Stop and Think

Today, public discourse has taken a tone that is by far too pathetic. Historically referred to as the melting pot, America now fails to evenly mix ideas that logically make since. Americans do not take the time or put forth the energy to evaluate news and choices they must make logically. In this modern technological era we try to simplify all life processes. This benefits us in several ways (no longer do we harvest grain by hand or have to start a fire every time we cook dinner), but unfortunately when it comes to public discourse this “ease-of-life” approach doesn’t always produces the most fair, accurate, and principled results.

I personally believe that pathetic fallacies have overtaken our rhetoric. We are continuously confronted with scare tactics, over simplified ultimatums, arguments portraying a slippery slope, band wagon pressure, Red Herring distractions, and sentimental appeals. Instead of putting forth the effort to logically discover a truth or persuade a truth we often find ourselves reacting and communicating on how we feel about an issue. We may not have good reason for that opinion, and if we do we often don’t explain it to others because we are too caught up in simply trying to get them to agree with it by provoking extreme, and often uncalled for, emotional investment into that issue. It amazes me that with the level of education American’s receive we still fail to carefully develop rhetoric. We also do not dissect what we hear and label it as either an acceptable or unacceptable argument.

The largest change to politics and life in general is that, unlike our Founding Fathers, we argue and do not compromise. Compromises laid the foundation for building this great nation. Today, instead of compromising different views we simply argue about them. What happens is that when we argue about an issue we fear that if we look at it logically we might be proven wrong. Perhaps our position on the argument is the correct one for the most part, but the other party’s position has some good qualities as well. People don’t want to argue logically because when it is proven that the other side has some positive input they are in a way proven wrong. Even if for the most part someone’s idea was correct, if they have to change one part of it to incorporate another person’s idea the original person will feel inferior or foolish that they didn’t think of that before. To prevent this type of self humiliation from occurring we choose to argue based solely on emotion. Emotion, unlike logic, cannot be proven wrong.

One example of avoiding logic to make an argument is the actions of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). They are a political activist group not associated with any local animal humane shelter that works to protect animal’s rights by trying to abolish modern agricultural practices. HSUS does have a more logical approach than PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they still fall victim to several pathetic fallacies. HSUS members are driven by emotion and few understand or have any logical scientific evidence to support their claims. If they do find research that they agree with it is typically blown out of proportion and not supported by various sources. They believe it is their right to protect animals. They are convinced that traditional methods of food production are much more animal friendly. They fail to acknowledge that in dairy farming, for example, new technologies and building designs that have been developed over the past decade provide more comfortable stalls bedded with over a foot of sand instead of a thin layer of straw, barns now allow the cows to roam freely amongst their pens that are typically over hundreds of feet long instead of being tied in their own stall all day, and that cows receive better health care (vaccinations and treatments for any diseases) than some human beings receive. Because arguments by the HSUS fail to logically recognize the improvements in animal husbandry and they preach using too much emotion, the arguments that do make since and should be addressed by the industry are not taken seriously. Those on the other side of the argument can be blamed for placing too much of an emphasis on emotion as well. When farmers are confronted with propositions by HSUS they don’t stop and think about how these “city slickers” could actually be providing them with useful advice. They immediately jump to the conclusion that any attack on the way their business is run is an attack on themselves, their family, community, and their industry. Some suggestions and movements by HSUS actually would cause more harm than good but some could be incorporated to improve farms. These two sides fail to combine their efforts in a positive way. They don’t compromise because that would cause them to realize they were wrong about some things. Instead of compromising they simply argue and cut down the other side’s intentions.

This is a common scenario in modern-day-America. We rely solely on emotion and ignore logic in our attempt to change the world. I believe it is time to stop, think, and use logic when making decisions.

What is considered too much?

Tiger Woods gets caught. Brittney Spears shaves her head. Lindsay Lohan enters rehab. The goal of today’s media is to reach its audience and evoke emotion. News updates, celebrity lives, sports stories all employ pathetic language. We enjoy listening to caddy drama and intimate details of the lives’ of the famous and journalists, news anchors, media personnel, authors, and politicians know this. Emotion sells.

For any story to be successful, emotion must be present. In order to reach the intended audience, they must be lured in by bait. The bait is emotional language. Most would agree that a mundane news broadcast would be dreadful to watch. As sad as it is, people are drawn to disaster and drama. You rarely hear any positive information on the news today. Everything involves scandal, devastating homicides, and terror. The connection: emotion. Take educational books for example. Why do most students refuse to read them and instead use Sparknotes to quickly finish the assignment? The books are boring. If they involved topics intriguing to that age group, students would have no problem reading the entire book as opposed to the first and last chapters of boring books. Old English communities are the last thing high school students want to read. For my Women’s Gender class, it was mandatory to read a novel about homosexuals. In each book, the main character was a gay woman suffering though some dilemma. In mine, the narrator was a immobile, handicapped feminist lesbian. The whole book detailed her sexual acts and experiences. It succeeded. It withdrew an emotion. Disgust. I was appalled that I had to read a book that went into that much detail. I will forever be scared for life. Another example is a lackluster gossip magazine. That is an oxymoron. The point of the tabloids is to inform people of the exciting, dramatic, scandalous lives of celebrities. People would not buy a magazine if the main article was “David Beckham Goes Shopping.” We want to see action. Him lying on a beach revealing a chiseled six pack would be a more appropriate choice and definitely generate more profit. Point being, people respond to emotion, but it must be an emotion appealing to them. The media understands this thus abusing it and overusing emotional appeal in the headlines.

A direct relationship between language and emotion exist and when combined, equate to communication. Pathetic languages involve language, emotion and communication and when perfectly deployed, create a popular story. Media messages attack this strategy. Sometimes the amount of emotion used is suitable however most times, too much is used. Some things should be kept private. How would you feel if every single aspect of your life was detailed in a newspaper headline? It would be frustrating. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of privacy. There are even laws involving confidentiality, yet the media still seems to neglect to abide by the laws and reveal every personal story of every celebrity, athlete, politician, and etcetera.

Personally, I enjoy the gossip magazines, I guess making me a hypocrite, but I do sympathize for the persons featured. Today’s world revolves around pathetic language. In some ways, for example communicating with a good friend, a future employer at a job interview, or a loved one, utilizing emotion to reach your audience is a good thing. But when the media intrudes on the personal lives of the famous for our entertainment is crossing the line. Everyone is given the right to privacy, but sometimes that right is taken away and exposed and that is not right. The media overindulges in the use of pathetic language, making public discourse too pathetic in today’s society.

The Pathetic State of Things

Most would agree that across all forms of media, it seems that everyone has taken a more emotive approach to get their point across. We are bombarded with images of celebrities and their deplorable state of marriage, or a sports pundit’s outrage at a player’s move to another team. Whatever the case, it forms a quick and often strong connection with the audience, and the result is a trend of increasingly pathetic public discourse.

With the exception of a few thinkers and politicians who are worth listening to (regardless of their differing points of view), the middle have relegated themselves to the fringes. This majority of once-reasonable voices have instead launched into a diatribe that has destroyed all hope of a reasonable center, and they have taken over most of what we see and hear today. The lunatics, leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, conspiracy theorists, capitalists, anti capitalists, sports pundits, radicals, armchair fascists, and environmentalists (just to name a few) begin with a cloudy objective and repeatedly stab anyone who comes along with a contrarian view, stamping out any hope of reasonable public discussion. The victims themselves turn to the same tactics that is so widespread with the mantra “If you can’t beat em, join em!” Unfortunately, this only serves to aggravate the problem. In the end, the discussion is not about the conservation of our planet, or issues of national security, but rather, it is about denigrating your opponent with obscure “evidence” to incriminate him and support your cause. The result is two parties further convincing themselves that they are right and entrenching themselves in their beliefs.

It is not hard to see why society values people like Noam Chomsky, who relies on facts and logic to put his point across, not a saliva-spitting emotional outburst on television with a shocking/tragic image inserted for “good” effect. I must admit that the pathetic appeal is a very powerful tool; emotion often supersedes logic and is more likely to compel the audience to action. It is seemingly easier to wield than logic, for the latter requires careful research and irrefutable evidence. Divorced from civility, present day discourse is guided by restrictions forbidding things such as dependence on research, empirical figures, mutual respect, equitable studies, or objective introspection of one's own beliefs. Instead, public discourse celebrates wild accusations, condescending dismissals, name-calling, statements made with absolute certainty, and any opinion based on partisan bias.

Moreover, the medium of speech seem to catalyze the pathetic public discourse right now; blogs, text-to-television posts, forums and twitter feeds create an anonymous, less inhibited and less technical environment for discussion. It has now become a free-for-all melee of sorts, where anyone, regardless of the amount of thought you have put into your argument, can join in the “discussion. The alacrity in which material is spread through the medium also forces participants to come back with quick responses that are valued for their impact. What better and easier way to do so than with a pathetic appeal?

My gripe with the state of things is that public discourse norms seem to dictate that the only effective form of persuasion for all matters, big and small, is an emotional appeal. Unfortunately for us, nature has hardwired our emotions as an Achilles heel; the desire to help another at the sight of distress is an evolutionary adaptation that is constantly exploited by the media. In short, we just cannot help it.

When it comes to scientific research and articles, one can find a plethora of material offering verifiable results that are used to support completely different and even contradictory conclusions on what the research means. While science is all about facts, the accuracy of "scientific fact" is often not open to principled, research-based disagreements. There are numerous opinions and interpretations that proffer no scientific value; crackpot theories, unstated agendas, political pressures, personal rivalries, and studies conducted (or commonly quoted and cited by amateurs) to confirm already-arrived-at results are among many of the factors that taint supposed "facts." Take for example the topic of global warming. Though most would agree that mother earth is on the verge of irreparable damage, there exists a camp that claims otherwise. They rattle on, most with little or wildly misinterpreted research about the “deception”, “lies” and how our energy conservation steps are part of “one big hoax”. While the veracity of this argument is outside the scope of this discussion, the plain and simple fact is that unsubstantiated claims lose all credibility especially in an empirical field like science.

The political arena is another aspect where emotional appeal is repeatedly exploited. In Singapore, reports about Obama’s performance from pundits were an everyday affair in the papers. While there is a natural inclination for attention to be directed toward the new American president, many of the concerns raised were so ridiculous they were almost irrelevant. Coming to America, I literally stepped into a firestorm of questions about his religion, loyalties, racial views and even his birth certificate. Emotions were so frequently part of the public discourse that it soon degenerated into controversy of formerly mundane presidential activities. Who could forget the teleprompter incident at Graham Road Elementary School and the inquiry over his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize?

It is immediately apparent that rather than doing the serious work required to put forth a logical argument, it is so much easier to deal with differing opinions by attacking those who hold them. Rather than according ideas with facts and reasonably interpreted data that take time to research, it is so much easier and more convenient to brand others with pejorative labels, calling them frauds, liars, politically motivated hypocrites, first world elites and the like, all in a bid to make a quick comeback. However, such insults are not fair, accurate or principled, and are more juvenile than thoughtful. They do nothing to advance an argument and their sole purpose seems to be making the ones spewing them feel better about themselves – which must be the point, since that really is the only thing accomplished.