A friend of mine told me there was talk of the Sandy Hook folx allowing pictures of the kids dead in the school to be used to help get the gun bill pushed through [I hope this is a bull**** rumor but because of the nature of politics now . .. I could not dismiss it out of hand] It seems . . . our politic is emotion driven We are all about the Picture of dead fetuses and victims We are trying to shame and/or shock people into our way of thinking We seems to have completely given up on logical arguments working so now we try to persuade, manipulate, shame and bully people into submission. Does that about sum it up? Rocket River
Of course politics is emotional because we are talking about things here that have very deep personal meaning to us. While I agree that we should be rational about how we decide things we can't divorce nor should we emotion totally from it. The Sandyhook parents have gone through a traumatic experience and that trauma should be considered if we are going to have a public debate about that issue. It shouldn't be the only thing or even the most important thing in the debate but as humans that does matter to us.
Pictures or descriptions of the procedures in question are perfectly appropriate when debating issues like abortion or torture. Often we'll condone things that are out of sight (it's why we can destroy a fetus in the womb but not the moment after). This is the heart of why Gosnell has gotten so little coverage. If we were debating whether or not it's ok to shoot children, picture of this happening would be appropriate. The demagoguery is when the children are used to add weight to one's side, regardless of the substantive argument ("I want to help these children and you don't, so I am right and you are wrong. How can you oppose this? Do you want these children to be slaughtered?")
This is where I think we are. I don't think these things are used to support arguments as much as they *are* the argument Rocket River
it's more political then emotional. This is how politicians get agenda's pushed through so fast. Nothing get's emotions going more then a national crisis or two. "you never let a good crisis go to waste." - rham emmanuel
No, they aren't. They are used to distract from earnest debate. They are used simply to disgust and inflame. Are these things pretty? No. There are lots of things in life that are ugly. Trust me, you don't want to see what they have to do to people to get them ready for the death penalty to be carried out. I prefer an earnest debate about what is permissible without the need for graphic displays solely intended to stir up emotion.
I think some of the influence is social media. And social media really can be female-led. Women generally/stereotypically considered the more "emotional" and "expressive". So maybe its partly increased women involvement thats shaped some of the approach. More use of visuals, "please think about the children", pulling on the heart strings. (I'm not saying things like Facebook outright changes politics. I'm saying the way people RECEIVE info has changed, which maybe changes the DELIVERY also. I've seen several FB posts of Sandy Hook victims and bloody Boston marathon victims with political agendas.) Though of course MALES DEFINITELY do that too. I actually think mainly, really simple - EVERY ADVOCACY and organized effort to persuade, it has the SAME MECHANISMS with the same kind of end goal. Even the advocacies that are about about being peaceful and progressive, they STILL have to use SOME sort of "guerilla" tactics to get their point across. Because ultimately the point is to simply MOBILIZE -> get people to NOTICE -> to be on YOUR SIDE. The form it takes can be arbitrary. (But then I hate getting "preached" to by anybody, so maybe my opinion is too basic about anyone with some social motive, seeing them all as annoying lol)
We can't be ignorant to the issues just because they are ugly. This is coming from someone that is pro-abortion. People that are pro-life have ever right to use images like that as a justification because it is the harsh reality no matter which way you slice and dice it.
When did someone say they did not have the right? Just because you have the right . . . Doesn't mean it is right Rocket River
On the question, is about the EMOTION element itself? Or is it about the ethical use of visuals? Me, I'm was more talking about the appropriateness of visuals. Because ANYONE can HIJACK your senses by forcefully putting visuals in your face YOU DON'T WANT to see, just to get a reaction out of you. While in their mind, its for some "greater good". There's a line between being persuasive on issues, and just being a provocateur though. On emotion itself as an influencer, I guess the problem with emotion is that emotions can be the same level in all ages, from an 8 year old girl to an 88 year old man. And using emotions in logical issues can be seen as "childish" or seen as going with "common denominator". But thats why emotion IS used effectively used even by adults, so it can defy MATURE logic and break it down.
