What is DEMAGOGY - what is it, word, definition, essence, examples

What is DEMAGOGY - meaning, definition in simple words.

In simple words, Demagoguery is the manipulation of people’s feelings and consciousness, sometimes with an appeal to the basest passions and instincts, using the entire arsenal of “forbidden”, “dishonest” methods from distortion of facts, hushing up something, half-truths to outright lies.

The goal of demagogy is to gain popularity among the uneducated masses through flattery, propaganda, and promises of “heavenly life,” which in reality have no basis.

Demagoguery is, in simple words, a tool for fooling the masses. In this case, various means and methods are used, based on false theories and simply logical errors, in order to deceive a person and fool him. An artificial impression of truth and rightness is created (all means are good for this), although in reality everything is built on outright lies and manipulations, including those affecting the elementary instincts of a person, affecting his deepest feelings and desires.

There is an expression “to create demagoguery” - it means to express oneself in a pathetic, pompous way in everyday life, to “fence a garden” from a mass of words, and if you find the truth, it turns out that the interpretations are based on distorted facts that have nothing in common with either the truth or the elementary logic, nor morality.

[edit] Demagogic techniques

The most common form of demagogic technique is a deliberate violation of logic, when a statement, while outwardly maintaining logic, actually contains logical errors. In its simplest form, a fallacious syllogism can be characterized by the following example:

We are redheads. Leos are red. Therefore, we are lions!

Our soldiers always bring peace. They shot at our soldiers. That means they are aggressors!

Manipulating the meaning of statements

To obtain externally reliable but incorrect logical chains, ambiguous terms and expressions are widely used, for example:

Were you ordered to criticize? So you criticized without orders. So you violated the order. So you are an enemy of the people. The interests of the country require that you immediately admit all charges! - Darling, you're wrong. - Oh, I’m wrong, that means I’m lying. If I'm lying, it means I'm lying. If I'm lying, it means I'm a dog... Mom, he called me a bitch!

Thesis substitution is where the arguer builds his argument on the assumption that the opponent has made some (usually weak or incorrect) statement, giving inattentive spectators (and sometimes even the opponent) the impression that he has actually made such a statement. This is usually achieved by repeated repetition.

Getting personal

Such argumentation often impresses the illiterate masses, who do not have sufficient knowledge and logical thinking skills to consciously analyze the objective weaknesses of the argumentation, and prefer to unreasonably trust those who in their eyes look more trustworthy.

One form of getting personal is to find an easily criticized person who has similar views on the problem under discussion as the opponent.

— The state must fight smoking! - Yes? Do you know that the state anti-smoking program was adopted in the Third Reich, that Hitler was a staunch opponent of tobacco?

Vicious circle

The argument is proven based on a thesis, which is accepted as an unconditional truth that does not require justification, while the original thesis is actually the same argument expressed in different words.

- Why do you think that the world was created by someone? - But he couldn’t appear on his own, out of nowhere!

Appeal to evidence, false authority

The demagogue’s argumentation begins with expressions like “everyone knows that...”, “obviously...”, “science has long proven...”, “all successful businessmen know that...” and so on. At the same time, on the one hand, the false pride of the listener is exploited (if something is presented as “well-known,” it can be difficult for him to admit even to himself that he has never heard of it), on the other hand, imaginary authorities are cited who agree with the statement that affects people who are generally inclined to trust authorities.

False alternative, false dilemma

A fairly common technique based on bringing, as an alternative, two options from a much larger set. A false alternative is also the mention, as alternatives, of two or more options that are not an alternative to each other and the main features of which can be combined in one option.

- Honey, could you stop yelling at me? “Should I crawl on my knees in front of you?”

— What is more important: the personal freedom of citizens or the integrity of Russia? Democracy or order?

What does demagogy mean and who are demagogues?

The history of the word has very deep roots, it comes from the ancient Greek “demos” - which means people, and “ago” - I lead. Initially, “demagogues” were educated people from the nobility, real leaders who led the people. They mastered the art of oratory, clearly explained to the public the essence of the decisions taken by the authorities, and often tried to take the side of the common people, who responded to them with sympathy and gratitude.

Often “demagogues” became rulers, for example, in ancient Athens, back in the fifth century BC, the ruler was the “demagogue” Themistocles, a strategist who delivered from the Persian invasion. Or here is another figure of antiquity - the reformer Pericles. Both outstanding figures were truly democratic leaders. And this will probably sound like a paradox, but neither Pericles nor Themistocles in power cared about their own enrichment, luxury, or even greater power.

In those almost mythical times, the word “demagogue” had not yet become a household name with a sharply negative meaning: a politician, a talker, a crafty and deceitful person. This is already a “property” of our time.

Demagoguery is what it is, in simple terms: previously the word had a positive connotation, and the ancient Greeks called a defender of the interests of the people a demagogue.

Over time, the so-called leaders of radical democracy, not distinguished by a high level of education and not burdened with the principles of high morality, began to emerge into the political arena of Athens, and subsequent social formations, from among shopkeepers and small owners. But they were motivated by banal self-interest. Although this word demagoguery has been preserved in the language, its meaning has become completely different, much closer in essence to the modern meaning - “populist politician”, using the entire dishonest arsenal of means to gain popularity among the people and come to the coveted power.

Modern Eurasianism - political demagoguery

12. Re: Modern Eurasianism - political demagoguery

Dear interlocutors! During the time that I communicate on the RNL forums, I realized for myself: for many of you, the lack of education (it would seem to you) is compensated by an excess of education. The topic of the article or the opinion of another is not so important to you as it is to start a fight. Here again you are trying to get personal instead of discussing. Descendant, you kept silent about my question last time about entropy. When you posted excerpts taken, apparently from the aforementioned 10-volume volume, I cited others. They are about how entropy is understood for living systems. In response, you remained silent. After some time they tried to inject me again for the same reason. Without explaining to me, a stupid person who, according to you, did not have enough to eat in childhood, what is the essence of entropy in your opinion and what is the difference in understanding for the inanimate world and the living one. Korotkov A.V., if Shatokhin is the light of the day for you, and his formulations and reasoning are an unquestioned authority, I have nothing against it. For me, this is just abstract reasoning, a certain opinion of a person and a philosopher. No more. To understand the significance of L.N. Gumilyov’s PTE, it is not enough to have a higher education in the humanities. Philosophy and ethnology are not the same thing. Modern ethnology is just breaking out of the clutches of historiosophical education in order to get down to its business - the study of ethnogenesis. Using a natural science approach. And satisfying your endless and annoying curiosity: I am a simple Russian man, a pensioner, my universities are life. I will not be surprised that my words will be used by some “highly educated” people in order to somehow humiliate me or simply prick me. Please don’t try, I have a good worker-peasant background. In addition, I know two languages - oral Russian (in the workers', peasants', naval versions) and written Russian. With which I take my leave. And returning to the topic of discussion. According to the text: “- In the Russian emigrant environment of the 20s of the last century, the “Euro-Asian movement” appeared. Russian ethnos in the period of its maturity in the 17th-19th centuries. expanded its habitat to the maximum possible, incorporating its ancient ethnogenetic springs - eastern Indo-European (North Caucasian and Central Asian), Ural, Paleo-Asian and Altai or Turkic. By the beginning of the 20th century, the basis of a super-ethnic system had formed, which I call “Russian-Eurasian.” And also a powerful geopolitical formation was created - the Russian Empire, which on the external historical plane affirmed the Eurasian essence of the new system. Russian elite in the 13th-15th centuries. She was not in last place in the Golden Horde, she learned imperialism first-hand. But after the collapse of the Mongol state, there was a sharp turn to the west. Europe has become the ultimate dream for our political leaders. We fought with her and curried favor with her, but we did not dare to break away and set off on our own. In the 19th century it reached the point of absurdity, the children of the nobility first learned some foreign language, and only then Russian. A split is brewing in society into Westerners and Slavophiles. There is not a word yet about Eurasianism, although the idea is already wandering in the minds, but Danilevsky already expresses the general opinion: Russia is not the backyard of Europe. The energy tension of Russian ethnogenesis is reaching its peak load. Yes, yes, dear Descendant, this is the same passionarity. The term was introduced by Lev Nikolaevich. It is passion at its very peak that drives a person and an ethnic group into a delusional revolutionary state. An illusory idea, false and desirable, in the Russian case “freedom, equality, brotherhood” translated more clearly as “plants and factories to the workers, land to the peasants,” captures consciousness and leads to death. Revolutions and civil war in Russia are nothing more than the peak of passionarity. In all its ugliness. Once abroad, Trubetskoy, Suvchinsky, Savitsky, Florovsky and others begin to comprehend what happened. This is how the first approaches to understanding the Eurasian essence of Russian ethnogenesis and history appear. Please note: FIRST APPROACHES. There is no word yet about ethnogenesis, but it is already looming behind these reflections. Circumstances prevented the first Eurasians from continuing their research further. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov began to think about Russian ethnogenesis and history in Stalin’s camps. As a result of many years of reflection and search, the contours of the PASSIONARY THEORY OF ETHNOGENESIS emerged. Gumilyov is still hampered by historiosophical shackles, but he already quite clearly articulates the natural nature of ethnogenesis. Tries to explain its development using historical examples. He did not “simplify the “Euro-Asian” approach to a new concept of “Eurasianism,” but tried to explain the underlying reasons for what was happening at a fundamentally different level, with different terminology, with a new understanding. You can read more about this here: https://evrazia.org/article/2116 Reducing the energy tension of ethnogenesis is a natural process. And a reason to think. This can also be called the slow “fading of the nation.” If we turn to the history of peoples, we will find a lot of such examples. Therefore, it is impossible to call Gumilyov’s conclusions a “worldview view”. Because he was talking about natural processes. You shouldn’t be afraid of this, we’re not the first. Ethnic generations, or what we call an ethnos or people, arise and develop over the course of 1500 years, then are regenerated on the basis of ancient ethnogenetic matrices with the participation of new ethnic elements. And life continues in the old-new quality. Gumilyov has some mistakes and not entirely correct historical interpretations, which does not negate the positive value of PTE. The “strength, power and will” of a people depend on the degree of passionarity, but due to the development of ethnogenesis, any ethnic group in the period of aging experiences destructive tendencies. Russian is no exception. The first sign is its division, the collapse of the common ethnogenetic field. If we go back into the historical past, we will find a similar example at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th centuries. - feudal fragmentation. The difference is that then it was a moment of bifurcation in ethnogenesis, a break, which should be followed by inevitable consolidation and continued integration. In the 20th century, Russians passed the peak of passionary tension, there was nowhere higher and entered a long period of disintegration. And here is the acmatic phase or turning point, followed by irreversible processes. Whether we like it or not, we have to put up with them. Like any person with the fact of his aging. What is happening these days in the Russian-Eurasian space, which has been called “post-Soviet”? Firstly, the epicenter of Russian ethnogenesis on the Russian Plains is fading away. It was divided into Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian streams. Migration from the outskirts of the Russian-Eurasian space is increasing to regions where Russians live massively. Russian self-awareness experienced powerful pressure from Bolshevik ideology and internal internationalization in the 20th century. Today it has been replaced by external pressure, its name is “Europeanization”. On the western outskirts of the Russian World it is manifested by Ukrainization and Belarusianization. Subethnic awareness is growing among the Cossacks, Siberians, and Novorussians. If our science cannot explain the ongoing processes, then after a short time these subethnic groups will go into isolation following the example of the Ukrainians and Belarusians. Simultaneously with the extinction of the ancient Russian epicenter, the Russian-Eurasian one is moving to the Southern Urals. Since here, first of all, ethnogenetic conditions are formed: the strip of the Eurasian steppes is occupied by a mixed Russian-Turkic population with a predominance of the Russian ethno-element; vertically between the Volga and Ob and in Central Asia the Tatars and Kazakhs are strong. Both Russians, Kazakhs, and Tatars of the named regions experience an increase in energy tension or passionarity. The further fate of the Russian-Eurasian or post-Soviet space will depend on the strength and speed of the consolidation of peoples in this unique geographical Russian-Eurasian cross. I don’t know how much Nazarbayev understands the complexity and depth of ethnogenetic processes, but in historical terms he acts justifiably. Consolidation of the population of Kazakhstan, taking into account the predominance of the Turkic factor and Russian-Eurasian integrity, is simply necessary. Including: and on the eve of difficult moments in the struggle for leadership in Central Asia (with the Uzbeks); growing Chinese pressure and influence; the inevitable transformation of the Russian-Eurasian epicenter to the Southern Urals; possible powerful flows of migrants from Afghanistan and Iran during the Chinese advance to the west. Since our Russian-Eurasian justification is embedded both in our common ethnogenetic and historical, the supranational state and position of Eurasianism is logical. As a philosophical understanding, ideology of the historical moment, justification for our current situation. The ethnogenetic rationale underlying it will reduce the risks and negatives of future development. Today rulers are strong and wise, tomorrow weak and foolish ones may come. But turning off the path that our peoples have been following for 1,100 years is not an option. Otherwise, wars, colorful revolutions and the arrival of foreign conquerors. Moreover, pressure from outside is growing in three most important directions: from the west - the fucking Caucasians, from the southeast - the Chinese, from the southwest - the Arab-Islamic world. In light of the ongoing restructuring of the Russian-Eurasian space, external risks are very great. Eurasianism, as a system of views, develops from Danilevsky through the first Eurasianists in Europe and L.N. Gumilyov. before, including Dugin. Everyone has something to say, which does not change the consistency of the comprehension process. Time will tell who is right and to what extent. Whose ideas will be adopted by descendants, do we know? However, the Russian-Eurasian community, after the euphoria of Gumilyov’s ideas, moved into a phase of thoughtful reflection and search for a path forward. And “political circles” are not at all mistaken when they fight for the creation of the Eurasian Union. Despite all the difficulties of ethnogenetic and socio-economic nature. So, everything is fine here for now. Unless political wood-boring beetles appear in the future. Eurasianism draws our attention to the deep essence of what is happening. Focusing it on what is in reality. Understanding the ethnogenetic processes in the Russian-Eurasian space only explains the position of the Russian people as the leading and titular people in a more complex super-ethnic structure of the Russian-Eurasian character. Strengthening its significance and role as a formative state with a naturally scientific explanation, moving away from empty philosophizing. Are we afraid of strengthening and stimulating national elites? If they understand the complexity of development in the dual unity of ethnogenesis and history; the inevitability of Russian-Eurasian integration further; know why it happens; take into account external dangers and internal risks based on knowledge - will they really want to replace Russian supremacy with European, Arab or Chinese? Today there is established peace, mutual understanding, a common historical destiny. With the arrival of foreigners, everything will change beyond recognition. Do they need it? As for the USA and China. Americans are an ethnogenetic European continuation. But today they are going through a difficult time of ethnogenetic bifurcation. This breakdown is transforming into a growing socio-economic catastrophe. Humanly speaking, I feel sorry for them, but I also want it to happen to them and for them to leave us behind. But this is unlikely. The American desire to be a leader (the Monroe Doctrine from the early 19th century) in the Western Hemisphere smoothly flowed into world hegemony after the First World War. And ends with the paranoia of world domination. The desire transformed into a painful obsession-state. Only the straitjacket of a failed economic crisis will help here. Which will inevitably cause catastrophic social upheavals and the collapse of the all-American ethnogenetic field and state. When? Most likely by the middle of the 21st century. Does this make us feel better? How to look. But there is a plus in Euro-Atlantic provocations against Russia: we are emerging from a gelatinous limbo, we are gathering, we are rebuilding. We begin to actively think and work. China. It's much more complicated here. Chinese ethnogenesis lasts about 7 thousand years. During this time, the Chinese super-ethnic group with the leading Han ethnic group (similar to the Russian) embraced its ethnogenetic origins - Tibetan, Altai, Austro-Asian. And he went to the boundaries of the habitat. What's the big deal? The Chinese are simply in another period of maturity and a high degree of passionarity. Which presupposes the expansion of territories to the maximum possible, resettlement, inclusion of other peoples in the general ethnogenesis and the creation of an imperial-type state. Where will the Chinese go? According to general physical laws, liquids and people flow to where it is empty. Southeast Asia is quite densely populated. What remains is the Russian Far East (already begun) and Siberia; Central Asia (also started with economic penetration), Iranian Plateau. The Chinese expansion began with cultural and economic penetration into other nations. Including the Russian-Eurasian space. Which is justified from the point of view of Eurasian ethnogenesis. We do not like? Did the peoples of the Volga region, Siberia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia like Russian expansion? Like it or not, dance, my beauty. And once again, Eurasianism is at the stage of philosophical understanding of what is happening. It only acquires contours that come from the depth of the ethnogenetic, multiplied by the socio-economic. Adoption of an ethnologically based Russian-Eurasian concept; understanding of super-ethnicization as an integral part of general integration processes in the ethnosphere of people; that the Russian people, in symbiosis with the peoples of Northern Eurasia, formed a Russian-Eurasian super-ethnic group, which, on ideological grounds, was recently called the “Soviet people”; recognition of the fact of socio-economic globalization following super-ethnicization, etc. — will allow us to develop a EURASIAN DOCTRINE. Which will reflect not only the current state of the Russian-Eurasian space, but also the interpenetration of European into Russian and Chinese into Russian-Eurasian in the future. Whether we want it or resist, our descendants will be forced to participate in the common Eurasian project. Which, alas, will be led by the Chinese. I have already written about the ethnogenetic depletion of the Russian people earlier. And I repeat: it’s stupid not to notice this. Understanding and recognizing a fait accompli does not mean giving up positions. It encourages us to find ways out of the crisis without damage to the Russian people, without moral, cultural, ethnogenetic losses. The “Russian World” has long been in a Russian-Eurasian state. It's time to wake up from the oblivion of misunderstanding, pull your head out of the sand of mythology, and realize its deep foundations in the ethnogenetic springs of Northern Eurasia. So that our accomplished Russian-Eurasian community is broadcast through the “Russian World” in its entirety socio-economically, culturally and spiritually. So that the “Russian World” of an essentially Russian-Eurasian civilization has clear coordinates in the ethnosphere of people, clear goals and objectives, a holistic system of views on internal development and geopolitical situation. From which stems the integral Russian-Eurasian worldview, worldview, worldview. Where the Russian component cannot be cut for some reason. Where Russian self-affirmation is not in the position of being big and strong, but in Russian consciousness expanded to Russian-Eurasian. But even further, to a multipolar world. Therefore, I have to disappoint the dull, Eurasianism as the idea of the Russian-Eurasian world is not at all a dummy, since it has such solid ethnogenetic and historical foundations. But the idea of the “Russian World” in the form of ill-conceived approaches, such as “The Russian World is an integral system of views, a system of coordinates, if you like, an entire civilization!” and nothing but high emotional impulses, without proper decoding, is still stalled. Guardians of the idea cannot even decide on Russianness. Enrolling everyone who came across as Russian. Not at all embarrassed about whether it will be pleasant to other peoples. The concept was formed not from ethnogenetic or historical justification, but rather from fear: “everything is falling apart, something needs to be done!” Show me this “integral system of views”, justify the “system of coordinates”, convince me in the end that the Russian World is not just another myth-making for the near future (and then we’ll see what to do next). It doesn’t convince me, a Russian person, or the millions of descendants from mixed marriages, much less other nations. One only has to read what the Russians of Ukraine and Belarus are saying about the idea of the “Russian World”. They call themselves “Ukrainians”, “Belarusians” and do not want to understand our common Russian ethnogenesis and history, not to mention Russian-Eurasian. And this is about 40 million. Not so long ago, Russians in their origin and mentality of people.

Techniques of demagoguery and how to resist them.

What is demagoguery? The definition of the term can also be represented as the polemical techniques of skilled speakers who, having captured attention and trust, can mislead anyone.

This term is often closely associated with politics, but this does not limit the scope of its application. We can roughly distinguish the following main types of demagoguery:

political - politicians use demagoguery the most, especially during the pre-election period, in order to please the voter, making extensive use of all the media available to them;
economic - discussions about super projects that will bring unprecedented growth in production, increased income, etc.;
social – issues of social protection are always relevant, this is the widest field of activity;
legal – taking advantage of the legal illiteracy of the population, one can easily distort information;
everyday life - in everyday life, at work and in transport - everywhere we encounter demagogues.

All types of demagoguery share common techniques. To the traditional old techniques, new ones have been added, such as those based on neurolinguistic programming.

What are the most common methods of demagoguery? Let’s focus on the most famous and frequently used:

Erroneous syllogisms and sophisms, violation of logic : cause-and-effect relationships between events are artificially established and deliberately incorrect conclusions are drawn.
Distortion of facts : concealment of the truth, distortion of reality; a fact may be presented not accurately, but partially, in such a way as to cause mistrust.
False authority : designed for the tendency of people to unconditionally trust authorities who supposedly agree with the expressed opinion.
False alternative (dilemma): deliberate errors in thinking that deliberately narrow the choice of possible solutions.
Substitution of concepts and images as a way of influencing consciousness: switching to a discussion of synonyms that are not related to the topic at hand, jumping to completely different topics.
Criticism of the opponent’s personality , not the subject of controversy.
Incorrect formulation of the question . Not out of ignorance, but with malicious intent.
Moving away from the topic being discussed or considered .

This is only a small part of the demagoguery techniques used.

In search of an explanation of how to counter the demagoguery that permeates all areas of our lives, we can use some practical tips:

In response to untruthful arguments, facts are presented in a reasoned manner with mandatory confirmation, with reference to reliable sources of information.
If demagogic techniques are actively used against you, you can simply ignore your opponent, stop reacting to his techniques, which is not so simple, you need to have patience and endurance.
Involve third parties - sort of arbiters who will record all the points in the dispute and honestly judge who is right.
If your opponent goes off topic, bring him back into the mainstream of the issue being discussed, do not let yourself be led astray.
You can fight your opponent with his own methods, using all available techniques of demagoguery. Although it is better not to argue with demagogues.

Techniques of demagoguery

Since demagogy is a debate tactic aimed at winning and achieving a planned goal, it has its own specific incorrect discussion techniques. Moreover, such a victory is often imaginary, because the demagogue sometimes strives to create only the illusion of triumph. Moreover, finding out the truth does not matter.

Despite popular belief, not only politicians use the techniques described, but also ordinary people. That is why it is important to learn to recognize such dishonest methods.

Below are typical tactics and methods of demagoguery.

The demagogue's first priority is to introduce the other person into a difficult situation with a simple "why." When the interlocutor constantly repeats this question, he gradually drives his opponent into a dead end. Such a situation is considered a victory by the demagogue. After all, if your counterpart is unable to answer a basic question, then you cannot have a normal discussion with him.

Using a false alternative, a populist imposes a possible solution to a problem that is unsuitable for the interlocutor, but beneficial for the demagogue himself. Often practiced in conjunction with sarcasm. Then the populist puts forward a false alternative, which is unprofitable for himself. For example, a demagogue is asked to turn down the music; in response, in addition to turning down the volume, he offers an alternative that is not suitable for him, but the interlocutor has to refuse. “Should I turn down the volume? Or maybe jump on the spot?”

Populists, when presenting arguments, often begin sentences with the following cliches: “everyone has long known” or “it has long been proven by science.” If an argument is presented as a well-known fact, then this indicates an attempt at manipulation. Because by refuting such a fact, the opponent seems to be showing his own lack of education.

Another popular technique is to focus on specifics. The speaker tries to find inaccuracies in the statements of his counterpart, especially the most insignificant ones. The demagogue leads to the conclusion that an individual who makes mistakes in details cannot present anything sensible in general.

The most common tactic used by a populist to conduct a conversation is the tactic of substituting the thesis. A demagogue, having begun to justify one proposition and realizing his own defeat, moves on to prove another, pretending to argue the first.

A blatant technique that causes irritation in the opponent, as a result of which logic can be turned off, is considered to be the substitution technique, when the effect is passed off as the cause.

A favorite trick of populists is to put their opponents in a losing position. When among individuals who do not understand the subject of the conversation, demagogues can throw out a phrase with the following content, for example, “The opponent did not provide any arguments or evidence.” With this phrase, the speaker exposes his counterpart as incompetent in the issue under discussion, this is especially obvious for persons who do not understand the essence of the dispute.

The “theoretical formalism” technique is considered a dangerous technique. It is dangerous due to the formal correctness of the subject using this method. For example, a populist declares that the interlocutor is a fool and argues this statement with examples from his life. At the same time, mistakes or committing stupid things in themselves do not make an individual wrong in this particular situation. And besides, the past mistakes of the interlocutor cannot be an argument. The argument put forward by the interlocutor must be refuted on its merits, and not offset by a hint about the opponent’s narrow-mindedness. With this technique, the demagogue rises above his counterpart, denigrating him.

It is important for a populist to feel like he is on the attacking side. A priori, whoever poses questions is the attacker. That's why demagogues often answer a question with a question.

Usually talking about abstract topics is called demagoguery. This is due to the fact that in disputes on abstract topics there is often a lack of logic. She denies it. After all, there is no place for logic in discussions about love. This technique is often abused by the fair half.

If you pin a populist against the wall with an irrefutable argument, he will use a technique called relativism. It is expressed in phrases such as “everything is relative,” “there is no absolute truth.” Although before this the demagogue sought to prove that he was right.