All groups are diverse, unless they're not

I'm not totally certain, but I think Roger L. Simon just called himself a mutt.

In referring to Glenn Greenwald's post Using generalizations to describe political groups, Roger takes issue with Glenn's view that, whatever position one takes on the political spectrum, we have a tendency to generalize and peg people as belonging to a group. When one takes a side in a discussion or argument one is labeled, correctly or incorrectly, as belonging to the general group which supports that particular position.

Glenn points out generalizations are invariably inaccurate:

As necessary as they are, generalizations are fraught with risks and dangers. In any group of any size, the generalized statements which accurately describe the group's behavior will be inapplicable to various individuals who compose the group.

Somehow, Roger seems to have missed that and goes on to argue that Glenn's observations overlook large numbers of people who do not line up behind any particular voice.

No, Roger, he didn't.

Glenn was simply pointing out the traits which go to group-think. He also points out that even the most independent person can fall into group behaviour and inversely, one who regularly speaks with the group voice can occasionally emerge to speak in opposition or behave differently from the generally known traits of their associated group.

Roger claims to be a more complex person with passionate political views which cross the lines many times.

Well, Roger, welcome to the world. That's why we have elections and why we can't forecast the outcome based soley on group affiliations.

I think Glenn's main point was that if you cheerlead for Bush, you're a part of the Bush Cargo Cult, regardless of your other views.