This is textbook sealioning!
Wrapping an interrogation in a polite "just to clarify" and demanding point estimates and error bounds on a generalization is weaponized pedantry designed to derail the thread into an impossible burden of proof.
Wrapping an interrogation in a polite "just to clarify" and demanding point estimates and error bounds on a generalization is weaponized pedantry designed to derail the thread into an impossible burden of proof.
Is it really the majority? And if it is, is that belief limited to the wealthy or do the middle class also think that? What do the poor think?
(2) I don’t care about citations - I want GP to clarify his belief
(3) GP is using something similar to a Motte and Bailey to make a generalized statement about a group of people. They can argue against all wealthy people and retreat to “I didn’t mean all” with any argument that lands, without sacrificing the castle. This is a commonly used tactic when making generalizations about racial and social groups.