Right. But you can see the implied logical step right?

1. Corupt politicians in government have screwed society over, therefore I distrust the government as a whole
2. Skipped: assuming that my reasoning is consistent and that behaviors of the members of a group reflects on the group as a whole…
3. I don’t trust my group of friends because some of them are assholes

I also distrust the government as a starting default. But as soon as I have more specific information about specific members of that group, I change my trust level to reflect the more specific data I now have rather than falling back to my default assumptions inherited from the group.

Let’s use your analogy. If one farmer did use water responsibly, would you not encourage, and set them up as a model example of The Good Farmer? Or would you scoff and say “give them time. All farmers are selfish in the end”?

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the “waffle hater” concept implies that all forms of analogy are flawed and not to be used? I think you’re confusing the waffle hater thing for “I don’t understand how analogies work”. Or are a troll. My troll radar is terrible.