Empathy is about understanding where someone is coming from. Plain and simple.
Charlie Kirk had no empathy because he had no interest in understanding where people were coming from when he debated with them. He was always on the attack and never tried to understand his opponent.
He was the apogee of the thoughts and prayers kind of people.
Empathy for me and sympathy for thee kind of people.
What a great concept to teach boys/young adults who are still developing or struggling with emotional intelligence.
The world is better without him.
On the one hand, I think everyone hates that person who pulls the “I’m an empath” card.
On the other hand, “empathy isn’t real” is a bad faith attack on the concept of trying to emphasize or even understand people that are different from you.
That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.
Debate is about understanding where the other person is coming from, identifying weaknesses in each other’s position, and working towards shared truths.
Since he couldn’t empathize, Charlie couldn’t debate. So he went with the modern debate strategy: I only win when someone else is losing.
That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.
Spoiler alert: That’s how fascists argue. It’s all bad faith arguments.
I noted a while ago that I never once heard Kirk say an argument that wasn’t a debate fallacy. Not one time.
Every kirk debate I saw: spontaneous lead poisoning poor guy fell right out his chair.
He certainly wasn’t trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth…
What is the “I’m an empath” card?
Are there people who try to make out like they’re Deanna Troi style empaths?
Or do you just mean people who claim to have particularly strong empathy / be particularly empathetic?
As an aside, emphasize isn’t related to empathy, and I didn’t think empathize is a word, although my spell-check apparently thinks it is?
As an empath, I’m really in tune with other people’s emotions, and I cry all the time, so I know that you’re super broken up about not knowing about the empath card - even if you can’t stand to admit it to anyone but me, who’s more in tune with your emotions than you are… Because I’m an empath.
No shit Susan, getting sad at the commercials for starving children doesn’t make you an empath.
I didn’t think empathize is a word
It’s weird you haven’t figured out dictionaries.
LOL. Super witty. I hope you’re having a great day chief.
Empathize is definitely a word.
It was half-facetious, but I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this. (Watch the first 60 seconds and tell me you didn’t cringe.)
Empathize is a word. It means" to feel or experience empathy", or “to be understanding of”.
When I say Charlie Kirk was arguing in bad faith, I’m saying
he’she was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.he was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.
Empathize: to feel as you imagine others feels. Sympathize: to understand/relate to others’ feelings.
When I read about empathy & compassion in Daoism, Buddhism, various Hindu traditions, etc, they’re referring to your 1st definition. The most important part is not to merely feel or understand, but to respond with support, ie, act with compassion.
Your 1st & 2nd definitions are typically understood as going together: to feel as we imagine others feel, we try to liken them to ourselves & understand their experiences vicariously. If you want to separate feeling from understanding though, the word sympathize exists for merely understanding or relating to.
I remember as a child getting upset and someone telling me they sympathize, explaining the difference with empathize (eg, they say that means they understand but they don’t feel), which just infuriated me further
What the fuck do I care about whether you feel or understand? You understand & aren’t helping. Fuck right off with your bullshit words!
I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this.
I think it’s even simpler than that. Certain words just make them go “Are you calling me a nutcase/soyboy??!!” (or sth like along those lines)
Or the suggestion that therapy is actually a good thing and not a stigma.
I despise when women say “I’m an empath” and then continue to tell you how you feel when that is not actually how I feel. No. You don’t get to claim to know me better than I do.
“…so…you’re an alien from Betazed? I don’t understand.”
This is the kind of thing that fuels his argument. People who are claiming they can literally read your emotions psychically. I get they don’t really mean that, but that is what the damn word means.
It’s different from when they are using it as leverage vurses using it to relate. When it’s used to relate it’s a completely justified use of the word.
You’re describing Hegelian dialectics - not debate.
Debates are usually about proving your position, and thereby proving the other person’s wrong.
That’s how I was taught to debate.
Unless your positions are mutually exclusive, it’s often possible for both parties to justify their position.
From my experience, the zero-sum I’m-right-you’re-wrong style of debate started when we started televising them. You may disagree, but I think debate was more productive when we weren’t incentivized to score points on each other.
If that’s Hegelian dialectics, then I prefer that to what you call debate.
Debate is about convincing your audience, not the people you’re arguing against.
Anyone can teach anyone anything and call it whatever they want.
What you’re talking about is the Hegelian concept of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
As the other commenter pointed out debate is about convincing your audience or judges that you’re correct.
Your way of doing things is a much more constructive way of discussing almost anything on which you disagree with someone, in like, most cases, imo.
I dont know why you brought up “empaths.” That is kinda bad faith if you ask me. No one is talking about pseudo science spirtualism. Empathy, mirroring the feelings of someone else when observing them, is a completely scientifically proven trait people have. There is no debate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154617301031
Did you stop reading after the first sentence?
…okay. I’m blocking you now, so I’m literally not including you anymore.
Bye Felicia
So the rest of the quote reveals a kind of sociopathic narcissism in which he argues that empathy doesn’t exist, so instead you just need to passively look down on others.
The context makes it clear that he does not mean “sympathy” in it’s “i support you” meaning but the “you have my sympathy” - aka “thoughts and prayers” - meaning.
Not understanding the difference between empathy and sympathy also means they can’t understand how empathy is a strength that can be used to your advantage.
Is empathy a strategic imperative? A review essay
Despite its softer connotations, empathy is hard, requiring strategists to confront misperceptions and false assumptions, and overcome individual egos and national hubris. This article reviews the literature, examining some of the gaps and costs incurred. Whilst strategic empathy may have transactional and instrumental connotations, it suggests that the concept holds greater potential to transform strategy. Used wisely, it offers an ethos and means to put people first, foster greater security, and offer innovative approaches to contemporary challenges.
I am starting to think that this guy was an asshole.
I mean this is how he argues too. Well, look where that got him.
Starting?
I honestly never heard of the guy until all of this. With that said, he worked for Faux News, so it’s a given.
New age, huh?
1908, modeled on German Einfühlung (from ein “in” + Fühlung “feeling”), which was coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) as a translation of Greek empatheia “passion, state of emotion,”
I looked up empatheia and it turns out to mean maliciousness and having an opposite meaning
I didn’t know crap about this guy a week ago. I have 2 sons who sort of like this guy but can’t really tell me why. They get pissed off when I ask about him although I’m not putting him down, since I knew nothing about him. Now though, after reading at least 10 articles from left/right/middle/ websites and can positively say that the one shot that killed him was a great fucking shot. No one should die for what they’re saying… but then Hitler said many things too but was not killed.
He was in many ways one of the causes of the decline of constructive political discussions. A man who’s income came from having political discussions asking people to prove him wrong and never ceding ground. Debate club disguised as discussion, then filmed and posted to the internet for the masses to see his ideas “win”. There was no evidence on a single issue that could change his mind except his donors telling him to or polling indicating he’s losing support over his stance.
In many ways it’s reminiscent of old videos in which preachers debate scientists about evolution before the scientists either learned to debate to a crowd or got replaced with science educators.
ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?
KIRK: Too many. [Applause]
ATTENDEE: In America, it’s five. Now, five is a lot, right, I’m going to give you — I’m going to give you some credit. Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?
KIRK: Counting or not counting gang violence?
If this had gone on, the next question should be “does gang violence only count as three-fifths of a violence to you?”
But also - even if you add gang violence to the figures, all it would do is dilute the number of trans shooters further, if taken as a genuine premise, he devastates his own argument.
Of course it’s not a genuine question though as he’s not attempting to have an honest discussion, he’s just trying to throw in a racist whataboutism to distract (and hopefully derail) the initial discussion. Standard right-wing chud ‘debate’ behaviour.
No the reason he asked that question about gang violence is because gang violence numbers are a huge percentage of mass shooting numbers, so if you take them out of the calculation then the percentage of trans shooters is much higher and it is a debate about trans shooters. On the other hand, if you include those numbers then it is a debate about guns in general and ideologies or mental health issues get lost in the noise. I would guess he mostly wanted to make a point that the definition of mass shooting is not really in line with how people think of them.
This was their framing before they went to the event https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN69cs5Ecab/
The full context makes it even worse.
Empathy isn’t just about feeling, it’s about perspective. Not only do you attempt to understand the feeling, you try to understand the situation the person is in that led to those feelings. Sympathy is acknowledging something bad happened to someone, but that doesn’t mean you personally appreciate the emotions of the other person.
I thought the quote was bad, the full version is almost worse.
We go from “mean” to “mean and stupid”.
Charlie Kuck dropped out of college after 1 semester and it shows.
One semester? Looked like he was only there a couple hours TOPS before-- OH, oh, oh… I got ya.
Damn, somehow it’s even worse with the full context.
Wait till you see the one about gun deaths and he reduces human life down to a statistic. As america spirals into authoritarianism with no recourse from the 2nd amendment defenders. At least cars do what they purport to do.
Everyday I consent to get in my car. I do not consent, to say, getting shot in a public location, like maybe, a university campus.
Everyday I consent to get in my car. I do not consent, to say, getting shot in a public location
I get that your main point is to debunk this guy’s defence of guns, and that’s a worthy goal, but this is motornormative bullshit. Cars kill thousands of people who gave no such consent, like pedestrians and cyclists. The analogy doesn’t even line up properly. A more apt analogy would be to compare consenting to carrying a gun yourself being equivalent of consenting to get in your car.
And even that implies that you really did give full and uncoerced consent with viable alternative options. Which, if you live in a typical car-dependent American (or Canadian, Australian, etc.) city, you did not. Because your city lacks adequate public transport options, lacks safe cycling infrastructure, and things are too far apart to walk in a reasonable time. !fuckcars@lemmy.world
Guns are also bad and anyone who thinks America doesn’t need radical change in gun culture and gun laws is fucking insane. But don’t let that fact be a reason to also defend motornormativity.
While I agree with the fuck cars concept on a hundred fronts. Our dependency on them is certainly something that can be reduced.
They are still pretty far from equivelant.
IE without a major total rebuild of my city, adding public transfer infrastructure etc… cars are necessary for me to go to the grocery stores etc… Bottom line 500 things need to be done before they start restricting cars.
meanwhile guns, serve pretty much no practical use in civilized society except, potentially protect yourself from someone with a gun.
without a major total rebuild of my city, adding public transfer infrastructure etc… cars are necessary for me to go to the grocery stores
Yes, that was my point when I said that actually, if you use a car today in motornormative societies, it does not count as true enthusiastic informed consent, because you do not have another viable option.
Bottom line 500 things need to be done before they start restricting cars
Not really. You start by doing what New York is already doing with congestion charges in inner-city areas that do have good alternative options. You make licensing requirements stricter, including removing the ability to drive “yanktanks”/“wankpanzers”/“emotional support vehicles”/whatever you want to call those absurdly dangerous impractical vehicles that are some of the most popular cars lately on a regular car licence, and instead require an upgraded, more expensive type of commercial/truck licence.
To do much more than that, yeah, you probably need to start doing more. Building separated bike paths as standard in all new roads and roads getting resurfaced (if there’s more than 2 lanes) or lowering the design speed & speed limit and adding modal filters (on smaller 2-lane streets) is kinda the bare minimum, and costs precious little, since you do it at the time you’d be spending on maintenance anyway
serve pretty much no practical use in civilized society
100%. I’m not at all trying to draw a perfect equivalence between guns and cars. Only to point out when people—even well-meaning people—may be reinforcing harmful motornormative ideas. America’s gun problem is for sure far, far less excusable and far easier to address. Which is the reason that so many other countries have addressed it, most famously when an Australian conservative politician fronted up to a crowd of angry gun owners wearing a bulletproof vest when announcing Australia’s new gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre, and yet motornormativity still pervades Australian culture to almost the same degree as American. And Canadian culture. And even the UK, though to a much lesser degree.
except, potentially protect yourself from someone with a gun
Disagree. Owning a gun increases your chance of being a victim of gun violence. There are valid reasons to own a gun. These are pretty well covered under Australian law which should serve as a model for America, if America actually wanted to become a sensible country. But self-defence is not one of them.
Im not against the movement for better public transportation and walkable living spaces. Not in the least. This is just one example of the argument for cars and guns not being completely analogous. Sure, the argument could use some work but dont just paint me as a car loving yee haw.
Im willing to bet that 50,000 deaths figure is mostly on the road accidents.
I would also suggest if youre debating guns in a public setting dont do yourself a disservice by adding in a secondary debate about cars. Depending on the audience, for the gun argument frame a more car accepting line of attack and tackle the public transportation debate in a venue more exclusively for that. Just a suggestion.
Of course, follow your own moral compass but effecting change is very difficult. Sliding the needle is the best most can hope for in this short life.
Wow, all those armed guards are really good at hiding because I never see them. I feel much safer now
