I understood your comment to be saying what you say you meant to say. However, just because an issue has emotional valence does not mean it must be discussed as “emotional discourse” as opposed to “rational discourse” as you say. Just because something affects you emotionally does not mean that one should be emotional about it while discussing politics. Having emotions and being emotional are two different things.
It might help to define terms. What do you mean by "being emotional" I think effective discourse has some level of emotional appeal, after all, we're humans not computers. Are you referring to emotional fallacies, e.g., "we should close the border because millions of criminals want to get in and destroy our way of life"? Or something else?
I do want to clarify that I didn't suggest that emotionally impactful issues have to be discussed through 'emotional discourse.' (Mind clarifying that term? It's not clear what you mean). My intention was to highlight that politics often evoke emotional responses because they directly affect people's lives—for example, topics like healthcare, education, and civil rights. I pointed out that mass media, influencers, and politicians have conditioned audiences to react emotionally to certain issues, and that's why most folks react in an emotional way.
At the very best, it's naive to not be aware of that and to place the blame on people as opposed to the systems that are perpetuating this current state of affairs.
Being emotional about a subject generally means being driven emotionally, or having one's emotions be in control, rather than being able to step outside one's self to try and see other people's point of view. For example, when my daughters get worked up and start fighting over toys they cannot discuss how to share them, because they are being emotional and not thinking straight; often a little "peace time" to calm down and sort through their feelings helps them come back to it and discuss things rationally.
Likewise, people who have not reasoned themselves into a position cannot be reasoned out of it, so discussing positions is pointless. Having come to a position based on emotion instead of reason leads to people parsing "I disagree" as "Your emotions are wrong" which, while sometimes true, people don't generally like to hear so much as "you are not in possession of all the facts". If someone feels something should be done you can't dissuade them by saying you feel differently, much less via cost benefit analysis. All there is to do is ignore each other or fight.
I agree that the scope of politics, touching every aspect of our lives, does in fact increase the tension and acrimony in the system. The more coercion we introduce into our personal lives, the more the outcomes of elections matter, and thus the more we are going to invest in getting the outcomes we think best. That said, a remarkable number of people have no apparent knowledge or interest in the outcomes, past or present of elections. I recall citing a paper some years ago where they found that of urban people they surveyed, roughly 50% claimed they voted in the previous local election, and of those 50% could name the party of the candidate that won. That in districts that had been Democrat for the better part of a century. For the amount of emotion evoked, people seem to have nearly zero knowledge or interest in how the results of their votes affect their lives.
While I agree it is in part the system, it does also come down to the people who do not know they should be rational, or lack the self control to master their emotions. We all live in the same system; that some of us manage to discuss things calmly and rationally, giving empathy and consideration to the other side, means that we can expect others to do likewise. Especially if they can't be bothered to actually pay attention.
I will say that the commentator you're responding to is an excellent example of exactly the kind of political discourse that I think makes people unhappy.
I understood your comment to be saying what you say you meant to say. However, just because an issue has emotional valence does not mean it must be discussed as “emotional discourse” as opposed to “rational discourse” as you say. Just because something affects you emotionally does not mean that one should be emotional about it while discussing politics. Having emotions and being emotional are two different things.
It might help to define terms. What do you mean by "being emotional" I think effective discourse has some level of emotional appeal, after all, we're humans not computers. Are you referring to emotional fallacies, e.g., "we should close the border because millions of criminals want to get in and destroy our way of life"? Or something else?
I do want to clarify that I didn't suggest that emotionally impactful issues have to be discussed through 'emotional discourse.' (Mind clarifying that term? It's not clear what you mean). My intention was to highlight that politics often evoke emotional responses because they directly affect people's lives—for example, topics like healthcare, education, and civil rights. I pointed out that mass media, influencers, and politicians have conditioned audiences to react emotionally to certain issues, and that's why most folks react in an emotional way.
At the very best, it's naive to not be aware of that and to place the blame on people as opposed to the systems that are perpetuating this current state of affairs.
Being emotional about a subject generally means being driven emotionally, or having one's emotions be in control, rather than being able to step outside one's self to try and see other people's point of view. For example, when my daughters get worked up and start fighting over toys they cannot discuss how to share them, because they are being emotional and not thinking straight; often a little "peace time" to calm down and sort through their feelings helps them come back to it and discuss things rationally.
Likewise, people who have not reasoned themselves into a position cannot be reasoned out of it, so discussing positions is pointless. Having come to a position based on emotion instead of reason leads to people parsing "I disagree" as "Your emotions are wrong" which, while sometimes true, people don't generally like to hear so much as "you are not in possession of all the facts". If someone feels something should be done you can't dissuade them by saying you feel differently, much less via cost benefit analysis. All there is to do is ignore each other or fight.
I agree that the scope of politics, touching every aspect of our lives, does in fact increase the tension and acrimony in the system. The more coercion we introduce into our personal lives, the more the outcomes of elections matter, and thus the more we are going to invest in getting the outcomes we think best. That said, a remarkable number of people have no apparent knowledge or interest in the outcomes, past or present of elections. I recall citing a paper some years ago where they found that of urban people they surveyed, roughly 50% claimed they voted in the previous local election, and of those 50% could name the party of the candidate that won. That in districts that had been Democrat for the better part of a century. For the amount of emotion evoked, people seem to have nearly zero knowledge or interest in how the results of their votes affect their lives.
While I agree it is in part the system, it does also come down to the people who do not know they should be rational, or lack the self control to master their emotions. We all live in the same system; that some of us manage to discuss things calmly and rationally, giving empathy and consideration to the other side, means that we can expect others to do likewise. Especially if they can't be bothered to actually pay attention.
I will say that the commentator you're responding to is an excellent example of exactly the kind of political discourse that I think makes people unhappy.
I'll bite, why is that?
[Edit: Nevermind, I see that I was unnecessarily antagonistic in that last paragraph. My apologies. I'm tired, boss... ]