The NAXALT Objection, As Briefly As Possible

395 words

Following the conclusion of our thought-provoking NAXALT contest, I’ll provide a very short take suitable for conversational material, along with a few further thoughts. As I’ve stated earlier: The term “NAXALT” is short for “Not all [members of group X] are like that.” It’s a frequent rebuttal to discussions of group behavior. This X might refer to any race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual identity, social class, or really any other particularism.

Any such group has outstanding members, personally distinguished and capable of fitting in among general society. Often the media showcases them as typical examples – usually inaccurately. Still, when two groups interact within society, this includes all members, not just these appealing, talented, and well-behaved good examples. Outliers don’t invalidate averages.

Aren’t we all just individuals? It’s fine to treat those you know as such. It’s different with strangers. Your only information about how they’ll act is from inferences about group behavior. Liberal denunciations of “prejudice” basically amount to ordering you to turn off the part of your mind that notices trends and forms conclusions. Stereotypes usually exist for a reason, despite inevitable exceptions. These things must be considered dispassionately, despite whatever friendly personal rapport you may have with any exceptional outliers. Many others really are like what you’ve heard!

Disregarding this can bring severe consequences. Suppose you’re abroad and surrounded by a crowd of gypsies. Should you assume they’re not all like what you’ve heard, or should you carefully guard your pocketbook? If you choose wrong, you might get gypped! Some other vibrant types are notorious for much worse: riots, looting, acid attacks, violent crime, suicide bombings, etc. How is society benefiting from them? Put briefly, diversity + proximity = war.

Disregarding group behavior is governmental mismanagement, inevitably leading to trouble. When another population enters our society, they include not just their best representatives, but also any underperforming strata. Any group pathologies they bring will become our problem, often catching us off guard. This is why multiculturalism breaks down, other than mutually amicable kindred peoples that are closely related and have much in common. Likewise, multiracialism is always dysfunctional, since differences between races are so great that incompatibilities are inevitable, leading to perpetual conflict. Contrary to certain utopian notions promoted endlessly lately, trying to get them to coexist well in the same society just doesn’t work. The “diversity is our greatest strength” slogan is a lie.