The persuasive technique of 'Emotive Language' often involve using words that sound like accurate, descriptive words, but which actually carry emotional content as well - that is, a bias towards approval or disapproval.

Example: The boy ran past me with the other boy chasing him.

The man stood in the corner talking to the girl.

are neutral, factual, sentences.


however



The boy FLED past me with the THUG chasing him.

The SLEAZY man stood in the DARK corner, HITTING on the YOUNG girl.

are biased accounts to persuade the reader to have a negative view of the boys actions and character


and

to have a negative view of the mans character and the girls potential victimhood.







During debate, I recognize the emotive language is very common and hard to avoid. The more emotive the language is, the less it seems logical discussion is possible or even welcomed.


I constantly self reflect in an effort to learn more and be 'better'. I want to steer off of emotive language though it is very difficult to not 'give back' whatever is being received.

IgorFrankenstein and EyeAm are both very good at keeping a 'balanced' and less emotional approach to discussion. I admire you both for it.

Do you self reflect? IF so, what things do you think you can do 'better' to have logical discussions?

The boy FLED past me with the THUG chasing him.

The SLEAZY man stood in the DARK corner, HITTING on the YOUNG girl.

are biased accounts to persuade the reader to have a negative view of the boys actions and character



I do not believe I would say it that way ... sometimes when I had reports to make out ... they had to be more professional then that ... so I believe I have kept some of that way for discussions ... least I think I have ...

Emotive language can be extremely useful if it is accurate.
Adjectives describe verbs and nouns to convey descriptions.

If I say a woman propositioned me it is a general truth.
If I say a Chinese woman sexually propositioned me it can also be a truth but a specific truth.

"The boy ran past me with the other boy chasing him."
~ a truth
"The boy FLED past me with the THUG chasing him."
~ a descriptive truth.
Without knowing the details of what is observed, assumptions are made to try to describe the observation in more detail.

"The boy laughingly fled past me with the determined thug-like boy chasing him." They were playing Tag.

Constructing sentences to convey understanding is something we are all taught from an early age. Stating only the obvious naked truths do not convey our understanding of situations effectively.
We are all different people and understand the stimuli we encounter differently. Emotive language lets us convey what we understand about a given stimuli to others. They in turn assess what is said and determine if the conveyance has merit in truth.
When it is not perceived exactly as described it establishes a conflict. More information is needed to arrive at the same conclusion.

"I constantly self reflect in an effort to learn more and be 'better'. I want to steer off of emotive language though it is very difficult to not 'give back' whatever is being received."

Perhaps it would be better if we all try to learn better methods to effectively use emotive language? After all, We are not robots.

When appropriate, relevant, and meaningful.


If I wanted logical discussions I wouldn't participate on social sites.

Emotive language is absolutely necessary for the development of social relationships, it's highly communicative of relevant information.


If my friend or some random stranger came up to me and said "the man stood in the corner talking to the girl" all I would do is start asking questions like "why?" or "so?" or "how old were they?" or "which corner? was it dark?" or "what did they say? Was he hitting on her?" or "was she hot?"

I would be trying to draw out "emotive language" in order to make a relevant judgment, to figure out why I should care, or what I need to do, relevance.


Everything written is a biased account and an attempt to persuade the reader to do something. Learn, think, follow/accept a process, believe in something, move, intervene, stay still, feel something.
Non "emotive" language is an attempt to force the reader to be manipulated towards a single potential interpretation and value based on what was written, rather than why it was written, or the person doing the writing.
The idea being presented having greater importance than anything not contained in, or constrained by, what is presented.

In social relationships that is not a good idea, and pretty much impossible.
In interpersonal relationships the motives for why someone is doing/saying something are can be just as important as what they are actually doing/saying.


Other than that

Lots of people do that (steer off emotive language) for "bad" reasons.

They use it to cultivate a false image of themselves, who they wish to be, an online avatar, meanwhile they've been self editing constantly.

They use it as a means of dominance, of asserting a place in the hierarchy, i.e. "I won't sink to your level, I'm better than you."

They use it to protect themselves, help to bury emotions so they can't be hurt by them, a Spock like facade ending up denying their emotions and being unable to handle them when they won't be buried.

Of course some people simply avoid emotive language to avoid violating the TOS.
There's a difference between using emotive language to vent and natural emotive communication.

Well. I completely disagree with Ciretom's assertion that EVERYTHING written is "a biased account and an attempt to persuade the reader to do something." I work in a technical field, where we often do what is called "technical writing." Most of what I deal with there, has zero bias. I suppose that someone COULD write instructions on how to install a mechanism that contained phrases like "Insert the BRILLIANTLY DESIGNED mechanism into the device," but I've never seen such.



Something I want to add to the main subject: watch out in particular, for where someone ascribes a particular MOTIVATION to someone else. If you think just a little bit, even just about how you conduct your own life, you'll realize that almost NO ONE truthfully announces their REASONS for what they do as they are doing it. So when someone claims to know WHY the person they are reporting to you about, did what they did, you should immediately squint very hard, and look for proof that they actually extracted the person's intentions directly from them, rather than what most people do, which is to ASSUME intent.

not all adjectives are emotive

colors, gender, temperature,,etc,, are descriptive of a condition based in fact,,,, emotive adjectives are descriptive of intent and character and feeling

like, thug or fled(thug implies a poor character and fled implies intent to flee something)


but


I did not intend to convey that emotive language was something to be avoided at all times. When I am giving a personal account of what has happened to ME,, than my perspective and experience is best reflected with emotive language.

However, in the context of a debate,, the issue of our personal feelings of what happened to OTHERS , or what OTHERS have done, is less of an admirable trait,,,imho.

Agreed because most debates are officiated or have restrictions placed on the subject matter, duration of comment or scope of intention.

An open discussion usually has none of those restrictions, thus emotive conversations abound and emotions do 'steal the show' away from the intended subject matter.

What msharmony is referring to is loaded language.

In forum communities isn't that considered "Drunk Posting"?

I agree, well said, and I try.

I also admire those who are good at this. My father was a master.

That, too.