By Randy Gonzalez
Fortunately, the First Amendment protects a range of free speech, not absolute free
speech, but a variety of such notions that may annoy or otherwise disturb those who
disagree. In addition, to that end, it is okay to disagree, to argue and debate a diversity of
human issues, hopefully without fear of degradation or retaliation. Ideally, the
interactivity ought to be imaginative, productive and conducive to problem solving. Of
this, individually the intent ought to inspire creativity in become a better version of the
original self. Collectively the motivation should encourage species ascendency.
However, the truth is more dangerous than the illusion. As personal liberation falters
and human beings regress to primal states of emotional reactivity, the process of logical
deduction defaults to emotional reactivity. There is the lingering perception that such is
not always the case in post-modern American society. Frequently, feelings stifle
discussion and blame overrides the facts for the selfishness of erroneous fallacies of
inference. Modern discussions regress to counterproductive states of regression.
Yet, in this modernistic cult of “celebrity worship”, social media gossip interactions,
and abject “political correctness”, little progress in social discourse is achieved. Many
become troubled when their belief systems are challenged. Emotional drama pervades the
feeble attempts to promote serious debate on timely critical issue. Hurt feelings allow for
oversimplification and rationalization of intentional maladaptive inflictions. Likewise, so
called “peer review” is filled with intentional safe mediocrity of safeguarding the status
quo, in lieu of serious evidentiary provability specious conjecture.
In an age of news pundits highly opinionated “reporting”, as contemporary
“journalism” has changed, feelings are translated into shallow assertions from fallacies of
inference that foster hasty generalizations. Of which, stupidly communal interactions
become “drive by” quotes that reflect the immature nature of superficial verbiage. Facts
are replaced with fictions, or unsubstantiated theories, while reality takes a pause and
bogus philosophies masquerade as science. In the “multi-verse” of complex criminal
justice systems, public policy stumbles toward inefficiency in the pursuit of one size fits
all, and therefore, much is reduced to trouble free simplicity.
2
All too often, pretentious credentials, or celebrity status, are easily accepted without
serious analysis, serious skepticism and investigative sufficiency. Forget the mere
mention of actual real world experience, as anyone seemingly is passed off as an
“authority”. While everyone might have an opinion, not all viewpoints are necessarily
valid, as egregious fallacies become fact. Similarly, in a somewhat open society of a
seemingly “democratic” (republic) configuration, much goes through the unfiltered
abundance of “socio-psycho-babble” of social media. By collusive interaction, most news
outlets, by regurgitation of so-called reporters, perpetuate the superficiality.
Worse yet, comes the pseudo-intellectuals. Allegedly famous personalities, gurus,
celebrity “experts”, talking “head” reality shows, wealthy elitists, and a cast of many
characters, who claim special insight to secret knowledge. Notorious, are Hollywood
actors, most of whom never made it out of high school. You have to ask, how hard can it
be to read a script someone else wrote for you? Meanwhile, as you are acting, you are
taking direction from a team of filmmakers. Seriously, that is expertise?
That aside, many who have never conducted a serious investigation in the real world
are quick to offer their “opinions”. As such, what do these viewpoints mean? The
relevance signifies very little, it is merely one view among many. Yet, their celebrity
status, wealth, and popularity play to shallow reaches of triteness. Viewpoints spatter the
networks with the spin of grave fallacies of inference, whereby hurried generalizations
foster dangerous public policy as to the nature of criminality.
When non-practitioners and wannabe pundits attempt intellectual claims outside their
primary domain of knowledge, the desire for immediate gratification in easy answers
stifles critical thinking processes. Investigative inquiry wanes toward the devolving
realms stupidity. While opinions vary, scientific validation is vital to forensic analysis in
the eventual efficacy of substantial proof. Views are many and public policy is affected
by foolhardy efforts that stem from nebulous rhetoric that foment condescending
regression. From politicians and commentators, to preachers of metaphysical dogma,
what is the truth and who does one trust? In reality, no one and nothing, as serious
introspection, analysis and investigation must challenge everything. Reasonable, logical
and authentic critical thinking is a serious art form, and healthy skepticism is its tool.
Exceptional evidentiary artifacts must support special claims.
4
https://www.scribd.com/user/970749/Dr-Randy-Gonzalez
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3232645.Randy_Gonzalez
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Black-Widows-Bondage-Gonzalez-Randy-/372201542743
https://www.linkedin.com/in/randygonzalez
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Widows-Bondage-Randy-Gonzalez/dp/1940707129
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45176365@N03/