Because Trump lies constantly. It’s just nonstop, constant, blatant lying. Constant nonstop making stuff up. He constantly spreads information that is untrue until massive numbers of people believe him, and that’s very dangerous but it is also a feature of authoritarian politics, used in Eastern Europe.
You don’t want people to know what’s going on? Flood the information systems with a massive amounts of disinformation. Kind of like all this anti-feminist rhetoric, going around. Massive amounts of disinformation contained therein.
You have all these people flooding social media about how awful feminism is, in response to feminists getting on social media saying how wonderful it is…and it this point, all of it is beside the point because none of the dialogue matches or has anything to do with what is happening in reality. It’s just typing heads trying to make a point.
And you’re wrong about Svetlana, she does use insults, when she should only deal in logic. She just did it in response to what I had to say about the disinformation.
Look, in Lincoln/Douglas style debates, a very respected form of debating in America, named after seven debates on slavery, held by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, there are rules and a certain format and it’s the opposite of anything Svetlana does.
In said debate style, resorting to insult hurling, name-calling will cause your team to lose the debate or even be disqualified because there is a clear understanding that the argument is to rely on logos (logic), ethos (integrity and you have no integrity if you feel like you have to resort to name calling) and pathos (passion/emotion).
Anyone who goes to deep into pathos (and starts in with the insults, name-calling) is a loser in this debate style because name-calling is a clear sign that one is intellectually incapable of debating on the logos and the ethos, which are the preferred forms.
If you really want to debate with logic and integrity, resorting to overly emotional 😭 stances is to be avoided at all costs. It’s well understood that reliance on emotion manipulation- well that is the realm of conartists. That’s why Trump has been so successful. He doesn’t rely on logos or ethos at all. It’s all pathos with him. He taps into people’s fears, and exploits them ruthlessly.
Svetlana does this too, all the time. And that’s not to say she doesn’t use logos too (though not much in the way of ethos), but she relies way too much on the pathos -manipulating people’s emotions.
People like you for example. You’ve already made your mind up about feminism. All you want is to listen to people railing against it, so you can feel comfortable in your beliefs. Along comes Svetlana! She’s your hero! Because she pushes that emotional button in your brain, that makes you feel good about what you believe! You don’t want to hear anything to the contrary. You don’t want to listen to any facts that contradict anything that you already believe and you certainly don’t want to acknowledge the validity of a Lincoln/Douglas style debate.
Because that type of rhetoric acknowledges that there are two sides to EVERY story, and that BOTH sides have value and it is NEVER an all or nothing deal. Never is anything that simple. Even Trump, liar and conartist extraordinaire, has raised many valid points, about lots of things. (Doesn’t mean he can or will do a damn thing about any of them.)
As I said before, I watch Svetlana because she is very, very skilled at looking like she is using a formal debate structure, while at the same time corrupting it with far too much emotion, (but only when she gets frustrated.) She looks like she is in the realm of the intellectual logos and ethos — but she slyly slips in more and more and more pathos. It’s very clever.
She also likes to comment on a lot of divisive topics. You’re Muslim? So did you read her post about Islam providing nothing of value over the last 800 years? I challenged her on that, simply because such a statement is overbroad, and not likely to be true, no matter what is going on with Islam. I’m sure there had to be SOMETHING of value in 800 years. Not to hear Svetlana tell it. When I pointed out that this was pandering to fear-mongering about Muslims, she hemmed and hawed and said, she had no problem with Muslims (even though I think she may have implied that Muslim were raping and pillaging European villages), just Islam. Okay?!?!??
Sign on to that sort of nonsense if you like. Have at it. That’s when I first engaged with Svetlana. I was challenging her statements about Islam being devoid of value — and not because I know much about Islam. I don’t. But it’s a truism that nothing is all good or bad.
She seems to soft pedal a great deal of racism, sexism and xenophobia. Of course there are legions out there who eat it up, because people are scared, and some how hating others makes them feel better.
Maybe you consider, just consider, that’s what you’re doing? And I don’t mean in any obvious intentional way. I mean for whatever reason people are comforted by the Trumps and Svetlanas of the world, when all they really provide are reasons to hate, and not much else. Why does that appeal to you? Think about it.