Friday, August 3, 2012

COMMANDMENT #12: Thou shalt not mistake Buffoonery Squared for Intelligence Squared

I posted this clip because I thought it was relevant

...out of context. However, in the context of the entire panel discussion, I learned that this program was some BULLSHIT! 
 The panel was framed around a question that violated 2 logical fallacies: False Dilemma: presenting only 2 possible alternatives to a complex situation when there are many more and the alternatives did not covary, and Loaded Question: the question limited discourse by containing a controversial or unjustified assumption. Though the discussion was passed off to the public as being moderated and logical, the arguments on both sides violated 3 logical fallacies: Ad Hominem: the attempt to discredit an opponent by attacking THEM instead of the ARGUMENT, Faulty Cause: substituting association for causation, and Guilt By Association: attempting to discredit an opponent by associating their argument with an undesirable idea or person. According to another viewer of the discussion, "Had this been a collegiate mock trial--all parties would likely be dismissed." In addition, panel presenters had False consensus: the belief that their opinions are ubiquitous to try to pander audience support for their argument, completely devoid of logic. So many argumental fallacies, a clear mismatching of minds and agendas, and a colossal waste of synergy among real artists and thinkers who probably could have used their limited time in a more productive way. I take a HUGE offense to these people engaging in such an unorganized, exploitative, and ridiculous argument: KRS 1, Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson, Q-Tip, ?uest Love, PJ O'Rourke, Tricia Rose and the list goes on. I have watched, read, and listened to these people and I respect them as forward minds, but to allow themselves to be used to push ignorant ideas and arguments forward is a disgrace to them, a disgrace to communication, and yet another misleading circumstance that the public must sift through as a representation of truth that will continue to lead to the unearthing and overwhelming lack of critical thinking among the populous. In Estelle, KRS1, Q-Tip, and ?uest Love's defense, they attempted to bring the conversation into relevance and were not given the opportunity. However, these people are legitimate artists. NOT ACADEMICS. As a result, the public expectation of them is to make good art, not moderate or offer logical context to a discussion. Prof. Tricia Rose, though sounding intelligent in this soundbyte, did not call this conversation out for being the illogical and ridiculous bullshit that it was and instead, worked very hard to give her opinion about why certain words/expressions should/shouldn't be used and that she should garner some level of respect associated with her title, which is arrogant and pretentious. To engage in an illogical argument in any other way than to expose or correct the direction of the argument towards logic and real understanding violates the pillars of debate, even from a rhetorical perspective. As a Full Professor, she should be ashamed of herself for being so emotionally and agenda driven in such a forum. I have no respect for her as an academic and I will have a hard time taking anything she says seriously in the future.
In short and in conclusion, I think it's more damaging to society to pass off buffoonery as intelligence than to slap a ho in front of your children.

No comments:

Post a Comment