He’s really contradicting himself here.
On the one hand he says Bam has to deal with the allegations. That if it’s true, justice will be done.
But on the other hand he says Bam has to be infallible and that he shouldn’t be publicly criticized and that the community should administer justice privately and quietly.
He also seems to think that the FBI and the powers that Be are conspiring to destroy Bam. And he stressed repeatedly that they were allegations with no evidence or convictions.
I completely disagree with his idea that leaders should be infallible and that things should be kept private.
He kept trying to stress that you had to leave hip hop if you wanted to criticize Bam. Just all around horrible ideas. I get the sense that in coming up with his philosophies he never considered that perhaps one of hip hops leaders would also be a monster.
He should argue that if Bam has done these terrible things than he would be held accountable, but that he still would have made the amazing contribution to hip hop that he made. Separate the art from the artist.
at the start
Not like that tho
