Stereotypes and Stultified Reasoning

The recent controversy over Mavericks owner Mark Cuban’s remarks raises several troubling issues. After Steven A. Smith came out in defense of Cuban, many people erupted with anger at his “betrayal.” The context of Cuban’s statement referenced appearance choices and styles of dress commonly worn by the crime-committing sub-groups of the population.

Smith admitted that he initially thought the statement was racist until he heard the second part which mentioned a white tattoo-covered skin head. Smith emphasized that not every issue was about race and those that seek to score points by offense-mongering do no good.

The race-industry resists the idea that one can reasonably stereotype people in certain situations. However, they only complain when it is non-whites at issue. Discussions of serial-killers being predominantly white, middle-aged men elicit no such anger. The fact is this characterization is accurate in a large portion of such cases.

Consider this example. You are walking down the street at night, and a set of bikers drive by slowly. You have no evidence that they want to harm you; however, it is still reasonable for you to fear for your safety. The sub-group of bikers tends to be more violent than the average motorist.

What if, instead of bikers, you were slowly passed by a group of elderly couples on mopeds? These people could have criminal records. Perhaps their seat pockets conceal firearms. Yet, you are far less likely to fear for your safety simply because of the demographic difference.

People know that young males are far more likely to commit crimes than elderly women. People know that a young Korean boy passing them on a college campus at night is less likely a potential assailant than a tattoo-covered skin-head.

What the race-industry cannot tolerate is the idea that commonly understood criminological data may inform people’s behavior. What they fail to grasp is that information is a scare commodity with costs entailed in its acquisition.

In our biker scenario, you could take the time to get to know the guys. Perhaps they are as gentle as lambs. But the potential cost of acquiring that information far outweighs the potential benefits. The mere fact that people who chose similar styles of dress and careers are more dangerous than the elderly mopedist is a perfectly reasonable justification for caution.

The knowledge that young men (of any race) are more likely to harm you than demographically different people is a valid basis for fear and caution. The reaction to Cuban’s remarks and Smith’s defense demonstrates that we have reached a point where the eminently rational is now unspeakable. We must all operate under the assumption that all demographic categories are equally dangerous or benign. There is not a shred of evidence to justify this assumption, merely indignation at the failure of reality to match the vision of the anointed.