Stereotypical Stereotyping

By

TOM MOLLOY

Recently, at a social event, I overheard a heated conversation among three casual acquaintances. The topic was racism. Two of these individuals were deploring racism and posited that the economic and social problems experienced by minorities in this country were attributable to this phenomenon. The third, while not denying that racism was a factor, was adamantly arguing that problems of minorities were primarily attributable to their own “flawed” value systems. The dissenter conceded that some whites had negative feelings about blacks, but argued that this reaction sprang at least partially from the fact that blacks committed a disproportionate share of violent crimes. The other two now closed in for the kill. Our dissenter had let his guard down and the other two mauled him. They loudly accused him of stereotyping. In the rarified atmosphere inhabited by the politically correct crowd, stereotyping is not just a logical fallacy: it’s a mortal sin beyond redemption. Our two PC champions verbally flagellated the offender, savagely branding him a racist. The gist of their argument was that the dissenter had engaged in racial stereotyping and was, ipso facto guilty of racism. Up until this point, the dissenter had been holding his own, but the racism charge shook him. He slinked off to lick his wounds.

The two victors sanctimoniously congratulated themselves on their triumph over racism. I decided not to intrude on their celebration, but I realized their victory was based on a logical fallacy. Frankly, I was intimidated. I didn’t want the racist epithet hurled at me. Being considered a racist these days is not socially acceptable. In polite society racism is considered, thank heavens, decidedly “uncool.”

The dissenter may or may not have been a racist, but, in my opinion, nothing he said merited this appellation. He had not, in fact, engaged in stereotyping. Rather he had made a generalization that blacks committed a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Notwithstanding his intentions in making this generalization, it is either true or false. Our two PC warriors found this generalization repugnant and truth or falsehood were irrelevant to them. In the PC world there are some truths that are not to be spoken or are to be denied. Just try commenting that men have more upper body strength than women and the PC warriors will pounce on you, accusing you of stereotyping and sexism. If you feebly utter, “But it’s true” you will infuriate the PC disciples. Throwing the truth in their face is like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.

If one disagrees with the PC crowd on some aspect of race, they immediately label the dissenter a racist. The accusation itself carries with it a presumption of guilt and social stigma.

A sage friend of mine cautioned that one should never talk about racism; one should write about it. He averred that it was easy to misquote speech, less easy to misquote the written word.

At any rate, whether out of maliciousness or ignorance, people frequently misuse the term “stereotype.” I am of Irish stock and I have read any number of times that Irish Americans are much more likely to become alcoholics than Italian Americans. This is not stereotyping; it is generalizing. Again, the truth or falsehood of this generalization is not dependent on the intentions of the one making it. It is true or false on its own merits. According to this generalization, given a population of 1000 Irish-Americans and a population of 1000 Italian-Americans, one would expect to find more alcoholics in the Irish-American population. Stereotyping, given this generalization, would be to assume that any Irish-American you meet is an alcoholic.

I am a liberal, but the proclivity of my liberal friends to abuse the term “stereotyping” annoys me. Of course, one must be circumspect about accepting a generalization made by any advocacy group, but a generalization does not a stereotype make.

Our dissenter made the generalization that blacks were responsible for a disproportionate number of violent crimes. His two opponents seized on this generalization and erroneously labeled it “stereotyping.” Lamentably, even if the dissenter had been able to prove the validity of his repugnant generalization, the odds are that his opponents would still have accused him of “racist stereotyping.”

What ever happened to the requirement that undergraduates take course in Logic?

Let's Win One For a Change

<>LET’S WIN FOR A CHANGE
<>
<> by

Tom Molloy

Apparently, Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite feeble protestations from the United States and its allies. In the era of digital communication, the Iranians have extended the medial digit to us. Our less than courageous response has been to sic the UN Security Council on them. This is like asking for a time out and signals our lack of resolve, emboldening them even more.

“Leaks” to the press indicate that the US is considering military action. The assumption is that we would bomb the facilities that contribute to Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities. Some analysts say that our bombing would be relatively ineffective because the facilities are so deep underground that they are impervious to bombing. These analysts say this negates any military option. If they are right, Iran will succeed in developing nuclear weapons.

I submit that permitting these madmen to have nuclear weapons is unthinkable. I am not a military expert, but I will tell you that, not only is there a military option, there is military option that will solve the immediate problem and achieve the objective of preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.

The time for vacillation, negotiations, and lamentations has passed. The time has come to teach Iran that a 21st century mentality trumps a seventh century mentality. The Iranian government needs a lesson in humility. <>

As lesson number one, we should immediately announce the name of an Iranian city that we will annihilate with incendiary bombs in two weeks. If the Iranians get cute and put western hostages in this city, we should announce that we will eliminate the chosen city and another city, which will remain unnamed until its destruction. It will be “Now you see it, now you don’t.” Can you imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue from an announcement that an unnamed city would be annihilated? The entire urban population would suddenly migrate from the cities to the inhospitable country side. There would be insufficient food, water, and shelter. Iran would quickly become ungovernable. Anarchy would prevail. The state would dissolve.

Developing nuclear weapons would no longer be a priority. Survival would be the all-consuming goal.

We could teach the Iranians and others who are inclined to harm us that, when you give us the middle finger, we break your finger off and shove it up you ass.

Let’s win one for a change.