I need the words for what I’m thinking. Help!

“In a democracy, we have to worry about the ignorance of the uneducated. Today we have to worry about the ignorance of people with college degrees.”

Premise: “In a democracy...”
Conclusion: “Today we have to...”

I can’t quite put it into words, I’d like some help.
First “ignorance” of “uneducated” are saying the same thing twice, is there a term for that? It’s meaningless but how do I prove it?

Also this meaningless phrase becomes analogous to “ignorance” of “college degrees” with college degrees implying “educated” which is misleading.
Therefore it’s means “ignorance of the educated”
Compared to “ignorance of the uneducated”
Therefore only ignorance matters and this is rhetoric designed to denigrate the perception of people with higher education.
Is it tautological?

Also it’s too general. Ignorant of what and educated in what?

I’d love some useful terminology and specific fallacies if there exists some that fit this. An Iron man fallacy?

Thanks!

I can’t quite put it into words, I’d like some help. First “ignorance” of “uneducated” are saying the same thing twice, is there a term for that? It’s meaningless but how do I prove it?

You're correct. The word you're looking for is a pseudo-logical fallacy. As Dr. Bo defines as:

Tautology: Using different words to say the same thing, even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology can also refer to a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct (a form of begging the question). This is generally not deceptive in argument form.

While they certainly can be interpreted as meaning the same thing, they're not necessarily synonymous. As your overall question suggests: You can be educated and ignorant, or just plain ignorant, but that does not means one is uneducated.

Also this meaningless phrase becomes analogous to “ignorance” of “college degrees” with college degrees implying “educated” which is misleading.

There are numerous Ph.D's in various discipline graduating from Christian universities who remain Young Earth Creationists. I would say the latter is an ignorant faith-based conclusion with zero evidence to support it. They're educated, but remain blindly ignorant.

Realistically, we all are ignorant about something. So we might further define ignorance as the stubborn and willful opposition to learning. Now, that would be a kind of virulent ignorance as opposed to a rather benign ignorance.

Conversely, there are many examples of savants who are naturally-gifted, perhaps, even geniuses, but are neither trained nor formally educated. So it depends on how you choose to differentiate between the two, and in what context.

I don't know that there's any panacea that wraps them all up under one term, nor would you want there to be because 'the devil is in the details' and it is in those details where the "proof" is found.

To me, the statement is a slogan, not an argument. To commit a fallacy, you need to make an argument. I don't like slogans, but you can't submit a slogan to logical analysis and expect to learn much.

This is simply an opinion; "slogan" works too. Let's not waste time trying to draw blood from a stone. There is no violation of logic (I agree with Will Harpine) thus no logical fallacy.