Well she is not entirely devoid of emotion, she is extraordinarily skilled at a certain type of persuasive rhetoric, and in order for that to be effective, one must appeal to emotion.

People will never be moved with just logic and reason, emotion is always what moves people. The key is not to use to much. And yes, in my response to Caitlin. I did. Too much emotion. I will be the first to admit it.

But, I did it because she is subtly pushing emotional buttons. She may not have even meant to. People have very strong emotions about Hillary Clinton. Many hate her. Many love her. Some like me are largely ambivalent.

But what is getting to me, is how bad all the people who love her feel, about all the people who hate her. And these people make the argument, that it’s because she is a woman. I think there is some truth to that. I really do. But it’s not a simple argument. Hillary’s hands are not clean and I get it. But I am like, for the love of God, when are we going to stop talking about her? Because I’m tired of seeing so many sad faces feeling like, insults thrown at Hillary are insults thrown at them.

And I just had a meltdown, cause I am sick of all of the divisiveness. So I wrote an article, The Attack on Reason, to get a dialogue started on this.

There are just so many crazy things being said, and I don’t think that’s what Caitlin does, per se. But she definitely gives crazies an outlet.

Her response to Bill Mahr, was definitely an emotional one. To call people who voted for Hillary “batshit crazy.” Is insulting and appeals to the base emotions of those who both love her and hate her.

I voted for Hillary, and it was not a vote I took lightly, but it was a vote to avoid the clusterf@ck situation we are in now, which is every major branch of government in chaos.

And these systems have been breaking down for quite some time. Hillary couldn’t have stopped it, but Trump trying to fix it, is just him knocking over a house of cards. It’s not his fault it’s a house of cards, but I didn’t want him to just knock it over. I knew he would. I am not bat shit crazy because I wanted to avoid that.

Hurling insults at literally millions of people, is not reasonable or rational as you suggest. It presses major buttons. It gets major backlash. And it causes you to lose credibility with a certain audience, and she has.

Now because she does rely on some logic, reason and factual information, she hasn’t lost all credibility. Nor should she. I think she does she’d light on things that should be discussed. She raises valid questions.

But if she is just going to pander to people with strong emotions who want to hate Hillary (millions out there) her credibility is going to suffer eventually. People are challenging her journalistic integrity, calling her a conspiracy theorist, a Russian troll, etc.

I don’t necessarily agree. But I think the way that we discuss these issues is a problem. There is way too much appeal to the wrong sorts of emotions. Reasonableness and moderation seem to be things of the past. Everyone screams like Hannity, cause that gets attention, and attention is hard to get these days.

I guess she has to do what she has to do, but it’s only going to cause greater fracturing and division.

Working with the Light!

Working with the Light!