683
Gus Walz broke the internet with his tearful love for his dad. Then the bullying began
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
683 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2892 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Left or Right, anyone who can cry on cue to a speech they've likely rehearsed a hundred times in their head, isn't worth paying attention to. Unpopular I know.
For example, I adore John Stewart and agree with almost everything he does, except when he made that emotional impassioned tearful speech a few years back, never once mucking his lines.
Its just a trust thing. Tears sway people, and if its in the moment and captured ad-hoc then I am likely moved, but if all lenses are on it and the speech sounds forced, I switch off.
I don't think I understand. Are you suggesting that it's impossible to prepare a speech about something you care deeply about?
Or are you saying that people only cry the first time they tell an emotional story?
I'm sure there are people with those experiences, and maybe you're one of them. If it helps, I can attest that there are "well rehearsed" stories that I've told dozens of times, and I still cry during each telling.
A little bit of everything, I think.
To me, if you care deeply about a topic, then you should be able to communicate that by merit of your expertise in it and not by how emotionally invested you are in it.
Or to put it another way: if crying is literally part of the story, then maybe don't tell the story when the cameras are rolling, unless of course the story was less about the speech and more about the emotion.
Let's just take emotions out of politics. It educates absolutely nobody, and the only people won to your side are won by the depth of your professed emotion and not by the validity of your words.
Interesting, thanks for explaining. I agree with the aspiration but maybe not the practicality?
In a perfect world elections would be about hard policy discussions, but in 2024 policy barely matters. Campaigns don't even release real platforms any more. The first party to take the emotion out of politics would lose horribly, because so many voters respond to it.
Personally, I also like when people acknowledge that policy discussions impact real people. I think there's an important role for displayed genuine emotion in rational discussion.
I also don't think that what we're discussing is relevant to Gus Walz. We have every reason to believe that was a genuine and beautiful apolitical moment.
I agree, this is 2024 and the quickest way to win voters is appeals to emotion/nostalgia rather than punctuating a platform that no one will read. It's a sad truth.
The kid seems nice, and for what it's worth I do believe it was genuine. I just wish neither side will wield it for their own political motivations.
Everything old is new again!