Does getting emotional or making inflammatory statements help make an argument more convincing?

[redqueen]

Does it help to get a point across?

Is it helpful in any way?

It seems to me it only hardens opinions on both sides of whatever issue is being discussed... which is obviously kinda the point when some people do it... but I don't get why it's so popular here.


BTW: for clarification... I'm asking this question in the context of us having discussions with each other, here on DU.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

1. Gee whiz...

it must make a difference... What this poll needs is more cowbell.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. More cowbell, you say?

(I couldn't pass this one up when I saw it on Venice Beach a couple weeks ago.)

[Recursion]

2. No, and you're a nazi if you disagree with me

Seriously, though. I think there are times you can use emotion to break through somebody's prejudices and have them attach personal meaning to something that's only abstract to them (empathy is essentially emotional, after all).

I don't know that an online forum is the place to do that, though. More like a pub.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

4. Yay!

BAR FIGHT!

:rofl:

[redqueen]

8. Oh I don't mean any appeal to emotion at all, though.

I meant more when someone allows emotion to start overriding their reason, and affect the thigns they're saying, and the way they're saying them.

That's when I think to myself that it's time to take a break and reconsider participating in whatever discussion is going on.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Makes it less convincing. eom

[zipplewrath]

5. Time

It takes time to write a "well thought out" argument. The vast majority of exchange here is more stream of consciousness. You'll find vastly less of that in the GD forums. You'll find some more well thought out discussions in some of the specific issue forums.

[leftofthedial]

6. are you looking for a fight?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

9. Nope!

Just getting an idea of the sentiment on DU about it, that's all.

:hi:

[marauding liberal]

7. You know what ? A lot of us feel betrayed and are M-A-D !

[redqueen]

10. Betrayed by fellow DUers?

If I'm trying to convince you that I think A is wrong and B is right... does it behoove me to call you names or otherwise insult you for thinking A is right? Will that help you to see things my way or understand my point of view?

I don't think so... but I thought maybe someone else might have a different take on it... so I'm asking...

[marauding liberal]

18. Betrayed by a lack of outrage at the actions of this administration.

Those who defend the failure to carry through on their promises of change and transparency are met with the same frustration and anger.

[redqueen]

22. I understand... I felt that today after I read about Sanders' bill.

It's a crying shame that didn't get passed.

But regarding promises... there is a difference between something not having been done *yet* and something that it has been clearly expressed will not be done.

[marauding liberal]

35. I am generally disgusted by the way this administration is shaping up.

Yesterday I was ballistic due to:
1. Continued refusal to even CONSIDER single-payer health insurance.
2. Failure to pass bill limiting credit card companies' gouging on interest rates
3. Failure to OBEY THE COURTS and release the photos.

I am furious because I am realizing that once again we have been played. Classic bait and switch. Empty promises.

[redqueen]

40. Yeah... the usury thing had me going.

I knew single-payer would be nigh impossible... and though I originally thought that the decision to not release the pics was a mistake, I now see the logic, even if I still bristle at the principle of it.

I just don't like to see so many DUers at each others' throats... I know we all agree way more than it seems based on reading some of the threads and posts here. We all want pretty much the same things... we just disagree on the details of how to get there. We all want justice for the tortured victims... we just disagree on what is the best way to get that.

I guess I hoped that this thread might get some people back on the big picture. Tempers sure are running high, and given the issues this administration has been gifted with thanks to the brazenly outlaw bush administration... it's not likely to change anytime soon I guess.

[Uzybone]

11. No, it fact it hardens the opinions of those you seek to convince

Its a losing strategy.

[RandomThoughts]

24. That is an assumption of power.

Might a comment be a request to convince the public otherwise?

"Saying that's not good enough", and "will you do what I ask" is not the same thing.

[GodlessBiker]

12. "Getting emotional" and "making inflammatory statements" should not be grouped together. They are

very different. I see nothing wrong with getting emotional while making a point. Some points are deserving of strong expressions of emotion.

Making inflammatory statements, however, generally does not help. There are times, however, when a simple "Fuck off, you're a fucking Nazi" is the most appropriate thing to say.

[redqueen]

Yes, good point.

They are not the same, but I see them both as being mostly harmful in the context of furthering understanding / facilitating communication.

[GodlessBiker]

72. When a Holocaust survivor cries and shows emotion as she argues for strong...

international human rights laws, her emotion enhances, not harms, her point.

[redqueen]

74. Yes, but that is hardly ever the case here on DU.

Certainly not in the discussions of torture photos.... at least that I know of.

If there are Holocaust survivors on DU arguing on one of the threads about the torture photos, I could sure understand their using emotion in their arguments, no doubt.

[TwilightZone]

13. Nope. But keep in mind that opinions on both sides are already pretty hard.

With many issues, there's a chasm between sides, and DUers tend to be, shall we say, rather firm in their beliefs.

Neither side is likely to budge, so there tends to be very little real discussion or give-and-take. That causes frustration on both sides, which often leads to emotion and those inflammatory statements.

Taking it a step further, I think that the inflammatory statements are often used simply to pick a fight or create an emotional response. There is usually very little intent to have a rational discussion about the topic.

Edit: stolen from stillcool in another thread:

What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
-Robert Kennedy

[redqueen]

17. I just don't see the point.

I get it if the point is to discuss opposing points of view to build understanding.

I had a very brief exchange via PM regarding the torture photos, and came around to seeing things the other way... just this morning.

If the other person involved had just said how stupid it was for me to believe what I had said to him, then that wouldn't have helped at all... instead he made a very good case for his opinion and despite my initial preference that the photos be released, I now see the logic in holding them back.

[TwilightZone]

29. I don't think they're trying to build understanding.

Quite the opposite, actually. I think they know that name-calling and inflammatory statements aren't going to do anything to generate reasonable discussion on a topic. They don't seem interested in discussion as long as they get a little attention and can declare themselves on the right side of whatever issue is being discussed.

I think some people just like to argue!

[redqueen]

33. I *LOVE* to argue...

but I guess when I say 'argue' I mean more than just a back-and-forth, "yes it is!", "no it isn't!" type thing. :P

(I came *thisclose* to posting a gif of the argument sketch from MP right here. :D)

[TwilightZone]

43. Yeah, it's a matter of depth of content.

It's kind of like the difference between 'argue' and 'debate'. We tend to argue, when debate would probably be more productive. (I think 'debate' is what you have in mind, as well.)

But then it comes back to intent. I think the intent of some DUers is to argue and to not really put much thought or effort into having a meaningful discussion about a topic. It's also a shortcut - it's much easier to insult someone or get mad than it is to come up with a rational defense of one's position or a rational critique of one's opposition.

We all do it, I'm sure. I know I do, but when it becomes someone's sole mode of 'discussion', it accomplishes nothing.

Edit: typo

[redqueen]

46. Exactly... we all do it sometimes...

it's only when it becomes so commonplace as it is now that I start thinking :wtf:


And yeah... my dad always told me that I just like to argue, so that kind of colored my use of that word I guess.

Thanks.

[TwilightZone]

52. Yeah, well, it's all semantics!

Wanna argue about it? Hehe.

You're right, though - it's definitely commonplace at the moment. In fact, some days it seems to be the default behavior.

It's also becoming increasingly difficult to determine the, shall we say, sincerity of some posters. :)

[redqueen]

53. Hahahah... oh God...

a friend of mine who is a converted Dem, but was raised in a family of Republicans, loves to relate his experience debating someone in his family. Apparently this person never fully grasped the meaning of the word 'semantics'... so whenever they'd reach an impasse and she was unable to refute an argument, she'd throw that out as if it explained the disagreement. Thanks for reminding me of those amusing anecdotes. :)

And yeah... re: sincerity... HELL YES!

[hfojvt]

45. Is the point of the discussion to build understanding?

How many here are trying to do that? When the "understanding" is that we are Jets. And all Jets believe points:
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,AA,AB,AC ... ZY,ZZ ... My point being that there seem to be way more than 26 fundamental beliefs, and anybody who questions some of them is probably really a Shark, just trying to pretend to be a Jet. "I cannot believe there are people on DU who would question KR or QN!!"

Clearly, there can be no understanding reached with Sharks, because they are intolerant, close-minded racists, homophobes, sexists, religiously insane, pathetic, looser, a$$hat, POS, Nazi, wilfully ignorant, trogolodyte, sold out, morally compromised, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, nose-picking, vile wankers whose idea of a discussion is just to call people names or try to find a 'clever' way to insult the person they are talking with.

And that's why we are here, to hang out with fellow Jets and talk about how much we hate Sharks and Kool-aid drinking Shark enablers and laughing at the stupid things they say and believe and trying to figure out some way to get Congress and the President to represent us.

[redqueen]

49. Amongst DUers... I would like to think so, yeah...

but if we're not even interested in doing that with each other there's little hope of doing it with conservatives... which is apparently something we need to do to make much progress.

Wow this sure took a turn for the depressing.

[TexasObserver]

14. No, and the only people who think it does are those who enjoy being dramatic.

Most of the time, those who use such methods are addicted to their own emotional upheaval, which is why they do it. Look at this board. Some posters are incapable of posting without acting as if the world teeters on the brink. It's the Chicken Little crowd.

[redqueen]

54. Yes...

I've heard the terms 'rage addict' and 'drama queen' used in regard to that type of behavior.

[TexasObserver]

66. Yep. In reality, emotionalism seldoms sells any thought to the rational.

People use emotionalism to whip themselves into their desired state of mind. That's why charlatans and schemers target those who are easily moved by emotion.

[Spazito]

15. As soon as someone resorts to name-calling, their credibility is diminished...

because, imo, one only resorts to it when they know they have lost the debate/argument.

[redqueen]

19. I can't agree there...

I have lost my temper many times. We're all human.

I guess if it becomes the majority of the person's contributions to a discussion, that might reflect on credibility... but even then, maybe they're just having a bad day.

[Spazito]

62. The credibility lost is specific to the debate in which the name-calling occurs...

not the credibility of the poster as a 'whole', imo. It depends, too, on the sensitivity of the issue with some being more emotionally taxing than others.

[redqueen]

64. Gotcha...

complete agreement here. :)

[marauding liberal]

This is how mad I am about Obama's failure to keep his word:

:nuke:

[pampango]

27. Often the name-callers don't seem to realize that. It seems that they believe

they can take the moral "high ground" by calling names or questioning motivation rather than discussing ideas and opinions. (If you call someone a racist or slave labor advocate, you somehow win points for occupying the moral high ground.)

[RB TexLa]

16. Both get the point of how emotional you are across. One can be as mad as they can get but unless

they raise their voice, those around them may have no idea how mad they are.

It's a little different to express that online.

[redqueen]

23. But how does that further an argument?

How does knowing the degree of upset or passion involved help?

[quiller4]

67. Yes. Others know how emotional you are but they turn out everything

else. Your logical points are drowned by your emotion. It may feel great and we've probably all done it but it is self-defeating behavior.

[RandomThoughts]

20. It might depend on the type of passion. And the type of person seeing it.

Is it from anger or hate, or is it from compassion and caring.

Passion can be in many forms.

[redqueen]

28. I don't get it.

Glen Beck cries because he 'cares so much about this country'... it doesn't sway me in the least. I guess it works on his audience... but he's not trying to persuade them... only rile them up with emotion, for obvious reasons (to solidify their ideological position & gain the loyalty of his audience)... or so it seems to me, anyway.

I don't think that what type it is, or where it stems from, has any bearing on whether it's useful in the context of us having discussions with each other here on DU.

I should have put that in the OP... that this is more in the context about us, here, talking amongst ourselves. I hope there's time to edit.

[RandomThoughts]

44. Well passion can transfer the emotion behind the passion.

When some speaks about something they care about, that caring is more evident and can be transferred. You see this with hate also. When a person says mean things with a sharp tongue, it can be recalled by another person when they think of the label, and they actually pull out the emotion it was said with also.

Emotion carries along with the words. That's how alot of programming works with labels.

However in the case of Glenn, he was not crying because of caring for America, it was some mix of stress and fear, and not knowing what he could do about a situation he did not like, more of a tantrum then caring. He was not crying for others, he was crying for himself, so no transfer happened, accept him looking bad.

Now if you had high empathy for Glenn, you would pick that up, and it would transfer, since his sorrow would go through him to your empathy for him. So it depends how you feel about him.

That's sort of how I see it.

[redqueen]

51. So let me see if I'm understanding what you're saying...

that we, as fellow DUers, are hoping that our passion transfers to the readers here? Because that would build empathy, and help them to see our side of the discussion? Do I have it right?

That makes sense.


P.S. I love how you spelled accept there. That's one of my favorite errors cause my favorite person in the world does that.

:loveya:

[RandomThoughts]

65. yea, that misspelling is a bit funny.

And yea, you are real close, but its usually third party. If someone was talking about helping a 3rd party, and they honestly cared about that third party. Part of that caring of the 3rd party would go with the words.

So it would build empathy for the people the original speaker had empathy with. If they were talking about themselves, the feeling then is usually based on your empathy for them already.

However the method of listening to a person depends on your empathy with them.

So if you really listen to a person, and empathise with them, then when they talk about something they care about, if they talk with real caring emotion, then your empathy for them transfers more caring for that third party, then just flat talking, or someone talking you don't know or don't like.

It is sort of like feelings riding on words spoken. However, it also happens with songs and pictures and film. So it is not a quantitative thing. Its the same thing as charisma, the quality you can't describe, but you know it when you see it. Or command tone in the military where saying something can carry a command that is followed without thought, just by it having a passion or energy behind it. Also used in a tone used by lawyers when questioning.

But a person can choose not to take in gossip or hate or the bad things, that way bad transfer of feelings does not happen.

Imagine a person around the water cooler saying bad things about another. If you go along with the feeling, suddenly you are in sync with them and joining in in the comments. Then you walk away and realize it was not really how you felt, because the feelings you were going along with were carried in to you by the person speaking the bad stuff. but only if you took it in.

It is one of the ways both kindness and badness spreads.

but kind icons are better then gossip :), thanks for the smiley :loveya: :)

[redqueen]

69. Thanks so much for explaining all that...

it does make sense, if used in the good way. :)


And thanks for tying this to gossip... I hadn't even thought of that, but you make a very good point!

:yourock:

[RandomThoughts]

80. People use it to project authority or control also.

Watch the CEOs when they say they deserved their bonuses, they juice up the comment, it is not timid.

You can also see O'Reily use it to bully guest, the Colbert interview on his show is a good example. When O'Reily yells, you see Colbert like he was slapped, he goes submissive, for a couple seconds, seems confused or scared, then remarks on how loud his voice was, not knowing it was not the volume. No offense to Colbert, O'Reily been bulling people for a long time.

It is one of the things taught in those secret groups. And one of the ways some people push average people around.

Most of the Bosses in companies seem to use it, but they might not know it. They project superiority or authority.

'say it like you mean it' ever heard that expression. That is putting passion behind what you say.

(this is a different definition of the word projecting then the usual one)

[JitterbugPerfume]

21. Depends on who your audience is

[redqueen]

59. Well in this context I mean amongst each other, here on DU. (nt)

[JitterbugPerfume]

78. sometimes things get over heated

and on occasion I have been guilty , but I don't think it is a good thing . I have sent PMs apoogising for posts that did not pass through my brain, or being overly emotional

[Marr]

25. Well, sometimes people get angry.

I try to be as even-keeled as I can, but I must admit, it can be difficult sometimes.

[RandomThoughts]

30. I get angry every once in awhile also.

I try to direct it away from any hate, it turns into frustration, and then sometimes leads to choices of what a person can do to vent in a positive way.

If someone can get me angry, then they have in some way a method to make me feel the way I don't like to feel. I don't like giving that ability to someone else.

However in a recent post I was a bit frustrated, LOL, I even typed a bunch of NOs a bit silly, but it relieved some frustrations :)

[redqueen]

34. We all do...

I've done the angry, name-calling, inflammatory stuff myself from time to time (probably way more often than I'd like to think... heh)

But I still see it as being harmful and ultimately pointless. A failing... a mistake... something I should try to avoid.

[Individualist]

26. Passionate facts are more convincing than spin and bloviation.

[redqueen]

38. Not sure what you mean by "passionate facts".

Facts are facts regardless of the way they are stated, right?

[shadowknows69]

31. Probably not, but it's cathartic

[redqueen]

36. True!

Kinda stinks up the forum though. IMO.

[shadowknows69]

37. This forum? I'd be hard pressed to match some of the daily vulgarity here

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a devout Vulgarian.

[redqueen]

42. Well this isn't about you!

LOL... Vulgarian... I'm one of those too actually.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[NYC_SKP]

56. Please, GrovelBot, not now. This is SERIES!

Gee Whiz!!!!

[DireStrike]

39. Is the goal to make people feel something, or to understand something?

Emotional arguments make people feel things.

Rational arguments make people understand them.

[redqueen]

41. Yeah...

I guess that's the crux of it.

[Javaman]

47. ONLY IF YOU USE CAPS!!!! NT

[Javaman]

48. dupe. nt

[varelse]

50. It helps get the thread more attention,

it helps attract more replies, and it helps keep a thread bumped so that more people can see it.

[redqueen]

55. Yeah but to what end?

What's the point... that's what I don't get.

If the only point is to get a really big thread with lots of recs & replies... well... okay!

[NYC_SKP]

57. Well, getting attention I guess.

Sometimes getting attention has no further purpose than to get attention.

A curious behavior often seen in classrooms and playpens throughout the world.

:P

[redqueen]

60. I can barely muster the couarge to do that in the Lounge...

however much I'd like to. :P

[TwilightZone]

58. Attention

Sometimes, that's really what it boils down to.

[varelse]

85. I've seen the tactic used to that end

But I've also seen posters use it to bring a very serious and important topic out from under a flurry of "celebrity-obsessed" posts (think Susan Boyle or Carrie Prejean or Tim Russert or - well you get the idea).

I'm not arguing in favor of posting rants - although I do feel that a (very) few of the emotional and (in some eyes) inflammatory posts I've seen here are among the best and most honest posts I've seen on any forum - just attempting to answer the question in your OP.

[Kcoll]

61. Nope

I find it a tacit admission of the weakness of a person's position.

[redqueen]

70. I can see that...

I'd tend to take it more as them having a bad day, or being over-invested in the subject... but I can see that, too.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[harun]

63. Only if you throw things too.

[mmonk]

71. Sometimes, inflammatory is in the ear of beholder and how they

take it. While some may in fact be inflammatory, some with conviction of purpose or to make someone realize something can be taken as inflammatory. I judge something to be inflammatory if instead of arguing a point, a statement is made about the person one is arguing with or attributed something to that person that they did not mean or say.

[redqueen]

73. No it's more than just a personal attack.

The word 'Obamabot', for example, even if not leveled directly at another person, is in itself inflammatory, all on its own.

Ditto with random comments about how much of a 'fake' or 'corporatist' he is. While all that is opinion, saying that on this board, where so many worked so hard to elect him... can be interpreted as nothing more than attempt to bait others into a fight, IMO.

[mmonk]

75. I agree Obamabot is inflammatory. As I said, once it goes into name calling

it no longer can be considered anything else.

[Maru Kitteh]

76. No REAL effin progressive WOULD EVER ASK THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Yeah, it's pretty counterproductive most of the time.

[redqueen]

77. Thanks... not just not productive... but *COUNTERPRODUCTIVE*.

Precisely the way I see it. :hi:

[Dogtown]

79. !!!HELL YES!!!

+, it's very cathartic...

[Evoman]

81. Does anyone ever change their mind about anything, no matter how polite you are?

It's a more interesting question. As long as I've been on DU, I've barely ever seen anybody change their minds about anything. Hell, even in real life I've never seen a changed opinion due to one discussion or even 10. It usually takes soul searching or extreme ridicule (peer pressure) to get somebody to change their mind in real life.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we are all a bunch of jabbering monkeys who are getting nowhere. Emotional or not. Insulting or not.

None of this matters.

[redqueen]

83. I changed my mind today, based on a very brief exchange of PMs.

And it's happened before, at least with me, I know.

Maybe I'm just wishy washy... but I don't think so. I think I just try to go out of my way to see things from others' perspectives, and understand why we disagree about things.

Nobody has all the answers, least of all yours truly.

[dmallind]

82. People vote as if they are all paragons of logic, but few act that way

And I certainly include myself in the part that does not always so act. I try, but often I fail.

Ask yourselves which arguments have been the most effective. Not which ones would have gotten the highest grades in a course on critical thinking. MADD for example almost single handedly pushed neo-prohibitionism not by pointing out the logic that the average "drunk" driver could engage in that behavior for thousands of years before he killed someone, which 70% of the time would be themselves, but by showing emotionally charged pictures of crashed cars and telling gut-wrenching stories of lost innocent relatives (almost always young and successful and if possible photogenic). Famine relief for Ethiopia became a massive issue in the 1980s not because of succinct arguments based on the shared responsibility for alleviating human misery however distant, but because pictures of dying, distended malnourished infants with flies crawling all over their big, deep brown eyes were posted in ads over ominous music with voice-of-doom narration.

Emotional appeals do not add to the technical validity of arguments. Not a tiny bit. But they work in the arena of public opinion and passion, which is where arguments are ultimately de facto resolved. Anyone answering with the majority in this poll is either blind or trying to establish academic purity over real world experience.

[Evoman]

84. Agreed.

[NoSheep]

86. No. But a lot of people make me mad as hell.n/t