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