Arguing vs. Venting Emotions

Screaming your emotions at somebody is NOT arguing. How many times have you found yourself in an argument or discussion and realized that either the other person, or you, are arguing/commenting from a place of fact-free, analysis-free, and logic-free emotion? I know I’ve done it, and I catch myself doing it still (less often, but it creeps in there). You’d think I’d know better by now, but emotions can overtake before you really realize what’s going on. Emotions are also the strings activists and politicians pull or pluck to get you to fall in line with their side of the issue.

A straight-forward example can be found in those ads the ASPCA used to run showing big-eyed puppies with mange or in a cage, or anything like that, with a caption asking you to donate to save the puppies. Or those ads with kids in third world countries with no shoes, please donate so this poor child can have shoes (my response was always “you’re standing right next to that child! Buy him/her some fucking shoes!”) Those are emotion-based “arguments” for why you should donate money and support a particular cause. The unstated implication of those ads is if you don’t donate, YOU are responsible for the death of this puppy or the sores on this child’s feet, you heartless cretin.

Politicians and activists do this sort of heartstring plucking thing as well. “Trans rights are human rights!” is an emotion-based statement designed to get you to feel sorry for trans individuals as they apparently have no rights because YOU think they aren’t human. When confronted with this statement, your first question should be: What rights are they missing? And go from there. I should warn you though, you might not get very far as the person spouting this likely has no idea what constitutes a right in this country.

Emotional arguments/statements are specifically designed to get you to stop thinking and simply run with your feelings. We’ve all been guilty of this, and I think it’s safe to say such emotion-fueled actions rarely result in anything good.

Up until my late twenties/early thirties, I was very guilty of falling back on emotional statements and not paying attention to the analysis or logic of a situation or argument. It caused me a lot of stress because I just couldn’t fathom how these people I loved could be so cold-hearted as to disagree with whatever position I was taking at the time. What started to cure me of this habit was grad school. Now, I realize that’s an expensive and time-consuming solution for most people. However, it was the necessity of being required to take apart arguments and theories and figuring out which made the most sense to me, while simultaneously recognizing, and accepting, the flaws in every theory I chose to use as an explanation for some phenomenon. You can do this yourself without going to the expense and headache of grad school. But it does require you be honest with yourself.

Recognizing the flaws in your theory of why the world works the way it does (your ideology) is important. If you refuse to recognize those flaws (here’s where that self-honesty comes in), you will never figure out a way to work with or around them to reach solutions to whatever problem it is you’re trying to fix. And screaming emotionally at people that IT JUST ISN’T FAIR! makes you sound like a three-year-old having a temper tantrum. Recognize the flaws – otherwise you’re just venting and not helping.

Arguing from a purely emotional stance also fails to provide you with the space for coming up with a solution. You’re so wound up that the only thing you see is the perceived injustice. And that sends you into the streets to demand that somebody DO something! Okay. So, what do you propose they do? FIX IT! How do you want it fixed? Make it so nobody’s feelings get hurt and everything is fair! Okay. That won’t work. Fascist! Racist! Why do you hate whatever I support??

First of all, nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to get through life with their feelings unscathed. Those opposing your emotional rants don’t hate (for the most part) whatever it is you’re supporting, but if you keep calling them names, they’re sure as hell going to develop a very strong dislike of you. If you cannot present solutions to the problems you’re seeing AND recognize that there are going to be flaws in your solutions, most especially flaws in the form of unintended consequences, then you are not going to win any arguments and you are simply going to wind yourself up even more.

When you hear a politician spiking up emotions in their speech, pause and ask yourself what are they trying to get you to do? If you’ve read 1984, perhaps you remember the “Two Minute Hate” scene where the workers are riled up by party hacks to scream the vilest imprecations against Goldstein (note that Orwell gave him a Jewish last name… interesting in light of the recent rise in public antisemitism, innit?) Winston admits later that he lost all control of his emotions and reveled in the unbridled hatred ginned up during the Two-Minute Hate.

Don’t get caught up in the Two-Minute Hate.

Take a step back and think. Why were Michelle Obama (owner of three homes and worth roughly $70 million) and Oprah Winfrey (worth ~$1 BILLION and I don’t know how many homes) telling DNC attendees that they should be super suspicious of rich people like Donald Trump or JD Vance? 

Could it be… hypocrisy? Misdirection? (You know you said that first bit in Church Lady voice.)

Think about it. We all get wound up when we’re told that rich people are bypassing or rigging the system. But why are we buying that emotional spike from other rich people?

Don’t get lost in the Two-Minute Hate or the big-eyed puppies or shoeless kids. Step back and really look at what you’re being asked to believe. Get Toto to pull back the curtain.

If it feels off, or doesn’t quite make sense… it’s probably just pure emotion with a few facts very loosely attached if at all.

When it comes to politics, try your best to keep your emotions at bay.