i'm no fan of charlie kirk, but i was always of the opinion that his "don't empathize" was actually a dogwhistle for "be open and explicit about your hatred, it's okay." are you sure that isn't what you're doing?
I’m glad all is fine and good for you as long Americans get theirs. Who cares the suffering we dole out to the rest of the world to keep that high quality of life at the expense of everyone else? That attitude is literally exactly the kind of apathy I’m referring to. Keep smugly acting like it will get better when no real effective organizing is going on.
Don’t come crying to me when your “the arc of history bends towards justice” bullshit fails to be reality. Kissinger died comfortably in his bed, bending towards justice my ass…
I'm not saying I definitely believe that everyone does share color experience, I'm saying the evidence presented in OP seems to suggest they could share color experience, and that evidence should not be simply dismissed. It's not direct evidence for the belief imo, it's more like evidence that suggests new lines of inquiry.
You would have to also prove that different minds have the same experience while exhibiting the same neural activity
i don't agree with this reasoning. why would the same neural activity result in a different experience? other than reactionary doubt and preconcieved belief, what reason do you have to actually question this? you seem to be smuggling in an assumption that the same neural activity could result in different experiences, isn't this a positive claim that requires its own proof; wouldn't the null hypothesis be that similiar phenomenom play out similarly until there is shown a reason to believe otherwise?
not drawing head and limbs was an intentional choice by the artist and it is as valid to examine that choice as it is the choice of breast shape and size. you may disagree with my speculation as to the reason he would have chosen to depict that child sex object void of all agency and expression, but you can't possibly deny that that's not the way you depict a person when you value their life or humanity.
and what in the fuck makes you think for one red second i would extend to donald "the john" trump a good faith presumption of innocence? every single time i've thought he has found the last depth of depravity i have found him colonizing a new level of hell within a week. I'm not downplaying childrape, intentionally or otherwise, by suggesting there's motive means and opportunity to dispose of the evidence afterwards too. i don't think most people would agree that "child rape" seems mundane in comparison to "child rape and also lupara bianca" when they think about the proposition in those terms. that is assuming your skeptic reaction is right and the "mundane" truth is that donald has only threatend, coerced, and bribed his victims into silence.
wsj previously released an article stating that this letter exists and explaining the circumstances that of its origin. this article releases an actual copy of the letter which wsj previously did not have direct access to, but at the time only saw and reported on what they saw of the image, which is now released. does that clear it up?
i wrote an opinion of that image in another post, which since the op which has apparently since been removed, i'll copy and spiff up a bit here:
yes, you’ve seen the indication of breast buds, but if that's all you noticed then you're missing the most damning part, in my opinion. did you notice the palpably explicit dismemberment? the arms aren’t cut off by the page boundaries. they’re depicted as amputated. the torso is depicted as headless and legless; but rather than amputated they are simply cut off- missing, empty.
and no face.
a headless, limbless, torso. donald’s name on the cunt and a particularly revolting union of their thin, slimy mobster-pretext all over the belly. what a fucking enigma.
you're all missing the most important part, in my opinion. yes, you've seen the indication of breast buds, but has anyone noticed the not-even-implied dismemberment? the arms aren't cut off by the page. they're depicted as amputated. the torso is depicted as headless and legless. instead, a bare cunt with donald's name on it where legs should be.
and no face.
a headless, limbless, torso. donald's name on the cunt and both their names all over the body. two men who have certain things in common. a secret that never ages.
You know what would be more to life if you had everything already? Being able to get rid of the evidence of anything.
im not asking you to cut jackboots slack. i am asking you to cut children who are intoxicated by propaganda slack. get it?
I very explicitly said i do not expect you to sympathize while you empathize and i take this as evidence you aren't fucking reading me. my personal respect for you has been downgraded from friend to persona non-grata.
god is a quaint metaphor. you were with me until then, so it didn't actually detract from any point i made. i was trying to draw attention to and defeat the concept of 'empathy is a sin' by explicitly countering it on its own terms. i can empathize with the christian perspective, but i do not sympathize with it.
friend, i think it needs to be stated explicitly that i have respect for you as a person, your opinion, and your right to express it. i also need to say that i think we agree more than we disagree. i am an atheist for a start, and as evidence i submit the fact that i do not capitalize the name of the fictitious god. i do not capitalize a lot of things, friend, but i especially do not capitalize the word 'god.' i was using god as a convenient topical metaphor. i think see what you meant with trans hate speech now, i was a little quick to dismiss that point. in a way i think i was doing the same thing i think you were trying to do talking about trans hate by making the comparison to 'empathy is a sin.' i was trying to refer to the kind of mindset that says "empathy is a sin" and say you don't have to think that way, whether you believe in a god or not. it was clunky and clumsy if i have to explain it this much, sorry for that.
And you do that by making it damned clear that it is a “with us or against us” mindset. Either side with The People or oppress them.
we agree. what i'm trying to point out is that in there are a lot of factors that have nothing to do with empathy or trans hatred or invading countries or oppressing minorities generally that do not occur to children before they walk into a recruiter's office with civic duty and filial pride and escape from poverty in their heads. that it is possible to be a totally normal, morally sane, apparently well-adjusted human being who walks into a recruiter for a global war crime syndicate think they're doing a right and good thing. telling such an apparently 'morally sane' person that they're about to commit evil without explaining that to them, without overcoming almost 2 decades of programming inertia first is bound to backfire. the easiest and best way i know of overcoming that inertia is empathy. no gods required. and you don't have to sympathize to empathize. that said, considering why someone acts the way they do does not obligate you to act that way too.
you don't need to meet in the middle, and I am 100% not asking you to. i would respect your opinion a lot less if i thought you wanted to meet midway between fascism and whatever-we-had-before-that-we-could-pretend-was-democracy.
You take his advice. Empathy is destroying the world and you abandon it.
abandon all hope ye who enter here