Anonymous wrote:Isn’t that a sociopathic trait? to lack empathy? 🤔
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.
Liberals have zero empathy for conservatives. Stop lying.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No more than progressives have empathy for conservatives (they don't).
Trump is behaving like a conservative equivalent of a progressive president. Funny how hysterical a lot of you are.
Logic fail x2
More bitterness, eh? Show me how progressives have empathy for conservatives and conservative viewpoints. After all, how can they if they believe they are on the "right side of history" and conservatives aren't.
It's why progressives are the most intolerant people around. The concept of empathy and progressives do not go hand in hand.
Anonymous wrote:Empathy can be properly reserved for the truly unfortunate, but can be tempered by a belief that people should help themselves to the maximum extent possible before turning to the government. That perspective results in antipathy to government welfare activities which can be seen as excessive, enabling those who could do better if they chose to but who made life choices which resulted in very low non-welfare incomes. Republicans understandably have little empathy for such people, but can support aid to people who are disabled, or victims of natural disasters - whose misfortunes were not arguably of their own making. There is little empathy for those who claim their situations are the results of societal animus, when it appears obvious enough that such claimants are simply unaccomplished and seek explanations for their own failures, a hidden hand which maliciously works against them which is visible only through statistical arguments which are merely descriptive, not reflective of causation. Similarly, antagonism for illegals is not reflective of a lack of empathy for the poor conditions in other countries which might make people want to emigrate, but reflects instead a belief that breaking U.S. law is not thereby justified.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No more than progressives have empathy for conservatives (they don't).
Trump is behaving like a conservative equivalent of a progressive president. Funny how hysterical a lot of you are.
Logic fail x2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.
Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.
This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.
Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”
Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”
ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.
Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.
Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.
Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?
Again - we are forced to do many things verbally all the time.
Pronouns are no different.
You wanna actually answer the questions or nah?
It sounds like you're saying you don't want to do it because you think you're being forced. Is that true? And resisting that is more important to you than making someone feel safe and accepted? Is it specifically because the person is trans and thus does not matter to you? Or are you unable or unwilling to subjugate your own desires for anyone?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.
Maybe all Magas - Trump voters - are not all the same, just as all Democratic voters - liberals - are not all the same.
Crux of the issue. In this two party country we are forced to choose one side, but it doesn't mean that we blindly support everything that the party represents or that we are all the same as humans.
I can't understand the simplistic mind that would even ask this question. But it is not a real question anyway, just a provocation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.
Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.
This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.
Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”
Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”
ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.
Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.
Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.
Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?
Again - we are forced to do many things verbally all the time.
Pronouns are no different.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.
Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.
This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.
Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”
Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”
ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.
Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.
Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.
Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?
Anonymous wrote:Empathy can be properly reserved for the truly unfortunate, but can be tempered by a belief that people should help themselves to the maximum extent possible before turning to the government. That perspective results in antipathy to government welfare activities which can be seen as excessive, enabling those who could do better if they chose to but who made life choices which resulted in very low non-welfare incomes. Republicans understandably have little empathy for such people, but can support aid to people who are disabled, or victims of natural disasters - whose misfortunes were not arguably of their own making. There is little empathy for those who claim their situations are the results of societal animus, when it appears obvious enough that such claimants are simply unaccomplished and seek explanations for their own failures, a hidden hand which maliciously works against them which is visible only through statistical arguments which are merely descriptive, not reflective of causation. Similarly, antagonism for illegals is not reflective of a lack of empathy for the poor conditions in other countries which might make people want to emigrate, but reflects instead a belief that breaking U.S. law is not thereby justified.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.
Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.
This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.
Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”
Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”
ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.
Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.
Anonymous wrote:Empathy can be properly reserved for the truly unfortunate, but can be tempered by a belief that people should help themselves to the maximum extent possible before turning to the government. That perspective results in antipathy to government welfare activities which can be seen as excessive, enabling those who could do better if they chose to but who made life choices which resulted in very low non-welfare incomes. Republicans understandably have little empathy for such people, but can support aid to people who are disabled, or victims of natural disasters - whose misfortunes were not arguably of their own making. There is little empathy for those who claim their situations are the results of societal animus, when it appears obvious enough that such claimants are simply unaccomplished and seek explanations for their own failures, a hidden hand which maliciously works against them which is visible only through statistical arguments which are merely descriptive, not reflective of causation. Similarly, antagonism for illegals is not reflective of a lack of empathy for the poor conditions in other countries which might make people want to emigrate, but reflects instead a belief that breaking U.S. law is not thereby justified.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.
Maybe all Magas - Trump voters - are not all the same, just as all Democratic voters - liberals - are not all the same.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.
NP. I’m a Democrat and it feels to me that the Democrats have a lot invested in appearing to have empathy, but not actually having any empathy.
The Republican lack of empathy feels more honest in many respects.