Part II of In all Fairness What About The Things Trump Has Gotten Right
In all Fairness What About The Things Trump Has Gotten Right
Many have somewhat agreed that the bad stuff gets over-reported and his witness tampering and tweeting is off-putting…
This is a continuation of how political, religious, and racial tribalists sentimentally coalesce under this nuanced form of ochlocracy in our executive branch of government to defend the indefensible.
In a USA Today opinion piece by Ruben Navarrette Jr. , I dissect what he suggests are good things coming out of a president worthy of impeachment and removal from office. Yes. Let me rewrite this. There are apparently good things coming out of a president worthy of impeachment and removal from office. This is what we call a reach in parlance and I see parallels with the reasons given as not only motivated by ignorance, but riddled with an absurd appeal to emotion, spite, and fear.
The invincible ignorance on display by many of our fellow countrymen who are for the most part innately tribal and morally bankrupt about their impregnable rhetorical positions. An example of invincible ignorance as defined by Bruce E. R. Thompson, Ph.D. for his intro to Philosophy, Critical Thinking and Logic classes that he teaches at Cuyamaca College is this wonderful gem of logic.
“I accept on faith that the earth is flat. The evidence for a round earth must have been faked.”
My counterpoint to Navarrete’s points is that none of what he and his tribe views as right can be analytically right in light of the irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Let us continue with confronting what Navarrette says President Trump has gotten right thus far.
Navarrette’s point that the Trump administration got right, “Target the ruthless Salvadoran street gang MS-13.”
There is this myth that the transnational criminal organization, as is designated by an overzealous Treasury Department in 2012, were former guerrilla fighters and or soldiers from Central America. This narrative was spread by none other than the National Geographic, arbiter of humanity through the lens of whiteness in all its splendiferous superiority.
But really though…
The gang originated in Los Angeles, mostly in the areas of Korea Town, Pico Union and Westlake, in the early 1980s. It was formed by children of refugees fleeing El Salvador’s 12-year civil war. The original members were teenagers and young adults who bonded around metal music, marijuana and the need to belong to an identity-based group in a foreign land. Their hand sign, with the forefinger and pinky extended, comes from the practice of flashing horns in heavy metal. Most members were too young to know their homeland’s conflict firsthand, but they appropriated war stories to frighten rival gangs.
Perspective | Five myths about MS-13
The Trump administration's campaign against immigration conflates the flow of undocumented immigrants from Central…
Yet only a minuscule share of undocumented immigrants who have entered the country in the past few years are linked to MS-13, according to Stephanie Leutert at the University of Texas. The overwhelming majority of those who have joined the gang in Central America have never left their countries. A Florida International University survey of mostly imprisoned gang members in El Salvador in 2016 showed that 91 percent have never been in the United States. Those who leave often do so because of family, joining the massive migration flows from Central America, not because the gang instructs or sponsors them.
Next tribal point, “Picking James Mattis as Defense secretary, Nikki Haley as ambassador to the United Nations, John Kelly as White House chief of staff and Kellyanne Conway as senior adviser.”
Three out of four have resigned, leaving Conway, a feckless loyalist hag of the administration whose only known skill is to create more spin — a vicious cycle of it — for an incompetent administration.
We are rightly accustomed to taking some things for granted, and surely among the beliefs we are entitled to take for granted (in most contexts) are the basic principles on which an argument is founded.
The fallacy of Vicious Circle mimics good reasoning, however, by relying on a principle of reasoning that we are not entitled to take for granted. This may happen when we are trying to examine broad principles to see which ones we can properly take for granted in other contexts.
For example, just because Donald J. Trump is president, we are thus forced to believe that he is justifiably fit by electoral college vote to be presidential, and the country therefore is and will be in good hands, no matter if, in all actuality he is completely unfit to serve. Trump is President because the people around him says he is. The once republican-led house said he is and the still presently republican led senate is convinced he is and tragically should be.
Trump has reassured us that he is both physically and mentally fit on numerous occasions shortly after being inaugurated. He has told us that his health is “astoundingly excellent.” Why would he lie and why shouldn’t we believe it? Trump has reassured us of his intelligence. He told us that he is “like really smart”. Why would he lie about that?
Compare this with the example provided by the critical thinking tutelage of Professor Thompson.
“Jones is an honest man. I know this is true, since Jones told me so himself, and an honest man like Jones surely wouldn’t lie about something like that.”
Okay then. See how circular that reasoning really is, such that we take for granted what the highest office should represent on behalf of us all.
Next unimpressive point, “Begin a dialogue with North Korea about ending its nuclear weapons program.”
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is playing the so called dealer-in-chief and his entire administration.
Behind the scenes, Trump's team is about to get tough with North Korea
WASHINGTON - As President Donald Trump issues a steady stream of praise for Kim Jong Un in interviews and on Twitter, a…
The newest intelligence shows Kim’s regime has escalated efforts to conceal its nuclear activity, according to three senior U.S. officials. During the three months since the historic Singapore summit and Trump’s proclamation that North Korea intends to denuclearize, North Korea has built structures to obscure the entrance to at least one warhead storage facility, according to the officials.
The U.S. has also observed North Korean workers moving warheads out of the facility, the officials said, though they would not speculate on where the warheads went.
One former senior U.S. official said North Korea frequently moves equipment around to hinder foreign intelligence gathering. “They’re trying to move them around so our sensors are confused,” the official said.
U.S. intelligence assesses North Korea could produce five to eight new nuclear weapons in 2018, according to three current and former senior U.S. officials. That pace is virtually identical to their assessment of the regime’s production of about six per year prior to the Trump-Kim summit.
Next! “Focus attention on Rust Belt states and give respect to white working-class voters, overlooked by the elites on both coasts.”
The voters in the Rust Belt states have been nudged into class warfare with so-called liberal east and west coast elites. How is this rational when we serve each other socioeconomically and are essentially a peripatetic society?
What this really sounds like is a wypipo problem. It is similar to First World problems — problems that are imagined or scripted like a reality-type tv show that is must-see and where the rest of the world’s fate is inferentially said to be determined in its ultimate resolve — but not really because nobody really cares.
This “ignored for too long rural America” vote argument is facile in fact and in this instance the inherent nature of the problem is made up to marginalize or ignore the rest of the diverse population of Americans by order of racial hierarchy. It is part of the vanity and insanity of whiteness of which Mr. Navarrette seems infected, even though he himself identifies with his Latin American heritage.
The “disrespected white-working class voters” of Rust Belt America were disrespected when the were determined as such by those who racialized their existence as superior and privileged but forgotten in comparison to their more coastal counterparts on the coasts. Non white neighbors and counterparts are not even mentioned. This disrespected narrative that appeals to emotion, spite and fear is in response to a two term Obama presidency. Navarrette makes no mention of the non white people living in the same vicinity. He makes no mention of their working class status. It is as if the lives of nonwhites do not matter. 🤨 This is the false narrative that they would like to impress upon us all to promulgate and encourage racial and class warfare. We are all interdependent on one another as one nation. This needs no further explanation.
On to this point right here, “Challenge elitism and question what it means to be “elite.””
This is pseudo profound bullshit at its finest and is proven most effective amongst the idiocracy. This question is what is described in philosophy as a complex question. Not because it is in fact complex but because it stupefies you when attempting to respond.
Complex questions seem more like debaters’ tricks than like arguments. When used as a debater’s trick, the idea is that, since a complex question cannot be answered (as asked), the opponent is left speechless and stammering[.] A complex question qualifies as an argument — and therefore as a fallacious argument — only because some conclusion is drawn from the opponent’s inability to answer the question. In most cases this conclusion is left unstated (except, perhaps, in the minds of listeners).
Elitism is contextual and therefore responding cogently requires context. Should I consider myself elite having the education, experience, and no criminal record to tote, yet am grossly underpaid and or underemployed? Are you considered elite for voting Democrat or for just living on either coast? Are you elite because you are a politician, doctor or lawyer by trade? Are you elite simply because you are wealthy? Are you elite because you can articulate with reason instead of appealing to emotion? There are many rural midwestern and southern Americans who might be considered elite as well and still share in the same sensibilities of being anti-elite.
The fallacy of Complex Question mimics such Socratic questioning, but the question that renders the opponent speechless is unanswerable, not because the opponent has been trapped in a contradiction, but because the question itself is confused or misdirected. The ploy succeeds when the audience fails to notice the difference.
Yeah, confused and misdirected.
Slate writer Jacob Weisberg challenged the elitism argument with this conclusion.
In the real world, we suffer from self-righteous conservatives as well as smug liberals, from as many Republicans as Democrats who think they know best. Arrogance and paternalism remain bipartisan attitudes. Elitism, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
The right's favorite scare word is "elitism." What does it mean?
If there's one epithet the right never tires of, it's "elitism." Republicans are constantly accusing Democrats of it…
Now I won’t go further down this exhaustive list of nonsense because I would be repeating my counterarguments. But again to be fair Mr. Navarrette has actually gotten this right — that there will be disagreement with his list of good things that Trump has done thus far and stated this.
You may disagree with every item on that list. What I call a positive, you might consider a negative. Or you might be able to cite two negative items for every positive one.
That’s fine. Make your own list. I’m not looking for agreement, or trying in vain to convince Trump haters. Life is too short for that. I only want to be fair, not just to the president but to those voters — my fellow Americans — who gave him the job.
Ah! We will end it all here with the fallacy of soundness in his retroduction. This weak defense is what it is considered an invincible ignorance. For me to respond concisely to each of Navarrette’s points I painstakingly considered his argument, however knowing that he himself knows his views are problematic. Nevertheless he is insistent on not considering the opposing view.
The arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view.
Some phrases characteristic of this fallacy may include, “I refuse to listen…” “I don’t care what they say…” etc.
The fallacy of Invincible Ignorance mimics the consistency that comes from having a well-thought-out position. However it asks us to overlook the distinction between rational consistency and sheer stubbornness.
Mimicry may also be a form of flattery as Navarrette and the like mimic the president’s stubbornness to the extent of incorrigibility.
Once again this has been another edition of An American Potpourri Of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit Vol. 2, №2.