| |
|
This article has so much wrong with it that even paying attention at all is painful. But I like a little pain.
First, the writing: We all murdered Jam Master Jay that night. Maybe you didn't. What a ride this is going to be. The writer has already contradicted herself in her two opening sentences. "We" is inclusive of you, you know--especially when "we" are "all."
yet I caution you to be apathetic to a circumstance makes you still guilty. Huh? Yes! I, too, like to write statements in direct opposition to the point I'm trying to make--very great, underused rhetorical tool.
My nit-picky side (which is something more than a side) was whirling from having read the inconsistent hyphenation.
Wielding the word “thus” every so often does not mean your argument makes sense, honey. And if her argument did have something to it, it would be awfully hard to see when you’re wading through things like highly charged words (“rape”) and the personification of Hip Hop as a prostitute--after having just been accused of being a murderer.
We defile our vessel (bodies daily), so it shouldn't have been a shock when someone could actually walk up to a Black man and shoot him without regard to his life, his breath, his journey, and his destiny.
It’s obvious that the author has passion for what she’s writing about, but the way she expresses it is so over the top, so much of an attack, that she doesn’t give her readers room to do anything but react rather defensively. Instead of writing something clearly meaningful, she has created a letters-to-the-editor generator. |
|
|
