Blind loyalty to rational people, and manipulative terminology

Hello Rabbi Michi,
First, I want to thank you for your work. It adds a lot to have your entire enterprise.
I want to ask a few questions:

• I have seen questions directed to you on the site, that you have \\\\\’followers\\\\\’ like the Hasidim Rabbi, that is, that they remain \\\\\’an ignorant crowd\\\\\’, and admire critical thought, and continue to lead an uncritical lifestyle, and direct you to many questions in which they ask for your opinion, that is, there is a wise and critical person in front of them, and they will now simply ask him for an opinion on someone, in which he will not give a complete essay and sides, but will simply pass judgment on the matter brought before him for life or death, invalid or not invalid, obscene or not obscene, while the questioners themselves simply, instead of a Hasidim Rabbi telling them all this, a philosopher Rabbi tells them it. They continue to be influenced by emotions instead of managing themselves with thinking. \\\\\\\\”Rabbi Michi said about him so and so\\\\\\”. This no longer has any intellectual weight with them, but is purely emotional.

  I asked, then, a) Do you agree with the statement I made here? b) If so, a question arises, why do you cooperate with these questions, and not confront the questioners with the rational absurdity of their entire approach?

• I read your post about the line meetings, from several years ago, and the thread of comments from users, and your responses to their comments. I join everyone who is happy about the cheap and surprising demagogy in this post in relation to your other posts. I saw that you continued to claim firmly that you use cynicism, humor, and disdain, and do not see anything wrong with this (rationally wrong, apparently, meaning that you did not deviate from conducting a substantive discourse in your opinion).

  I would therefore like to ask you, regarding what constitutes a substantive discourse, a) Do you even recognize the existence of psychological manipulation in the rational presentation of ideas? That is, do you recognize the possibility of manipulations that are woven into the presenter’s “substantial” presentation?

  b) From a rational perspective, in your opinion, is it correct to include in rational expression expressions that address the listeners’ stomachs directly, bypassing the barrier of reason, which could allow them to fairly digest things?

  c) And accordingly, would you agree with the existence of social and psychological semi-definitions that contain and carry within them a great deal of negative connotation (fundamentalism, cult, etc.), and therefore the use of these semi-definitions would be defined as emotional manipulation of the listeners, as the deadly psychological effect of the expression cannot be ignored, unlike personal definitions that are free from contagion?

Best regards, Mordechai Stambler