The failure of the Left and what the Far-Right gets right.

[suncowiam]

So your answer to my question is "no", then. Very well. Does that not say to you that something is wrong with the system itself?

I was watching the super bowl and couldn't give you a well thought out answer if I tried. Stupid Falcons...

Any system cannot please every individual. The American system does have measures for change. This is proven again and again, with the swing from left to right and back. What this means, is that each one of us has to work in the system to make it work for us. We have to participate. Once we stop participating than those that are working harder will have a better hold of the system. This is how, IMO, the left failed. This is a reminder for everyone that we have to actively participate in our government. I'm not just speaking for the leaders of the left but all of the left.

If you want change, then go work on the change. Don't hope that the change will come to you.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

If you are interested, start with Kahneman - Thinking fast and slow it is an excellent overview of heuristics and biases.

In the meantime here are few random articles relating to relevant "irrational" aspects of cognition to start you off.

Edge.org

Atran, S. & Ginges, J. (2013). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336, 855-857.

http://nuovoeutile.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BIASED-ASSIMILATION-AND-ATTITUDE-POLARIZATION.pdf



What are you basing your opinions on btw? Why do you have faith in your own rationality and ability to consider things free of emotion and bias?

And to get back to the OP, why do you have faith that mass political movements can be effective simply by appealing to facts and cold reason without recourse to emotion?

These are non-scientific articles that talk about specific examples.

Why do you have faith that I do?

I think both right and wrong political movements can be furthered through emotional appeal but only consistent ones can be furthered by facts.

 

[Stevicus]

Honestly, I do think the left and the center have failed to address certain key things that are more to the fore in far-right ideologies.

Far-right ideologies, especially ethnic nationalist, tribalist, radical traditionalist, national anarchist, folkish religion (especially folkish Paganism, since Christianity is fast in decline in the West and even among the far-right), etc. tend to take a mythic view of humanity and the world at large. This appeals to the part of humanity that loves myth, symbols, grand archetypes, etc. They have a vision of returning to a wonderful, simpler past based around community, tradition and cohesive culture. They stand in opposition to out of control capitalism which is ravaging our species, other species and the planet itself. They are against the alienation of the modern world, which has wrecked the family unit (over 100 years ago or so, most of us were living more rural lives with both our immediate and extended family), resulted in mental illness (depression and other psychological afflictions are at epidemic levels) and turned us into dog eat dog slaves that spend our lives working menial jobs we hate for a pittance and then we die lonely and unfulfilled on an existential level. They recognize these things as problems and propose solutions to them. They view the modern world as degraded and decadent. They view our general malaise and the coming catastrophes in spiritual terms, primarily. They also have a Heroic view of man. This provides emotional satisfaction. They embrace the irrational and the Jungian. Their views on their enemies may be simplistic and even disgusting, but their ideologies are effective. There's a reason why they go on the upswing when the left has become decrepit and cannot capture the spirit of the age.

The left, on the other hand, tends to take a purely rationalist approach, viewing humans as resources or automatons of a sort. (I'm generalizing, of course, because you have genetic determinists on the right and am mainly thinking of Marxism with that.) There isn't room or much talk about the mythic aspect of humans and how important it is to our psychological well-being as a species. Most things are viewed in terms of class, and in empirical terms. Then you have the so-called "SJWs", who are mostly white middle to upper-class and college educated and most people simply cannot relate to that demographic, from poor inner city people to hicks in the sticks. (Even in my relatively progressive city, we have luxury condos right across the street from homeless shelters. These people are living in another world entirely and are seemingly oblivious to it.)

How can the left capture the mystical side of existence and provide a narrative that both satisfies our atavistic, Jungian aspects while remaining true to the cause of justice? Is it even possible? I don't know. But I'm finding it rather boring and unfulfilling lately. Lately, I just want to go off into the woods and worship the Gods, leaving this depraved and decaying world behind.

You make a lot of good points, and I think the left's de-emphasis on class-related issues is the primary reason they've lost focus.

The push towards nationalism isn't that surprising, considering that we've always had a strong patriotic consciousness since at least the Civil War. That continued on through the world wars and throughout the Cold War. The left attacked such ideas from time to time, especially during the 1960s and 70s, but even the left started to grow somewhat wishy-washy on this issue.

However, both left and right have had some complications in terms of promoting patriotism for America as defender of the free world, arsenal of democracy, etc., since they've largely pursued an internationalist agenda since WW2. But the patriotism, loyalty, and nationalism were necessary in order to generate the public support required to maintain such an agenda. The same militaristic agenda required that the public believe that the world is a dangerous place with dangerous people from whom Americans need to be protected.

Much of our foreign policy is also tied in with economic policy, and this is where the left has dropped the ball big time. By joining hands with the right in supporting the so-called "global economy," they have compromised their own principles.

Even on the social agenda, they kind of went backwards on that one. After civil rights advocates and feminists struggled so hard to gain acceptance and inclusion into areas where they were previously barred, you'd think we'd all come together and get along. But rather than doing that, the left started encouraging more separatism and division, which is when a lot of the current "identity politics" started up (about the mid to late 1980s).

It was really a missed opportunity for the left, since this was the same time that the seeds of our current economic misfortune were being planted. If they had doubled down and did a full-court press against Reaganomics and the far-reaching changes which were being made to our economic system, they would have been in a much more favorable position today.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What you're referring to is ignorance. Plain and simple. What you and others here are arguing for is a justification of ignorance. Just because a group is successful in passing such ignorance does not justify other groups to do the same. That is wrong and continues to propagate more irrationality and ignorance.

I should allow people to speak for themselves, I guess, but I've seen discussions head this way before, and there is at least a chance that your comment (above) includes me.

To be crystal clear, judging the effectiveness of something is a measure of pragmatism, not moral justification. It can be far more 'moral' to not take a route which is effective. To take the high road, so to speak.
So whilst I might read the OP as stating that appeals without emotion are less effective than appeals with emotion (and that can be argued) I wouldn't read it as stating that appeals with emotion are 'more right' than appeals relying purely on data, or cold-hard 'facts'.

I don't think @Augustus was for a moment justifying ignorance. That would see to run contrary to his usual approach. Acknowledging the impact demagogues can have does not mean one is supporting them.

 

[suncowiam]

I should allow people to speak for themselves, I guess, but I've seen discussions head this way before, and there is at least a chance that your comment (above) includes me.

To be crystal clear, judging the effectiveness of something is a measure of pragmatism, not moral justification. It can be far more 'moral' to not take a route which is effective. To take the high road, so to speak.
So whilst I might read the OP as stating that appeals without emotion are less effective than appeals with emotion (and that can be argued) I wouldn't read it as stating that appeals with emotion are 'more right' than appeals relying purely on data, or cold-hard 'facts'.

I don't think @Augustus was for a moment justifying ignorance. That would see to run contrary to his usual approach. Acknowledging the impact demagogues can have does not mean one is supporting them.

Judging a process of its effectiveness is a measure of pragmatism. Judging the goal of the process is a measure of its morality.

The process of inciting emotions not rationality to persuade is morally wrong yet highly effective. The left will be no better than the right to use such tactics. Politicians get a break from this rule. They kiss babies and honor veterans or the fallen. Us normal folks can do better than emotional ploys to persuade others. Heck, forget persuasion. We can do better to prove and justify our positions.

@Augustus uses rationality and intelligence to prove his stand that rationality and intelligence is not needed. He was civil in all his comments, even quoting work from previous philosophers to progress his claims. Any irony here?

A final point... Any defense of processes that leads to ignorance is the defense of ignorance.

 

[Shad]

These are non-scientific articles that talk about specific examples.

The first was from an expert and leading founder of the field. The 2nd source is from a peer-review journal. The 3rd is from a well published source using reviewed articles

 

[Augustus]

These are non-scientific articles

One is from a peer reviewed journal *literally* called 'Science'

 

[Laika]

Honestly, I do think the left and the center have failed to address certain key things that are more to the fore in far-right ideologies.

Far-right ideologies, especially ethnic nationalist, tribalist, radical traditionalist, national anarchist, folkish religion (especially folkish Paganism, since Christianity is fast in decline in the West and even among the far-right), etc. tend to take a mythic view of humanity and the world at large. This appeals to the part of humanity that loves myth, symbols, grand archetypes, etc. They have a vision of returning to a wonderful, simpler past based around community, tradition and cohesive culture. They stand in opposition to out of control capitalism which is ravaging our species, other species and the planet itself. They are against the alienation of the modern world, which has wrecked the family unit (over 100 years ago or so, most of us were living more rural lives with both our immediate and extended family), resulted in mental illness (depression and other psychological afflictions are at epidemic levels) and turned us into dog eat dog slaves that spend our lives working menial jobs we hate for a pittance and then we die lonely and unfulfilled on an existential level. They recognize these things as problems and propose solutions to them. They view the modern world as degraded and decadent. They view our general malaise and the coming catastrophes in spiritual terms, primarily. They also have a Heroic view of man. This provides emotional satisfaction. They embrace the irrational and the Jungian. Their views on their enemies may be simplistic and even disgusting, but their ideologies are effective. There's a reason why they go on the upswing when the left has become decrepit and cannot capture the spirit of the age.

The left, on the other hand, tends to take a purely rationalist approach, viewing humans as resources or automatons of a sort. (I'm generalizing, of course, because you have genetic determinists on the right and am mainly thinking of Marxism with that.) There isn't room or much talk about the mythic aspect of humans and how important it is to our psychological well-being as a species. Most things are viewed in terms of class, and in empirical terms. Then you have the so-called "SJWs", who are mostly white middle to upper-class and college educated and most people simply cannot relate to that demographic, from poor inner city people to hicks in the sticks. (Even in my relatively progressive city, we have luxury condos right across the street from homeless shelters. These people are living in another world entirely and are seemingly oblivious to it.)

How can the left capture the mystical side of existence and provide a narrative that both satisfies our atavistic, Jungian aspects while remaining true to the cause of justice? Is it even possible? I don't know. But I'm finding it rather boring and unfulfilling lately. Lately, I just want to go off into the woods and worship the Gods, leaving this depraved and decaying world behind.

I've been trying to avoid these kind of threads because its hard to respond to. The left has suffered and is continuing to suffer a massive political defeat. The sucess of far right parties in various national elections in europe this year would only finalise it. Just when we thought it couldn't go any further right- it did. Holy **** has it gone right. We're one mass movement away from full blown fascism and its very scary to watch this mess unfold.

At the heart of this is a strange sense of entitlement and complacecy that it was "our turn" and that the economic crisis would necessarily benifit left-wing causes. We were wrong and we missed the biggest oppurtunity we had in nearly fourty years to advance a socialist political program. We focused instead on a series of social issues to do with gender, race and sexuality ultimately to accomodate minority groups to the continued existence of capitalism. We have been all but apologists for capitalism in our utter failure to treat climate change and environmental issues as a serious existential threat to humanity and to capitalism itself, instead complacently satisfied with "feel good" reforms when deeper systematic change is needed.

I was born in 1989 and so for my entire lifetime communism and revolutionary socialism have been little more than footnotes in western socities. I have not once had a conversation with someone offline or online who could articulate a thourghly marxist-leninist point of view. Everyone is anti-soviet and everyone wants to re-invent the wheel rather than use the leninist model. People don't talk about it, we don't remember it and a majority don't even care. We were the future once. Its the 100th anniversary of the bolshevik revolution in russia this year and back in 1917 it would have seemed that the world was at our feet- that it was ours for the taking. With hope and idealism coming out of the depths of total war, the stench of blood and death filling the air, we wanted to reach for the summits of human achievement and build utopia within our own lifetime. Now, all I can do is read about these histories in dusty books with yellowing pages- decaying with age. People don't even write the history from our perspective- its all gulags, purges and killing fields. Its easier to condemn it than to comprehend it.

I may tell myself I saw it coming or that the signs were there- but I just look into the future filled with darkness, staring into the abyss, wanting to believe we can do better. I don't know whether to give up or just keep fighting because the alternative is accepting a system with a death wish that would take most of humanity with it.

So I know how you and others feel SF, but no-one is going to give us the future we want. We're going to have to invent the future and build it from scratch probably during some of the darkest periods of human history, as sea levels rise, masses flee from war, drought and famine looking for islands of safety and a small elite clings on to power with ever greater ruthlessness and corruption because they are prisoners of the very system on which their wealth depends and refuse freedom for themselves and deny change for everyone else.

You may wonder where the left can appeal to the emotional or the irrational, but we have a full blown apocolypse on the way. So now is the time for some messianic and millennial craziness as we dare to believe we are worth more than what the ruling class will pay in compensation when they've destroyed us and our planet.

I'm crazy- but even I find that level of crazy daunting. I still have some desire for self-preservation even in the midst of all this.
I don't know whether to scream or start a war cry. Part of me is still trying to process that this is even happening at all.

 

[Augustus]

The process of inciting emotions not rationality to persuade is morally wrong yet highly effective. The left will be no better than the right to use such tactics. Politicians get a break from this rule. They kiss babies and honor veterans or the fallen. Us normal folks can do better than emotional ploys to persuade others. Heck, forget persuasion. We can do better to prove and justify our positions.

I was just making a general point about persuasion and attitude change. Appealing to emotion is a completely independent variable from accuracy/honesty/morality.

Honestly, every single political speech, campaign advertisement or whatever appeals to emotion. Obama was very good at this, as is Trump and for similar reasons [clear now v future contrasts], despite the vast differences in style and content. It's so normal that even the first minute or so of Lady Gaga's Super Bowl half time show had a political appeal to emotion in it. Was this 'morally wrong'?

Persuasive communication without an emotional aspect is basically a dull scientific paper, and facts without a narrative have little effect.

Emotion influences the way we interpret information to the extent that most people can even be influenced to deny what they can see with their own eyes in the right circumstances.

My post wasn't 'why you should be a demagogue', but 'why demagoguery works' (and it works because of the way we are hard wired)

@Augustus uses rationality and intelligence to prove his stand that rationality and intelligence is not needed. He was civil in all his comments, even quoting work from previous philosophers to progress his claims. Any irony here?

People can be persuaded either systematically (based on effortful, reasoned consideration) or heuristically (based on intuition, hunch, feeling, emotion, etc).

Logic and reason can only only persuade people who actively engage with a topic. As you have seen countless times on RF and other places, logic and reason rarely work against someone who holds an entrenched position (i.e. one that they are emotionally invested in).

We also only engage with a very small number of the issues we experience, and our attitudes to those issues we don't engage with are arrived at heuristically.

 

[Stevicus]

You may wonder where the left can appeal to the emotional or the irrational, but we have a full blown apocolypse on the way. So now is the time for some messianic and millennial craziness as we dare to believe we are worth more than what the ruling class will pay in compensation when they've destroyed us and our planet.

I also had similar high hopes for the left, especially when I was a kid and it seemed that the right-wing was forever falling by the wayside as the Nixon Administration crashed and burned. It seemed like a natural progression that started during the Great Depression. FDR made a lot of changes which angered the right, but they couldn't stop him because the right was being blamed for the Depression and our economic woes at the time. The left was also eventually able to dispose of McCarthy, isolate Hoover and Nixon, as well as push hard on the anti-war and civil rights causes which were largely successful by the end of Nixon's presidency.

They were certainly able to appeal to emotion. The 60s had no shortage of powerful, fiery, and passionate speakers, not to mention all the music from the era which is still popular today. They were a bit hobbled by associations with communism, but not to the same degree as during the McCarthy era.

They were still politically viable, as more people stopped falling for the red-baiting and other rhetorical tricks from the right. There were definite fears of the Soviet Union, which was no longer merely an ideological adversary, but it was now a geopolitical rival which could threaten US soil. However, our relations with China started to warm up, as we capitalized on the Sino-Soviet split and further isolated the USSR by showing favor towards its rival. The left welcomed better relations with China.

The left could probably have wider appeal if they could learn to understand and relate to different factions and regions better. A lot of them come off as airy intellectuals or total freaky-freaks. It was somewhat similar even in pre-revolutionary Russia, as communist intellectuals from the cities would go out to the countryside to try to talk to the peasants. They just didn't fit in and couldn't relate. Instead of being so scornful of Middle America and the people out in the provinces in "flyover country," they could try to reach out and be a bit more friendly. At least try to make an effort to find out how people think and where they're coming from, rather than making automatic assumptions and condemnations from ivory towers. They need to learn a bit of the Dale Carnegie approach. That's where they falter.

 

[Laika]

I also had similar high hopes for the left, especially when I was a kid and it seemed that the right-wing was forever falling by the wayside as the Nixon Administration crashed and burned. It seemed like a natural progression that started during the Great Depression. FDR made a lot of changes which angered the right, but they couldn't stop him because the right was being blamed for the Depression and our economic woes at the time. The left was also eventually able to dispose of McCarthy, isolate Hoover and Nixon, as well as push hard on the anti-war and civil rights causes which were largely successful by the end of Nixon's presidency.

They were certainly able to appeal to emotion. The 60s had no shortage of powerful, fiery, and passionate speakers, not to mention all the music from the era which is still popular today. They were a bit hobbled by associations with communism, but not to the same degree as during the McCarthy era.

They were still politically viable, as more people stopped falling for the red-baiting and other rhetorical tricks from the right. There were definite fears of the Soviet Union, which was no longer merely an ideological adversary, but it was now a geopolitical rival which could threaten US soil. However, our relations with China started to warm up, as we capitalized on the Sino-Soviet split and further isolated the USSR by showing favor towards its rival. The left welcomed better relations with China.

The left could probably have wider appeal if they could learn to understand and relate to different factions and regions better. A lot of them come off as airy intellectuals or total freaky-freaks. It was somewhat similar even in pre-revolutionary Russia, as communist intellectuals from the cities would go out to the countryside to try to talk to the peasants. They just didn't fit in and couldn't relate. Instead of being so scornful of Middle America and the people out in the provinces in "flyover country," they could try to reach out and be a bit more friendly. At least try to make an effort to find out how people think and where they're coming from, rather than making automatic assumptions and condemnations from ivory towers. They need to learn a bit of the Dale Carnegie approach. That's where they falter.

As stupid as it sounds Perhaps What the left needs is a "Batman": Someone whose willing to tread the line between light and dark to be the hero we are all too afriad to be. Someone who gets TV coverage as the sort of "action hero" we expect to save us from ourselves only to show us how we are prisoners of our own myth making in the age of consumer politics.

I mean we already have the Joker in the White House...

 

[suncowiam]

I was just making a general point about persuasion and attitude change. Appealing to emotion is a completely independent variable from accuracy/honesty/morality.

Honestly, every single political speech, campaign advertisement or whatever appeals to emotion. Obama was very good at this, as is Trump and for similar reasons [clear now v future contrasts], despite the vast differences in style and content. It's so normal that even the first minute or so of Lady Gaga's Super Bowl half time show had a political appeal to emotion in it. Was this 'morally wrong'?

Persuasive communication without an emotional aspect is basically a dull scientific paper, and facts without a narrative have little effect.

Emotion influences the way we interpret information to the extent that most people can even be influenced to deny what they can see with their own eyes in the right circumstances.

My post wasn't 'why you should be a demagogue', but 'why demagoguery works' (and it works because of the way we are hard wired)



People can be persuaded either systematically (based on effortful, reasoned consideration) or heuristically (based on intuition, hunch, feeling, emotion, etc).

Logic and reason can only only persuade people who actively engage with a topic. As you have seen countless times on RF and other places, logic and reason rarely work against someone who holds an entrenched position (i.e. one that they are emotionally invested in).

We also only engage with a very small number of the issues we experience, and our attitudes to those issues we don't engage with are arrived at heuristically.

I don't care who it was, if their only purpose was to use emotions as opposed to logic then I am asserting that it is morally wrong. I was being sarcastic that politicians get a break from this rule. They don't but the public sees this as normal. We accept this as being normal and benign. We make excuses for those that do. We rationalise why it's done and can further be done. This is the problem. We should no longer let our emotions solely control us.

As children we let fear and anger guide our lives. As we mature we LEARN not to be afraid of the dark. We LEARN to not be angered by trivial matters. What was the process that enabled this? Why should we stop this process even into adulthood?

[Edited]
Concerning the demagogue topic, I know why it works. Im saying how it works is wrong. There was a time when this was needed. Just like my children analogy, the human race had an infant stage where the world seemed to work on powers of magic and mysticism. But that is no longer true. For the human race to further mature, we have to unlearn our hard wiredness. Science and intelligence enabled this. Let's not go back to those times when we had to believe magic was real.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

The first was from an expert and leading founder of the field. The 2nd source is from a peer-review journal. The 3rd is from a well published source using reviewed articles

One is from a peer reviewed journal *literally* called 'Science'

Correction
to my wording.

They come from non-scientific articles and/or are talking about specific examples.

By your logic Augustus we should never teach anyone anything via logic.

 

[Shad]

They come from non-scientific articles and/or are talking about specific examples.

2 source were, you didn't bother to look at anything you just dismissed it. The other source was from an expert and founder of a field. Try again

By your logic Augustus we should never teach anyone anything via logic.

No by your flawed logic and inability to research the source before making claims about it.

 

[Augustus]

I don't care who it was, if their only purpose was to use emotions as opposed to logic then I am asserting that it is morally wrong. I was being sarcastic that politicians get a break from this rule. They don't but the public sees this as normal. We accept this as being normal and benign. We make excuses for those that do. We rationalise why it's done and can further be done. This is the problem. We should no longer let our emotions solely control us.

As children we let fear and anger guide our lives. As we mature we LEARN not to be afraid of the dark. We LEARN to not be angered by trivial matters. What was the process that enabled this? Why should we stop this process even into adulthood?

[Edited]
Concerning the demagogue topic, I know why it works. Im saying how it works is wrong. There was a time when this was needed. Just like my children analogy, the human race had an infant stage where the world seemed to work on powers of magic and mysticism. But that is no longer true. For the human race to further mature, we have to unlearn our hard wiredness. Science and intelligence enabled this. Let's not go back to those times when we had to believe magic was real.

Do you consider MLK's I have a dream speech to be morally wrong for its exceptional emotional impact?

 

[Electus de Lumine]

2 source were, you didn't bother to look at anything you just dismissed it. The other source was from an expert and founder of a field. Try again



No by your flawed logic and inability to research the source before making claims about it.

Rhetoric will get you nowhere with me.

Wait how is that?.......Oh right using logic and not emotion.

Kind of contradicts your statement, plus if you thought that emotion was a superior way to convince people then why are you not just making a purely emotional argument?

 

[suncowiam]

Do you consider MLK's I have a dream speech to be morally wrong for its exceptional emotional impact?

As beautiful and inspirational as MLKs speech was, the message was even more important. It basically revolved around freedom regardless of sex, religion and then of course, race. Kind of hard to argue against that, right?

Martin Luther King I Have a Dream Speech - American Rhetoric

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Judging a process of its effectiveness is a measure of pragmatism. Judging the goal of the process is a measure of its morality.

Not quite. My goal might be to cure cancer, but using enslaved orphan children as test-beds for experimental drugs wouldn't be a moral decision, I'm sure you'd agree. But sure, I agree with the general thrust of your comment.

The process of inciting emotions not rationality to persuade is morally wrong yet highly effective.

Again, I would agree with the general thrust of your comment. However, unlike using orphan children as a test-bed, using emotion as part of a pitch for trying to get donations from rich folks to build an orphan shelter doesn't appear to be morally wrong to me. But think of the children!

The left will be no better than the right to use such tactics.

They're not any better. I mean, of course, individuals can be, and I'm sure you just mean generally, so (once again) I would agree with your general intent and point, I think. But there are some on the left who seem to think they are better because they are on the left. This is complete bunkum.

Politicians get a break from this rule. They kiss babies and honor veterans or the fallen. Us normal folks can do better than emotional ploys to persuade others. Heck, forget persuasion. We can do better to prove and justify our positions.

To me, this becomes interesting. To what degree does the end justify the means? I've already given the examples about orphan children, overblown as they are. Do you stick to rationalism if a little persuasive language gets them a shelter? And if not, what do you imagine the orphan's view of your morally defensible action would be?

@Augustus uses rationality and intelligence to prove his stand that rationality and intelligence is not needed. He was civil in all his comments, even quoting work from previous philosophers to progress his claims. Any irony here?

No irony at all, in my opinion.
First off, you're misrepresenting his position (I'm kinda assuming here that his position is very much the same as mine).
He isn't trying to prove that rationality and intelligence are not needed. He is merely making the point that emotive arguments can be effective arguments. Whether the emotional content is underpinned by substance is another matter entirely. My general take is that communicating on multiple levels is the MOST effective, and so an element of emotion (eliciting empathy) and an element of rationalism (to appeal to critical thought) are going to work best when in concert with each other.
Secondly, he has not stated that he prefers to use emotional arguments, or even that he seems them as moral. It is quite possible for him to see them as effective, but also to see them as morally dubious, and for him to shun them.

I largely avoid them myself, with a few exceptions.

A final point... Any defense of processes that leads to ignorance is the defense of ignorance.

I'd see it differently. Any process leading to a shutdown of frank and honest discussion is promotion of ignorance.
Emotional arguments impact. The logical content of an emotional argument is actually a variable.

 

[Shad]

Rhetoric will get you nowhere with me.

It wasn't. It was providing information you never bothered to look up yourself

Wait how is that?.......Oh right using logic and not emotion.

Nope. You didn't bother to actually check the sources.

Kind of contradicts your statement,

No it does as I pointed out your didn't bother to check the sources.

plus if you thought that emotion was a superior
way to convince people then why are you not just making a purely emotional argument?

I don't. You made a mistake, simple as that.

 

[suncowiam]

Not quite. My goal might be to cure cancer, but using enslaved orphan children as test-beds for experimental drugs wouldn't be a moral decision, I'm sure you'd agree. But sure, I agree with the general thrust of your comment.



Again, I would agree with the general thrust of your comment. However, unlike using orphan children as a test-bed, using emotion as part of a pitch for trying to get donations from rich folks to build an orphan shelter doesn't appear to be morally wrong to me. But think of the children!



They're not any better. I mean, of course, individuals can be, and I'm sure you just mean generally, so (once again) I would agree with your general intent and point, I think. But there are some on the left who seem to think they are better because they are on the left. This is complete bunkum.



To me, this becomes interesting. To what degree does the end justify the means? I've already given the examples about orphan children, overblown as they are. Do you stick to rationalism if a little persuasive language gets them a shelter? And if not, what do you imagine the orphan's view of your morally defensible action would be?



No irony at all, in my opinion.
First off, you're misrepresenting his position (I'm kinda assuming here that his position is very much the same as mine).
He isn't trying to prove that rationality and intelligence are not needed. He is merely making the point that emotive arguments can be effective arguments. Whether the emotional content is underpinned by substance is another matter entirely. My general take is that communicating on multiple levels is the MOST effective, and so an element of emotion (eliciting empathy) and an element of rationalism (to appeal to critical thought) are going to work best when in concert with each other.
Secondly, he has not stated that he prefers to use emotional arguments, or even that he seems them as moral. It is quite possible for him to see them as effective, but also to see them as morally dubious, and for him to shun them.

I largely avoid them myself, with a few exceptions.



I'd see it differently. Any process leading to a shutdown of frank and honest discussion is promotion of ignorance.
Emotional arguments impact. The logical content of an emotional argument is actually a variable.

Very nicely written and, yes, you made some very good points in highlighting my errors. I appreciate that.

I have to correct myself. However, there is morality when a process is better defined. Your orphan child example proved that. But my intent which I think you already knew was that there is morality so one can't simply label a process as benign without further examination.

Concerning your donation from the rich example, I find it deceitful to solely use emotions, therefore I still find it morally wrong. We can rationalize with anyone regardless of their status to come to an agreement. There are truths that will naturally align with emotions. If that is the case, then I have no problem with that. If we need to assert that without donations, thousands of kids will go hungry or even die, when it is exactly the truth, then that is the reality of the situation. How the donors feel or should feel is arbitrary as long as they understand the situation and consequences of their follow-up actions. Knowledge is what we want to flow from communication, not emotions. Emotions do not describe the details of the situation.

If Augustus didn't mean to suggest any morality in the incitement of emotions then I simply later asserted it myself that persuasion by emotions alone is wrong. Emotions can be the worst indicator of reality or of what can be proven. Primal man depended on emotions more so for survival during early times. It was more critical to either run or fight than simply ensuring our perception matched reality. We are no longer primal beings with death lurking around every corner. We still have some hard wired attributes but we can unlearn them if we choose to. Some of us chooses not to.

Augustus brought up the MLK speech. What would it mean If people walked away from the speech feeling happy and inspired but did not understand the core message of equality and freedom?

Trump uses examples that incite fear and hate to drive his agenda. But when we fact check him, he's shown to be exaggerating or lying. Then of course, he goes to Twitter and claims everyone else including the media is falsely defining him. He is a good example of emotions over logic. We all know it sells, but it sells for the wrong reasons.