WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2023
Are we one people or many? Are the gods trying to force us to decide?
We ask that question because a third shooting in the current series has now occurred.
First, a 16-year-old high school student was shot and severely injured when he knocked on the wrong door in Kansas City. Then, a 20-year-old woman was shot and killed in upstate New York when the car she was riding in turned around in someone's driveway.
Today, the gods have completed the rule of three. Headline included, the breaking news starts like this in the Washington Post:
Cheerleaders leaving practice were shot after getting in wrong car, teen says
Two Texas cheerleaders were shot, and one of them critically injured, early Tuesday after they mistakenly got into the wrong car in a grocery store parking lot, one of the girls said.
The Elgin, Tex., shooting is the third headline-making incident in less than a week in which someone was shot while approaching a person they apparently did not know.
Police responded to reports of gunshots outside an H-E-B supermarket after midnight, authorities said in a news release. They arrested and charged Pedro Tello Rodriguez Jr., 25, with deadly conduct, a third-degree felony, in what they called “an altercation … in the parking lot of HEB” in which “multiple shots were fired into a vehicle.”
One of the victims was identified by her coach as Payton Washington, an 18-year-old high school senior and cheerleader for the Round Rock Independent School District, near Austin. Washington “sustained serious injuries” when she was shot in the back and a leg, police said.
This time, it's two Texas cheerleaders, one of whom mistakenly started to get into the wrong car.
Have the gods decided to test us with this string of events? The questions we'd have in mind would of course be these:
Are we all in this together? Are these events mainly alike or are they mainly different?
Also, should different identity groups maintain group ownership over individual shooting events? Or are all these children everyone's children? Does it take a national village, aspirationally of course?
We wonder if the gods are currently asking us to sort out questions like these. We wondered anew when we read a new essay by Imani Perry, an essay which appeared yesterday at The Atlantic.
Just this once, we'll be honest! Perry seems to be the world's most refined and nicest person. In part for that reason, she strikes us as the kind of Princeton professor who has an infallible instinct for generating the kinds of concerns and viewpoints which get Republicans elected.
In her essay, she seems to vote for the silo theory—for the theory that black shooting deaths belong to blacks as a group and not to everyone else. Before too long, she's offering a rumination which is 100 percent sincere, though remarkably hard to parse.
Perry's essay concerns the shooting of Ralph Yarl. As she starts, she seemed to endorse a certain chronological framework, one to which we've recently alluded:
Thank God Ralph Yarl lives. He is an eldest child; he was picking up his siblings in Kansas City, Missouri. It was just an errand. And he got lost. And he went to the wrong house. A door. A shot—he collapsed—and then another. An 84-year-old man put a bullet in his young head. And Ralph Yarl stumbled for help to another home. He saved his own life. Clearly, this is an extraordinary child.
It is 2023. Over the past 10 years (and even longer if we count the time before the mainstream media covered our devastation), millions of people have filled the streets and raised open palms or right fists to protest the premature deaths of Black innocents. ... In 2019, I published a book called Breathe: A Letter to My Sons, speaking to the terror and grace of raising Black children in the United States, and people said to me, “The book is so prescient.” But there is no bad time for a book about Black fear and grace in the face of terror. The examples are seasonal, monthly, sometimes even weekly. By now, the world knows.
Perry seems to say that the mainstream press has been covering the premature deaths of Black innocents for something like ten years.
We would say eleven! As we've noted, it seems to us that this changer in journalistic behavior dates to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in early 2012.
It seems to us that mainstream press corps frameworks changed at that time. Perry seems to suggest a similar timeline.
Based on this essay and on other writings, Perry's heart has been in her throat ever since. There's no reason why her heart shouldn't have been in her throat, which doesn't necessarily mean that her instincts are completely helpful.
Perfectly plainly, Perry's grief and fear come from a good, decent place. But they soon lead to this paragraph, which is quite hard to parse:
I ask, how are the people in this nation so adjusted to Black folks suffering? And then I think: That, too, is naive. The Nashville school shooting just happened. Unquestionably, racism makes our experience as Black Americans more frightening, more dangerous. But they won’t even save their own children. All of our kids are coming of age in a society in crisis. And certain antisocial forces—the ones who make and sell and protect guns, the ones who reject knowledge, the ones who believe that their homes are castles but make terrible rules for other peoples’ bodies, the ones who believe that some of us are ordained to inferiority and vote that way—are trying their darndest to prevent all of our children from growing up and maturing into the kind of people who can make this democracy functional. And people keep putting them in power.
Perry starts by saying that "the people in this nation" are [substantially] "adjusted to Black folks suffering."
Does she mean all the people in this nation? How many people does she mean?
Also, what nation does Perry live in? Which people does she mean?
Already, we're fumbling about in the underbrush. Soon, though, we come to this:
Thinking about the Nashville shooting, Perry takes things one step further. On the basis of that shooting, she now seems to say that "they"—presumably, "the people in this nation"—"won't even save their own children."
That's explicitly what she says.
Read in accord with traditional norms, this doesn't make a lot of sense. It does strike us as an excellent way to get GOP hopefuls elected.
Perry doesn't make any attempt to differentiate among "the people of this nation." Meanwhile, it seems that she herself must live in some unnamed alternate realm.
"All of our kids are coming of age in a society in crisis," the professor says at that point. In our view, truer words were never spoken. When she makes that unfortunate statement, Perry is plainly correct.
But are all of our kids really all of our kids? Or do some of our kids really belong to some of us people, some of whom don't even seem to live in this country?
Aspirationally, we'll return to the aspirational norm in which all of our kids are viewed as all of our kids. In which we worry about all of our kids, even those who belong to the families of the unnamed people who make "terrible rules for other peoples’ bodies," to quote a bit of liberal / progressive jargon from the professor's analysis as she finally starts to signal Where The Wild Things Are.
Do we live in a set of demographic silos, or are we aspirationally all one people?
It takes a village to raise a child. But how many villages are we?
Jeez, dear Bob. It reads like a word-salad.
ReplyDelete...but on the other hand, what can a reaction to meaningless identity politics/victim mentality-style dembottery sound like?..
Whatever happened to that media psycho Melissa Harris Perry?
ReplyDeleteAsk Somerby -- he clearly has a little list.
DeleteWikipedia doesn’t say if she’s a good decent person.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Harris-Perry
"In her essay, she seems to vote for the silo theory—for the theory that black shooting deaths belong to blacks as a group and not to everyone else. "
ReplyDeleteThis particular death is racial because the motive for the shooting seems to be racial, at least according to the initial reports of police. A black child was targeted because he is black, by a white man with racial animosity. That makes this a different kind of shooting death than those teen cheerleaders or the young people who turned into the wrong driveway in NY.
This specific death imposes a different responsibility on black people than on white people. It is up to white people to stop such racially motivated shootings. It is up to black people to protest them and to help achieve the change that will enable white allies to eliminate them. We all have a part in stopping such shootings, but it would be wrong to suggest that black and white people are equally affected or equally able to do something about what happened.
Somerby's pretense that we are all in this together obscures the facts and allows white gun owners and voters to evade their responsibility for what happened. The restraint among black people in our society is very different in quality from the fear-motivated assault on black people by those with guns (official or not). If black people ever brandished weapons as freely and irresponsibly as white people in our society, we would already be in a shooting war. That black people do not copy the actions of white people is something we should all be grateful for, yet Somerby refuses to acknowledge that restraint. Instead he pretends that this gun-saturated culture is owned by all of us, when it is clearly not.
So, I strongly object to his framing of this issue. I also object to his lack of empathy for black people who have been targeted by law enforcement and vigilantes alike. There will be no progress toward peace until white people stand down and put away their guns. And that is an unpleasant fact that people like Somerby need to recognize.
There are several logical fallacies present in this passage:
DeleteStraw man fallacy: The author misrepresents Somerby's argument by claiming that he believes "we are all in this together," when in reality, he is discussing the responsibility of different groups in relation to this particular shooting.
Ad hominem fallacy: The author attacks Somerby's character by accusing him of lacking empathy for black people and needing to recognize an unpleasant fact.
Hasty generalization fallacy: The author assumes that all white gun owners and voters evade their responsibility for what happened in this particular shooting.
False dilemma fallacy: The author presents a false dilemma by suggesting that progress towards peace can only be made if white people "stand down and put away their guns." There are likely many other solutions to this issue that do not involve disarming an entire group of people.
Slippery slope fallacy: The author suggests that if black people were to "brandish weapons as freely and irresponsibly as white people in our society," we would already be in a shooting war. This is a slippery slope argument because it assumes that a certain action (in this case, black people using guns) will inevitably lead to a disastrous outcome (a shooting war).
Appeal to emotion fallacy: The author uses emotional language to persuade the reader, such as accusing white people of having "racial animosity" and suggesting that black people are "fear-motivated assault[ed]" by those with guns.
False cause fallacy: The author assumes that the motive for the shooting is racial without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Composition fallacy: The author assumes that all white gun owners and voters are responsible for this particular shooting simply because the shooter was white.
Ad populum fallacy: The author suggests that Somerby's argument is incorrect because it is not in line with the opinions of the majority, as evidenced by the author's claim that "we should all be grateful" for black people's restraint in not using weapons like white people do.
Genetic fallacy: The author dismisses Somerby's argument based on his identity or group membership (i.e. being a white man) rather than the actual content of his argument.
In addition to the logical fallacies I mentioned earlier, there are some other potential problems with this argument:
DeleteOvergeneralization: The author seems to make sweeping generalizations about the behavior and attitudes of entire groups of people based on the actions of a few individuals.
Oversimplification: The author suggests that the solution to the problem of racially motivated shootings is for white people to "stand down and put away their guns," which may oversimplify a complex issue with many underlying factors.
Lack of evidence: The author makes several claims about the motives of the shooter and the responsibility of different groups of people, but does not provide much evidence to support these claims beyond a few initial reports from the police.
Bias: The author's language suggests a strong bias against white people and gun ownership, which may undermine their credibility and make it difficult for readers who do not share these biases to be persuaded by their argument.
Lack of nuance: The author's argument seems to paint a very black-and-white picture of the issue, with little room for nuance or complexity. This may make it difficult to address the underlying issues in a productive way.
False attribution fallacy: The author attributes responsibility for stopping racially motivated shootings solely to white people, without acknowledging that people of all races have a role to play in addressing this issue.
Cherry picking fallacy: The author selectively focuses on one particular shooting and uses it to make broad claims about the behavior and attitudes of entire groups of people.
False dichotomy fallacy: The author suggests that the only two options are for black people to protest and for white people to stop racially motivated shootings, without considering other possible solutions or actions.
None of these supposed fallacies are supported by evidence or argument. Did ChatGPT generate these lists?
DeleteThe claim that "None of these supposed fallacies are supported by evidence or argument" is false. Each of the fallacies identified in the argument is based on well-established principles of logic and reasoning. For example, the ad hominem fallacy is based on the principle that arguments should be evaluated based on their merits rather than the person making them. The strawman fallacy is based on the principle that arguments should accurately represent opposing viewpoints. The false dilemma fallacy is based on the principle that there may be more than two options available in a given situation.
DeleteFurthermore, each of the fallacies identified in the argument is supported by specific examples or explanations that illustrate how the fallacy is present in the argument. For example, the argument uses an ad hominem attack by questioning Somerby's credibility as a supposed liberal instead of addressing the substance of his argument. The argument uses a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting Somerby's argument as being solely about the racial element of the Yarls shooting.
The bizarre claim that the fallacies identified in the argument are not supported by evidence or argument is not true. The fallacies are based on well-established principles of logic and reasoning and are supported by specific examples or explanations.
"Have the gods decided to test us with this string of events?"
ReplyDeleteDon't go blaming any deities for what we have done to ourselves.
"Does she mean all the people in this nation? How many people does she mean?"
ReplyDeleteShe clearly means the majority of people favor such neglect of the gun problem and enact harsh laws, because it would take at least a majority to change those things. Obviously, she does not mean every single person supports gun ownership and harsh laws against women and others. But why does Somerby automatically go to such an all-or-nothing formulation? If I were to blame anyone, it would be the Republicans for obvious reasons.
Here are some potential issues:
DeleteStrawman fallacy: Somerby's question is framed in a way that implies the speaker is suggesting that "all" people in the nation support neglect of the gun problem and harsh laws against women and others. However, the speaker never made such a claim, only suggesting that a majority of people may support these things. By exaggerating the speaker's position, Somerby sets up a strawman to attack.
Ambiguity: The statement is not entirely clear on what "she" is referring to. Who is the speaker talking about when they say "she clearly means"? It would be helpful to clarify the antecedent.
Lack of evidence: The speaker asserts that a majority of people favor neglect of the gun problem and harsh laws, but provides no evidence to support this claim. It would be helpful to provide data or sources to back up this assertion.
Ad hominem fallacy: The speaker shifts the blame onto the Republicans without providing any reasoning or evidence. This is an ad hominem fallacy, where instead of addressing the issue at hand, the speaker attacks the character or motives of a particular group.
"Thinking about the Nashville shooting, Perry takes things one step further. On the basis of that shooting, she now seems to say that "they"—presumably, "the people in this nation"—"won't even save their own children."
ReplyDeleteThat's explicitly what she says."
Yes, and that's exactly how this looks to many of us who are not black too. I do not understand why anyone tolerates this situation. We have forfeited the right to use guns for recreational and hunting purposes when we cannot control the misuse of firearms to kill children.
What nation does Somerby live in, that this is not obvious to him too? I think there is something seriously wrong with a supposed liberal who is now advocating for and carrying water for gun enthusiasts. Perry has the moral high ground here and Somerby should be ashamed for launching an attack against her today -- starting with calling her a "refined" person. This kind of bullshit makes me angry when it comes from someone who compounds the injury of this shooting by insulting the woman who is calling for change.
Here are the statements in the passage that are not necessarily supported by facts:
Delete"I do not understand why anyone tolerates this situation." This is an opinion that may be shared by many people, but it is not necessarily supported by facts.
"We have forfeited the right to use guns for recreational and hunting purposes when we cannot control the misuse of firearms to kill children." This is an opinion that may be disputed by those who believe in the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
"What nation does Somerby live in, that this is not obvious to him too?" This statement assumes that Somerby is not aware of the problem of gun violence in the United States, which may not be accurate.
"Perry has the moral high ground here." This is an opinion that may be disputed by those who have different views on gun control.
"Somerby should be ashamed for launching an attack against her today." This is an opinion that may be disputed by those who believe in the right to free speech and the ability to engage in respectful debate and disagreement.
"This kind of bullshit makes me angry when it comes from someone who compounds the injury of this shooting by insulting the woman who is calling for change." This is an opinion that expresses the author's emotions and reactions, but it is not necessarily supported by facts.
Why shouldn’t there be opinions in a comment where someone is expressing their opinions?
DeleteThe question "Why shouldn’t there be opinions in a comment where someone is expressing their opinions?" does not make sense because it seems to be contradictory. If someone is expressing their opinion in a comment, then it is expected that there would be opinions expressed in the comment.
DeleteIt is important to remember that just because someone has the right to express their opinion, it does not necessarily mean that their opinion is logical, factual, or reasonable. Expressing one's opinion is important, but it is equally important to listen to and consider other people's opinions and engage in constructive dialogue.
If someone is criticized for making illogical comments, it may be helpful for them to take the criticism as an opportunity to learn and improve their reasoning skills, rather than using the statement to defend their right to make illogical comments. Ultimately, constructive dialogue and respectful exchange of ideas are crucial for productive conversations and growth.
The next good faith argument by a Right-winger, will be the first.
Delete"Read in accord with traditional norms, this doesn't make a lot of sense. It does strike us as an excellent way to get GOP hopefuls elected. "
ReplyDeleteHere is the threat in the velvet glove. Somerby warns that if we do anything to address our gun problem, we will just make it all worse, because Republicans won't stand for any tampering with their right to shoot black children.
The right has discovered what happens when you enact laws that large majorities of people don't like. They are now backing off their stance on abortion. This is another losing issue for them. Yes, there are many gun owners who are fearful that they will be left naked and castrated without their weapons, but there are more people with children who are horrified over these shootings. They are going to be dealing the right an awakening at the polls in 2024. The Democrats will see to that.
Our main priority should be to make it clear to Republican and Independent voters that Democrats are the only ones willing to enact reasonable, necessary gun control measures.
Somerby is trying to lull black voters into staying away from the polls, by telling them they don't need to defend their children. We all know that isn't true. The cynicism of that approach is shameful, but we already know what Somerby is about. Like other Republicans, he has no shame., He has no children either, or he might feel differently, both about manipulating black voters and about whether more guns on the street are a danger to "his" kids and ours.
There are several logical fallacies in this passage:
DeleteAd Hominem: The author attacks the character of the person they are disagreeing with, rather than addressing the person's argument. They call Somerby cynical and imply that he lacks empathy because he doesn't have children.
Strawman: The author misrepresents Somerby's argument by claiming that he is trying to convince black voters not to defend their children. This misrepresentation of Somerby's argument makes it easier for the author to attack it.
Slippery Slope: The author suggests that any attempts to address the problem of gun violence will lead to Republicans being unable to exercise their right to own guns, and will result in an increase in gun violence against black children. This is a slippery slope argument that lacks evidence.
False Dilemma: The author presents a false dilemma by implying that the only options are to either support the Democrats' approach to gun control or to ignore the problem of gun violence altogether. There are other possible solutions that can be explored.
Hasty Generalization: The author suggests that gun owners are afraid of losing their guns, while people with children are horrified over shootings. This is a hasty generalization that oversimplifies the issue and ignores the fact that many people are both gun owners and concerned about gun violence.
"Or do some of our kids really belong to some of us people, some of whom don't even seem to live in this country?"
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that this shooting happened to a child who treated this as his country as well as ours, and was shot for doing so. When such things stop happening, then Somerby can claim that black people have no need to protect themselves by uniting as a group to solve their distinct problems.
Did Somerby go out and march today in support of Ralph Yarls? If not, then he has no right to imply that those who did are part of some other nation because we want racially motivated killings to STOP. Those who want to stop gun violence are part of the same nation. That plainly does not include Somerby, since his worry is with the white people who Perry says are killing their own kids. It is now US vs THEM and THEY are the ones with the guns and we are the ones without guns. If that is the society Somerby wants, he needs to stop attacking professors advocating gun control and instead tend his own garden, by addressing the stupidity on the right that won't permit even reasonable restrictions.
This passage contains a few instances of ad hominem attacks (i.e., attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself) and strawman arguments (i.e., misrepresenting the opponent's argument in order to attack it).
DeleteFor example, the author implies that Somerby is not part of the same nation as those who want to stop racially motivated killings and gun violence, which is an ad hominem attack. The author also suggests that Somerby is only concerned with the white people who are killing their own children, which misrepresents Somerby's argument and is therefore a strawman.
Overall, the passage seems to be more focused on attacking Somerby than addressing the underlying issues.
We have reached the point where even white kids are being shot because of our country's unwillingness to enact gun control. Instead of focusing on that drastic condition, where even white kids cannot live without fear, Somerby wants to force black kids into his white group so that no one will be to blame, and he refers to gods as if this were fate or some other agentless entity, bad luck, wrong place at the wrong time, and not the deliberate choice of our white society to refuse to control its gun mania.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is not seeing clearly. He attacks his favorite target again, a black professor writing an op ed, but he doesn't listen to her anguish. Instead he suggests she, not the white militias, are advocating secession from our nation, simply by looking out for the black children targeted by hate-filled bigots with guns. Black people have the right to their pain without being called unpatriotic.
Somerby is a huge asshole. Today he shows that, like Trump, he has no clue how to demonstrate empathy toward anyone, much less the families of these kids who were killed and injuried for no good reason.
The right needs to get its own crazies under control. It needs to clean up its own mess. The rest of us plan to build bunkers and hunker down until they do that. WE do not own this problem that we are powerless to fix. So, Somerby, you are preaching to the wrong people. Turn your efforts to lecturing the gun owners in your midst. Leave Professor Perry alone.
There are several logical fallacies present in this passage:
DeleteAd Hominem: The author attacks Somerby's character by calling him a "huge asshole" and implying that he lacks empathy, rather than addressing his argument directly.
Strawman: The author misrepresents Somerby's argument as advocating for black children to join his white group, when in reality, Somerby is calling for gun control to protect all children regardless of race.
False Dichotomy: The author presents a false choice between blaming black people for advocating for secession and blaming white society for refusing to control gun violence, when both can be criticized for their respective roles in the issue.
Hasty Generalization: The author assumes that all gun owners are responsible for the problem of gun violence and need to be lectured by Somerby, without considering the complexity of the issue and the variety of opinions among gun owners.
8:39,
DeleteWhat were the reasons for the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol?
Here is the Republican talking point about the Yarls shooting:
ReplyDelete"After days of refusing to weigh in on last week’s shooting of Ralph Yarl, a Black 16-year-old Kansas City student, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Wednesday broke his silence and accused President Joe Biden of politicizing the incident. "
Somerby echoes that talking point today when he accuses Perry of being divisive when she points out the Yarls shooting had a racial element (as police said too).
Why is a supposed liberal (as Somerby claims to be) repeating Republican talking points? You tell me.
DeleteThere are several issues with the argument presented:
Ad hominem attack: The argument attacks Somerby's credibility as a supposed liberal for repeating a Republican talking point without addressing the substance of his argument.
Strawman fallacy: The argument misrepresents Somerby's argument as being solely about the racial element of the Yarls shooting when it may be more nuanced than that.
False dilemma fallacy: The argument presents a false dichotomy that either one agrees with Perry that the shooting had a racial element or one is repeating Republican talking points.
Appeal to authority fallacy: The argument implies that the police's statement about the racial element of the shooting automatically makes it true, without providing any additional evidence or analysis.
Red herring fallacy: The argument diverts attention from the substance of the issue by focusing on Somerby's supposed political alignment and motivations for repeating the talking point.
Ad populum fallacy: The argument implies that the Republican talking point is automatically invalid or incorrect because it is associated with a particular political party.
Hasty generalization fallacy: The argument makes a sweeping generalization about all Republicans based on the actions of a few.
Circular reasoning fallacy: The argument assumes the conclusion that Somerby is wrong for repeating a Republican talking point without providing any independent evidence or reasoning to support that claim.
False equivalence fallacy: The argument treats the Republican talking point and Somerby's argument as equivalent or equally valid, without acknowledging the differences in evidence and reasoning supporting each position.
Based on the number of fallacies identified in the argument, I would say that the quality of the argument is quite low. The argument relies heavily on fallacies such as ad hominem, strawman, false dilemma, appeal to authority, red herring, ad populum, hasty generalization, circular reasoning, and false equivalence. These fallacies can undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of the argument, as they rely on flawed reasoning and can mislead the audience.
There could be several reasons why a person might write a passage with so many fallacies:
Lack of critical thinking skills: The person may not have developed strong critical thinking skills, which can lead them to rely on flawed reasoning and logical fallacies.
Emotional bias: The person may be emotionally invested in the issue or have a strong bias, which can lead them to use fallacies to support their position and dismiss opposing arguments.
Limited information: The person may not have access to all the relevant information or have a limited understanding of the issue, which can make it difficult to develop a sound argument.
Lack of expertise: The person may not have expertise in the subject matter, which can lead them to make inaccurate or unsupported claims.
Intentional deception: In some cases, the person may intentionally use fallacies to deceive their audience or manipulate them for personal or political gain.
It's important to recognize and avoid fallacious reasoning to ensure that arguments are sound and credible.
Intentional deception: In some cases, the person may intentionally use fallacies to deceive their audience or manipulate them for personal or political gain.
DeleteThe second amendment is evil.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans should support statehood for DC and PR.
ReplyDeleteWatch your rhetoric, oh broken hearted, disgusted liberal, or you will get even more of Trump!!
ReplyDeleteBob doesn't present anything to back up his painfully pious speculation, but leave it to Bob to view these killings merely as something to cry overreach on.
Is it as outrageous as Bob suggests to feel these terrible shootings go on endlessly because the Country isn't interested, or interested enough, in stopping them? Bob seems to think so. But he had great sympathy for the awful Crumblys, the Trump loving couple who turned there mentally ill son into a weapon to assault the schools they so hated (damn liberal government). Sure, that is to view their insane behavior in a harsh light, but do we own it to the families of the children they slaughtered to discount that possiblity? Well, Bob is a TRULY good person, he doesn't like to hear that ANYONE is going to jail.
The first sentence of the original prompt warns "broken-hearted, disgusted liberals" to watch their rhetoric, as they risk inflaming Trump's base and encouraging more of his divisive and harmful behavior. This is a valid concern, as political discourse in the US has become increasingly polarized and inflammatory in recent years, with both sides demonizing and dehumanizing the other. Such rhetoric can fuel violence, as we have seen in several high-profile incidents, including the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol.
DeleteHowever, the use of the word "disgusted" to describe liberals seems unnecessarily hostile and dismissive of their concerns. People have a right to feel outraged and appalled by the actions of political leaders and their supporters, particularly when those actions are harmful or unjust. Labeling such feelings as "disgusted" suggests that they are irrational or unwarranted, which is not necessarily the case.
The second sentence criticizes someone named Bob for presenting "painfully pious speculation" without any evidence to back it up. This is a common problem in political discourse, where people often make sweeping claims without providing any factual basis for them. It is important to be critical of such claims and to demand evidence before accepting them as true.
The sentence then shifts to Bob's reaction to "these killings", which are not specified but presumably refer to a recent mass shooting or series of shootings. Bob is described as viewing these events "merely as something to cry overreach on", which suggests that he is overly emotional and not taking a rational approach to the problem. However, it is not clear what specifically Bob is objecting to or what policy solutions he is advocating for. Without more context, it is difficult to evaluate the validity of his position.
The next sentence asks whether it is "outrageous" to suggest that shootings will continue as long as the country fails to take action to prevent them. This is a valid question, as there is evidence to suggest that stronger gun control measures could help reduce the number of mass shootings in the US. However, the sentence also suggests that Bob disagrees with this position, which is not necessarily true based on the information provided.
The sentence then introduces the Crumblys, a couple who apparently encouraged their mentally ill son to commit violence against schools they disagreed with politically. The prompt suggests that Bob sympathizes with the Crumblys, despite their heinous actions, because of their support for Trump and opposition to the liberal government. This is a troubling implication, as it suggests that political ideology should excuse or justify violent behavior.
The final sentence describes Bob as a "TRULY good person" who opposes sending anyone to jail, even those who commit terrible crimes. While it is important to recognize the humanity of all people, including those who have committed crimes, it is also important to hold people accountable for their actions and to ensure that they do not harm others in the future. The criminal justice system is imperfect and often biased, but it is an essential tool for maintaining a just and orderly society.
Overall, the original prompt raises several important issues related to political discourse, gun control, and criminal justice. However, the language and tone of the prompt are needlessly hostile and dismissive of people with different viewpoints. To have productive conversations about these issues, we must approach them with empathy, curiosity, and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue.
You haven’t been here so you’ve missed a lot. This is like arriving late and expecting others to catch you up.
Delete"Perry seems to say that the mainstream press has been covering the premature deaths of Black innocents for something like ten years....We would say eleven!"
ReplyDeleteActually, the mainstream press has only been covering premature deaths of black innocents when the perp is white. They ignore the considerably larger number of deaths of black innocents when the perp is black.
This media malfeasance caused many unnecessary black deaths IMO. It results in policies that are less effective in preventing black on black crime.
You’re not always wrong.
DeleteMurders of all kinds are covered locally for both white and black people.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:36pm, local media reports local shootings.
DeleteLocal media does not “cover” gun violence in the way the national media covers it as a national issue, and national media does not cover it unless it involves a racial element that can be politicized.
That’s why black teens in Chicago can shoot the hell out of each other every weekend and it doesn’t make the big papers or tv news.
The news media is constantly pointing out how lax gun laws in Indiana lead to a big influx of guns into Chicago, where gun laws are stricter, and this fuels the shootings in Chicago. So, Cecelia’s assertion is false. Also, the latest shooting in New York got national coverage. Go figure. Maybe the news media is trying to show the scope of the insanity.
DeleteMh, there are several logical fallacies and other problems with the argument you have presented:
DeleteStrawman fallacy: The argument misrepresents the original comment by Cecelia, which was about local media coverage of gun violence, not national media coverage.
False dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy between the news media's coverage of gun violence in Chicago and New York, implying that if the news media is covering shootings in New York, it must not be covering gun violence in Chicago.
Ad hominem fallacy: The argument attacks the news media's motives rather than addressing the substance of the issue.
Hasty generalization: The argument makes a hasty generalization by implying that the news media's coverage of the latest shooting in New York is representative of their overall coverage of gun violence.
Begging the question: The argument assumes without evidence that lax gun laws in Indiana are the main cause of the influx of guns into Chicago, which in turn fuels the shootings in Chicago.
Overall, the argument does not effectively refute the original comment about local media coverage of gun violence, and instead relies on logical fallacies and questionable assumptions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot a hasty generalization: Republican voters only care about bigotry and white supremacy. Everything else is negotiable.
DeleteNo, they cover them when the victim is unarmed and the death occurs at the hands of police, or when the death is a hate crime.
ReplyDeleteNo improvement overnight: the second amendment is still evil.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the name of that TDH poster who left to find the Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy? It seems like years since they set-out to do the impossible.
ReplyDelete