• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is mixing politics with emotion dangerous or at best unhealthy?

Is mixing politics with emotion dangerous or at best unhealthy?


  • Total voters
    14

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some of the most disturbing and tense atmospheres I've experienced is when people worked up about their politics (usually by others) are fearful their their sued is about to lose or has already lost an election. It's the closest thing I think I've seen to mental illness without the people involved actually being mentally ill. Over the top outrage over the supposed positions of the opposition ofter when their political camp did similar things first and they had little to no outrage. Paranoid about an impending doom. Accusations that the opposition is evil. Accusations that those who support the opposition WANT to see the destruction of society. Knowingly making false assertions of supposed moral character deficits of those who support the opposition. Vilification of anyone they do not personally view as wholeheartedly supporting their side including people still deciding which candidate to support. The use of violent metaphors in describing political discourse. In some countries real violence is sadly seen.

I remember a while back having lunch with a group of friends around election time. One of the people in our group casually mentioned he wasn't sure how he was going to vote but didn't buy all the negative hype surrounding one of the candidate. Another guy in the group practically lost his mind and I was afraid he was going to start throwing plates at the restaurant.

Sorry, poll didn't post. Not sure what I did wrong.

Yes
No
Other
 
Mixing politics with emotion has happened since the very dawn of democracy. It is far more easier to vote with your heart than vote pragmatically for the very vast majority of people. And it's far easier for politicians to tug on heart strings than to use reasoning alone. If politics were not emotional, it wouldn't be politics. Hopefully there would come a day where there is absolute objectivity and reasoning in DC but I feel when that day comes we reach a utopia where there wouldn't be any real issues worth discussing.
 
Emotions. The preying on such is more perfectly done with every election cycle. Voters would do themselves a huge favor if they weren't moved by what feels good but what actually is good for them, not now, not tomorrow, but from now on forward.
Throwing plates, being a hot head, yelling and throwing a tantrum in real life and from the keyboard, that is just show of bad character and lack of self control.
 
Some of the most disturbing and tense atmospheres I've experienced is when people worked up about their politics (usually by others) are fearful their their sued is about to lose or has already lost an election. It's the closest thing I think I've seen to mental illness without the people involved actually being mentally ill. Over the top outrage over the supposed positions of the opposition ofter when their political camp did similar things first and they had little to no outrage. Paranoid about an impending doom. Accusations that the opposition is evil. Accusations that those who support the opposition WANT to see the destruction of society. Knowingly making false assertions of supposed moral character deficits of those who support the opposition. Vilification of anyone they do not personally view as wholeheartedly supporting their side including people still deciding which candidate to support. The use of violent metaphors in describing political discourse. In some countries real violence is sadly seen.

I remember a while back having lunch with a group of friends around election time. One of the people in our group casually mentioned he wasn't sure how he was going to vote but didn't buy all the negative hype surrounding one of the candidate. Another guy in the group practically lost his mind and I was afraid he was going to start throwing plates at the restaurant.

Sorry, poll didn't post. Not sure what I did wrong.

Yes
No
Other

Go to "thread tools" and you still have the option to add the poll.
 
I would vote "no". If anything, I think more people need to have passion and care what's going on. How many people are actually interested in things they're emotionally indifferent about?
 
First, let me start off congratulating the OP for a wonderful thread discussion. It's definitely different than a lot of the other nonsense posted up here. Platitudes aside, of course it is dangerous. I have absolutely no doubt that it's dangerous given what I've witnessed on this forum. I have no doubt that DP has current and former members so horribly bored with their own lives that they honestly believe more than 50% of the garbage that they post. To keep things neutral I won't give any specific examples.

However, you can usually tell by the issues that they discuss and how they discuss them. There are some posters on both sides who can make articulate arguments for why they stand in some such way about an issue. There are others who will just scream that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Cheney - not Joe Biden, cause Biden is a crazy ****er and that's scary - orchestrated some scheme that is out to get them. These people are so emotionally involved in politics which don't affect them on the day to day that they will spend days on this forum posting every article they can find regardless of the website as long as it supports their contrived conspiracy theories.

That's pretty scary to me. I use this place because my professional/personal life doesn't allow me to have a political opinion. It's not banned or anything, I just don't work with enough people to really have a meaningful discussion. I also try to avoid political discussions in my personal life because I rarely if ever raise my voice and don't react well to someone raising their voice over some bull**** like politics. However, I have no doubt that some people take this DP stuff with them to the dinner table. I have no doubt they cuss out their spouses/friends/acquaintances over politics and I just can't imagine that being anywhere near my life. So yeah, it's dangerous as hell if the attitudes on this forum are anything to go by.

tl;dr: I've come to the conclusion that many of DP's politically emotional members fit the description of guys flying drones into the IRS buildings or trying to climb the fences at the WH or throwing shoes or sending out Unabomber gift cards. So yes, mixing emotions and politics is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Some of the most disturbing and tense atmospheres I've experienced is when people worked up about their politics (usually by others) are fearful their their sued is about to lose or has already lost an election. It's the closest thing I think I've seen to mental illness without the people involved actually being mentally ill. Over the top outrage over the supposed positions of the opposition ofter when their political camp did similar things first and they had little to no outrage. Paranoid about an impending doom. Accusations that the opposition is evil. Accusations that those who support the opposition WANT to see the destruction of society. Knowingly making false assertions of supposed moral character deficits of those who support the opposition. Vilification of anyone they do not personally view as wholeheartedly supporting their side including people still deciding which candidate to support. The use of violent metaphors in describing political discourse. In some countries real violence is sadly seen.

I remember a while back having lunch with a group of friends around election time. One of the people in our group casually mentioned he wasn't sure how he was going to vote but didn't buy all the negative hype surrounding one of the candidate. Another guy in the group practically lost his mind and I was afraid he was going to start throwing plates at the restaurant.

Sorry, poll didn't post. Not sure what I did wrong.

Yes
No
Other
I don't think politics mixed with emotion is necessarily unhealthy or dangerous. One's political positions and affiliations are often a part of one's identity. Even further, the outcomes of political elections can often be quite serious for many people. They can determine whether someone will get affordable healthcare, whether racist police forces will be overhauled, whether schools for a voter's children will be adequate and so on. In some cases, political elections can be a life or death matter.

In short, I would say that politics mixed with emotion is neither inherently nor necessarily unhealthy and dangerous. Sometimes it can be, but then again, sometimes a lack of emotion on political decisions can be unhealthy and dangerous.
 
Depends
Me, with anger management issues, Not really ..But I was booted from Go Comics, as I delight in attacking the conservatives there; I suspect that the moderator was also a conservative , so that's that. I guess the same could happen here .. but the members of DP are smart cookies .. greater intelligence leads to more tolerance ..
Adolf Hitler, a psychopath , YES ..
But, if a man loves his country or his people , then mixing the two is necessary
 
I think politics that is not tempered by conscience and empathy is very dangerous.

That said, mixing emotion and politics is usually not healthy. Politicians do it all the time, half of AM radio is devoted to doing just that, and various advocacy organizations do it all the time, so it certainly works. However, I don't think its healthy as many issues are very complex and when you get so emotional about them that its just black and white to you, most likely that is not healthy for good political discourse.

*Remember anger is an emotion.
 
IMO, a mix of complacency and compliancy is far more dangerous.
We need to have a dialogue whether passionate or not.
 
Some of the most disturbing and tense atmospheres I've experienced is when people worked up about their politics (usually by others) are fearful their their sued is about to lose or has already lost an election. It's the closest thing I think I've seen to mental illness without the people involved actually being mentally ill. Over the top outrage over the supposed positions of the opposition ofter when their political camp did similar things first and they had little to no outrage. Paranoid about an impending doom. Accusations that the opposition is evil. Accusations that those who support the opposition WANT to see the destruction of society. Knowingly making false assertions of supposed moral character deficits of those who support the opposition. Vilification of anyone they do not personally view as wholeheartedly supporting their side including people still deciding which candidate to support. The use of violent metaphors in describing political discourse. In some countries real violence is sadly seen.

I remember a while back having lunch with a group of friends around election time. One of the people in our group casually mentioned he wasn't sure how he was going to vote but didn't buy all the negative hype surrounding one of the candidate. Another guy in the group practically lost his mind and I was afraid he was going to start throwing plates at the restaurant.

Sorry, poll didn't post. Not sure what I did wrong.

Yes
No
Other

i can see if it will let me add the poll if you want.
 
poll is up.
 
Victim politics is, sadly, the pandering weapon of choice for far too many politicians, officials, and activists.

Anymore, all the panderer has to do is state that some group of people is being victimized and subtly allude to things that get the listener to connect the nature of the alleged victimization to the unresolved family-of-origin mistreatment suffered by the listener and the listener can become thereby seduced into the panderer's "cause".

It's classic manipulation employing a cult-like method, that plays upon the repressed/suppressed feelings of the listener and the listener's unresolved idealization or contempt/resentment toward those they think mistreated them when they were a child.

Everyone, to some extent and degree, has experienced what they believe was unfair treatment when they were a child, treatment that may have indeed also been abusive.

Those harboring contempt and resentment for a parent or someone from their family-of-origin often become the most zealous lieutenants as adults for their cause in this manner, projecting themselves as victims onto the subjects of the issue in the public political arena where they transfer and displace those that hurt them onto "evil" politicians and parties and factions and what have you "who are hurting the poor victims".

Lost in all the acting out is weather there are really any victims at all in the referenced political issue here and now .. and sometimes those alleged by the manipulated to be suffering geopolitical-socioeconomic victimization are actually trying to take unfair advantage themselves, which the so-manipulated are simply thereby emotionally blinded to seeing!

So, I vote "YES" in the poll in response to the OP thread-titled question.

Such victim politics pandering and manipulating is dangerous to the country because it can create an emotional appeal-to-unresolved-hurts mob-rule attitude that doesn't respect justice for all, due process and the rule of law.

And, it's extremely unhealthy for those so manipulated and sucked into the victim politics mentality, as once sucked in, it's impossible for them to effect recovery from the lingering hurts of the mistreatment they suffered as children while they're in the process of acting out their victimization revenge in the public political arena.

Those who haven't healed from childhood hurts end up succumbing to acting them out in their romantic relationships and other relationships as adults, thereby causing often fatal harm to the relationship .. and, they then pass the unresolved hurt onto their children by either behaving in the same idealize-the-mistreating-parent manner toward their children or swinging in-contempt-of-the-mistreating-parent manner to an opposite extreme where they inflict the opposite type of harm upon their children.

When people truly face the mistreatment they suffered as children, often with the help of a therapist and/or support group, and work their program of recovery, all their subsequent relationships are thereby greatly improved over what they otherwise would have been without recovery .. and, they're then considerably less likely to be manipulated by victim politics as well.

Those politicians, factions and activists that play the victim politics card are really hurting everyone, obviously, merely for an easy vote. Manipulating people in this manner is additionally unhealthy for those so manipulated because the authority-validation of the political leader so pandering creates a substantiation to the manipulated person that "I''m doing the right thing by this victimized group of people". Such appeal to authority by the manipulated person serves to keep the so manipulated-into-acting-out person from entering psychological recovery from the childhood mistreatment they suffered because, like an alcoholic must first stop drinking to begin recovery from alcoholism, to begin recovering from childhood damage they'd have to first let go of the acting out in the political arena, acting out which now they're cult-like sucked into compulsively continuing .. some, sadly, for the rest of their lives.

Victim politics is truly very sad for all.

Such victim politics appeal to un-recovered childhood hurts is despicable.

Officials, politicians, activists, all who commit victim politics pandering need to be identified, exposed, and severely reprimanded.
 
Some of the most disturbing and tense atmospheres I've experienced is when people worked up about their politics (usually by others) are fearful their their sued is about to lose or has already lost an election. It's the closest thing I think I've seen to mental illness without the people involved actually being mentally ill. Over the top outrage over the supposed positions of the opposition ofter when their political camp did similar things first and they had little to no outrage. Paranoid about an impending doom. Accusations that the opposition is evil. Accusations that those who support the opposition WANT to see the destruction of society. Knowingly making false assertions of supposed moral character deficits of those who support the opposition. Vilification of anyone they do not personally view as wholeheartedly supporting their side including people still deciding which candidate to support. The use of violent metaphors in describing political discourse. In some countries real violence is sadly seen.

I remember a while back having lunch with a group of friends around election time. One of the people in our group casually mentioned he wasn't sure how he was going to vote but didn't buy all the negative hype surrounding one of the candidate. Another guy in the group practically lost his mind and I was afraid he was going to start throwing plates at the restaurant.

Sorry, poll didn't post. Not sure what I did wrong.

Yes
No
Other
Emotion is what tells us something needs to be done, as in a law being passed, for example. Emotion motivates us to keep at it while rectifying whatever it is that needs being addressed. That is not a bad thing.

The trick is to then turn off the emotion and turn on the brain when working out how the new law will read and be implemented.

For this reason, I have come to cringe whenever a tragedy occurs. In part because of the tragedy itself, but in part because we almost always rush to try and fix something based on our emotion at the moment... and it almost always goes too far because our emotion was running high and our brains weren't yet engaged.

If I could have my way there would be a mandatory waiting period of 6 months or one year before legislation could even be introduced. This would give us time to calm down and start thinking about what we want to do... or if anything even can be done.
 
Last edited:
Mixing any important decision with unbridled emotion is dangerous. We have to understand where emotion is valuable and where it is not and stop having people drift through life on a sea of emotion and start thinking critically and rationally. There is a place for everything and everything has a place.
 
Nothing wrong with emotion alone, the problem is some people don't have the ability to be emotional and logical at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with emotion alone, the people is some people don't have the ability to be emotional and logical at the same time.

No, the problem is that some people don't understand that emotion is valuable in some situations and logic is valuable in others, yet they have no clue which situations each are useful for.
 
No, the problem is that some people don't understand that emotion is valuable in some situations and logic is valuable in others, yet they have no clue which situations each are useful for.

I have to disagree, when it comes to politics logic is always needed and abandoning it is a problem.
In politics logic is always needed and knowing when to add emotion to that logic is good.
 
I have to disagree, when it comes to politics logic is always needed and abandoning it is a problem.
In politics logic is always needed and knowing when to add emotion to that logic is good.

Which is exactly what I said and you disagreed.
 
Which is exactly what I said and you disagreed.

Sorry but its not exactly what you said, you may have meant to say it that way but you didn't. If it was you wouldn't have disagreed with me nor would you have separated them like your words did. But it's nice that you agree with me.
 
I think it's dangerous, and I think it's one reason our nation is so divided and our people so discriminatory against each other. People can't civilly disagree oftentimes because they are strongly emotionally invested.
 
Mixing politics with emotion has happened since the very dawn of democracy. It is far more easier to vote with your heart than vote pragmatically for the very vast majority of people. And it's far easier for politicians to tug on heart strings than to use reasoning alone. If politics were not emotional, it wouldn't be politics. Hopefully there would come a day where there is absolute objectivity and reasoning in DC but I feel when that day comes we reach a utopia where there wouldn't be any real issues worth discussing.

I hope not. Logic isn't the end all be all. Without emotion, we aren't human.
 
Back
Top Bottom