Has Public Discourse Become Too Pathetic?

As human beings it is natural that we express and respond to emotion. That is why we have dedicated one third of our rhetoric to pathos. However, we need to realize that to make a solid argument, we must also use the other two thirds of the triangle, logic and ethics.

Public discourse has in fact become very pathetic. In some ways I enjoy it, for example when John Stuart and Steven Colbert use humor to relay the news. Often times, however, pathos can contort the truth by adding feeling or emotion to the words reporting facts. This doesn't occur as much in humor, atleast as Stuart and Colbert use it. I think this is because sarcasm and humor make it easier to tell the truth. You can be politically incorrect, offensive and controversial while at the same time having people's attention - because, of course, its all a "joke". For many other emotions in public discourse, I feel as though they are purposefully added to get an emotional appeal, and to me, playing with people's emotions is a sleezy way to state an argument. For important political issues or relaying the news, using emotions takes away from the logic of the report. I know in many ways pathos is a necessary component of logic, but leave that to the individual. In public discourse, we can tone down the pathos.

Anything Goes: Pathos as essential argument

I’m sick of it: sick of hearing that dry computer-logic should govern human beings.

I embrace pathetic discourse. I have discussed very emotionally charged issues under strict parliamentary procedure. This method is terribly stilted and disrupts the crafted argument of those with compelling positions. It is important to express how much an issue matters and to explain what it means to those affected. We must remember that humanity should be defined not only by reason but also by compassion. Emotion cannot be neglected in debate which affects the lives of others.

Again I say: I embrace pathetic reason. Those who can use it well should do so. Emotion is important to humans.

The British Houses of Parliament were bombed in World War II. Upon reconstruction of the House of Commons, Churchill opted to keep the original arrangement of the chamber: two sets of benches which directly face each other. He felt that the confrontational nature of debate was essential to government proceedings of the head of a global empire.

Regarding pathetic discourse and its blatant overuse, I see emotional discourse exposing true colors. What happens when pathetic language is overexploited is this: it begins to be noticed and pointed out. Those who ridiculously overuse pathetic fallacy are countered and laughed down, AND the formerly unwitting public develops a healthy cynicism. Let us separate the wheat from the chaff: those who have mastered an effective tool from those who seek its power, yet fail to understand the device.

Pathetic Public Discourse

In my opinion public discourse has, without a doubt become too pathetic. While some of the issues in today's media are emotional at their core, pundits have looked to pathetic fallacies as a way to get their message across.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has almost become a show about the pathetic fallacies on the cable news networks. 10-15 minutes of every show are devoted to making fun of clips from Fox News, CNN, and the NBC family of networks. Most of this time is spent looking at political pundits using blatant scare tactics or slippery slopes.
And while I understand that issues such as health care reform or taxes affect peoples lives a great deal, that is not an excuse to take advantage of viewers emotions. The problem with this is that progress becomes more difficult to make as emotion gets more involved, and if the country as a whole ever wants to make real progress issues need to be approached with logic as well as emotion. So until people can realize that emotion should not be abused politics will be slow in getting major issues resolved.