Thank you, Bert, a reasonable starting point for a discussion at last, as opposed to warm or cold fudge. This has nothing to do specifically with the earlier thread, about which I have said all I intend to say.

But the question of the rhetorical use of collective blame is very important, and very delicate. I think imputing collective blame to people is a very dangerous practice -- all men are not guilty of rape; all English and Irish citizens are not guilty of what happened in Northern Ireland, and therefore are acceptable targets for bombing; you are not guilty of the death of thousands of 3rd world children each week simply because they are dying of malnutrition and easily preventable diseases and you are in a developed country and have done nothing about this issue (I mean this as an example, you may be a foster parent for all I know). This kind of tactic is not a "necessary nudge": it misrepresents by a kind of cheap sociology -- if you do nothing, you are part of the power structure which is carrying out "structural violence" on your behalf -- the ways in which we are in fact absolutely responsible for certain things, relatively responsible for others, and constrained by others from responding. If we cannot make some of these distinctions, then we are guilty of everything or innocent of everything, and language becomes meaningless; and when language becomes meaningless, we lose our best tool for change. The result is usually an unholy mess ruled by screamers. Smearing guilt all over people as a tactic is now widespread: and the result, in my experience, is that people grow to resent it, and turn their backs on their real responsibilities. It is not a "necessary nudge" in my book.
yours, Peter T.
(P.S. You can come and piss on my carpet anytime.)