(Untitled)

[wherearethebees]

Do you think it's a problem that a lot of you more readily have very strong emotional reactions to people that don't actually exist and footage of animals w violins playing in the background than, like, footage of massacre or watching hateful people be given the opportunity to make policy that will make the world shittier?

Comments

[marijuanakills]

No, and even the most basic grasp of human psychology would inform one why that is . Why? Do you think it's a problem?

[amadteaparty]

This.

[cat_the_knife]

Yep! This is also my answer.

[cpsings4him]

What kind of problem do you think it might be?

[nextdrinksonme]

Apt macro is apt.

[wherearethebees]

Hahahaha

[crimson_mask]

Your question said "what is the most likely thing right now that will get you crying in the shortest order?" not "what is the most likely thing right now that will cause you to have a very strong emotional reaction in the shortest order?" The OP suggested things that would prompt sad/depressing emotional reactions, not emotional reactions in general. The items you mentioned may very well cause a strong reaction in a majority of the people here, but possibly things more along the lines of outrage and vitriol, and not necessarily sadness or tears.

[marijuanakills]

Or...what he said.

[wherearethebees]

I totally agree with you but that is not the question I am currently asking!

[cpsings4him]

but that is not the question I am currently asking!

Isn't it, though? I didn't see the original question until this thread, but in the original you asked, "what's the thing that will get you crying in shortest order..." (not a word for word quote, but to that effect). But in this question you seem to be implying that people don't care enough about the "more important" or "right" things. As crimson_mask states above, lots of things provoke strong emotion, but not all strong emotion = crying.

Strong emotions are provoked in me both when I see an ASPCA commercial and when I see Mr. Frothy, well, frothing. One makes me cry, the other makes me want to smash things. :p

In short, in the original question, you singled out "crying"; in this question, you are using the much more broad, "strong emotional reactions".

[marijuanakills]

Also, you only asked about crying, you didn't account for any other visceral reactions one might have that don't include tears, so this is kind of an unfair, shortsighted question.

[wherearethebees]

Shortsighted? Plz explain

[marijuanakills]

It's already been explained, by me and many others in this post.

[leskay]

This.

[nanini]

In everyone's defense (I didn't reply to that post), the first kind is usually made with that exact goal, to make people feel emotional, following specific formulas. The latter isn't, but if you edit footage of a massacre or other sad news in the same way you'll probably get the same result. About the political part, anger doesn't necessarily turn into tears, so the emotion may very well be there, just not the tears.

[cpsings4him]

I also didn't reply to the original thread, since I didn't see it, but would have definitely said something along the lines of the ASPCA ads (see macro above) as that would be the surest thing to bring on the tears (I literally pounce on the remote every time that commercial airs! D:). If the question had been framed differently, I would have had a much different answer.

Which is to say, yep, this!

[nextdrinksonme]

This. I didn't cry watching the actual footage of 911 when it happened, but the edited anniversary things and tributes during that month got me choked up, for example.

[cpsings4him]

Yeah, when I was watching 911 as it was happening, I was too much in shock to register much else. The tributes set to music, though. OMG! ;_;