false.
No, that is not how language works and you are a poor communicator. This is the definition of the word "every":
eve·ry | ˈev(ə)rē | determiner (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception: the hotel assures every guest of personal attention | [with possessive determiner] : the children hung on his every word.
>Otherwise, every sentence with the word “everybody” in it would be false.
No. "Everybody over there" is not false if it refers to everybody over there for example. If you use everybody to refer to some people, then that is your poor word choice.
I have no dog in the fight above but you're getting downvoted for explaining that orwellian language is bad. Pretty surreal.
see: generalization