[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

Gremlin wrote:

I think I find the last paragraph to be the most hopeful:

In his book Breithaupt proposes an ingenious solution: give up on the idea that when we are "empathizing" we are being altruistic, or helping the less fortunate, or in any way doing good. What we can do when we do empathy, proposes Fritz, is help ourselves. We can learn to see the world through the eyes of a migrant child and a militia leader and a Russian pen pal purely so we can expand our own imaginations, and make our own minds richer. It's selfish empathy. Not saintly, but better than being alone.

That one jumped out at me too, for how much it sounds like Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness : D

Gremlin wrote:

I think I find the last paragraph to be the most hopeful:

In his book Breithaupt proposes an ingenious solution: give up on the idea that when we are "empathizing" we are being altruistic, or helping the less fortunate, or in any way doing good. What we can do when we do empathy, proposes Fritz, is help ourselves. We can learn to see the world through the eyes of a migrant child and a militia leader and a Russian pen pal purely so we can expand our own imaginations, and make our own minds richer. It's selfish empathy. Not saintly, but better than being alone.

I agree. Empathy can be practical. Education and healthcare for all, as well as UBI, contribute to a better society for everyone, even the elites who don't need government help.

Edit: Perhaps I misinterpreted the quote as a call to action rather than internal examination. If that's the case I don't really agree. My point is that we can help others by recognizing how it helps us, even if we have nothing more in common than being fellow humans on the same planet.

For that matter, a lot of the mid-20th-century uses of public empathy were pretty condescending: let's parachute in with our charity, cause short-term disruptions, and then go away again and leave the maintenance work for someone else. I see it today as people try to explain to women what they actually want, or people with disabilities what their actual problem is--have you tried yoga?--and avoid giving agency to the people you are ostensibly trying to help.

That is the GOP argument against the "bleeding heart" libs. They don't actually care. They just want votes, not to provide real opportunity to the poor and minorities. Hence Trump's campaign slogan, "what have you got to lose?"

The case against empathy. I read this a while ago and it really resonated with me.

According to Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale, most of us are completely wrong about empathy. The author of a new book titled Against Empathy, Bloom uses clinical studies and simple logic to argue that empathy, however well-intentioned, is a poor guide for moral reasoning. Worse, to the extent that individuals and societies make ethical judgments on the basis of empathy, they become less sensitive to the suffering of greater and greater numbers of people.
Jonman wrote:

The case against empathy. I read this a while ago and it really resonated with me.

According to Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale, most of us are completely wrong about empathy. The author of a new book titled Against Empathy, Bloom uses clinical studies and simple logic to argue that empathy, however well-intentioned, is a poor guide for moral reasoning. Worse, to the extent that individuals and societies make ethical judgments on the basis of empathy, they become less sensitive to the suffering of greater and greater numbers of people.

Plus 1. I had read about this somewhere but couldn't remember the source. Also appreciate his point about practicing compassion instead, because trying to empathize with everyone you want to help becomes exhausting.

Targeted empathy is not empathy. The whole point of empathy is looking at the broad picture. Sometimes the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. But that doesn't mean you can't do something about the few, especially if it only requires trivial hand lending. And obviously the flip side of this is true.

Perhaps that is a lesson I learned long ago from having my empathy taken advantage of. I guess I learned the advantage of distinguishing having empathy and choosing when to act on it. And sometimes not acting on it is the approach that better demonstrates empathy.

And trying to play semantics with empathy and compassion to me is moot.

fangblackbone wrote:

And trying to play semantics with empathy and compassion to me is moot.

Mostly agree, except so far as I can use one term or the other to make my point clearer. "Empathy" and "compassion" are pointers to concepts, not the concepts themselves.

I guess I'd sum up my position as: you don't need to feel the emotions of someone in order to be kind to them.

You should probably listen to them when they tell you how they want you to be kind to them, but that's a separate aspect of it.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

For that matter, a lot of the mid-20th-century uses of public empathy were pretty condescending: let's parachute in with our charity, cause short-term disruptions, and then go away again and leave the maintenance work for someone else. I see it today as people try to explain to women what they actually want, or people with disabilities what their actual problem is--have you tried yoga?--and avoid giving agency to the people you are ostensibly trying to help.

That is the GOP argument against the "bleeding heart" libs. They don't actually care. They just want votes, not to provide real opportunity to the poor and minorities. Hence Trump's campaign slogan, "what have you got to lose?"

I mean the GOP position would be a lot more convincing to me if their answer to people I care about was better than "go die in a ditch".

But it turns out that one of the things I had to lose was North Carolina deciding that it didn't want to use the federal funding to help people get health insurance and would rather they die quietly, so I left. And am likely to end up somewhere to the far left of liberal.

The difference between empathy and compassion isn't semantics. Empathy is the act of feeling exactly what another person feels, which compassion is not. This is a big thing in Buddhism, so please do not write it off as wordplay.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

The difference between empathy and compassion isn't semantics. Empathy is the act of feeling exactly what another person feels, which compassion is not. This is a big thing in Buddhism, so please do not write it off as wordplay.

I hope I didn't give the impression I was writing off the difference--what I was trying to say was that as a word, "compassion" (or another word for the same concept) is not the same thing as the compassion itself, but is instead a symbol pointing to the compassion. That is, the difference between the words is in the meaning we assign them, not some universal connection between the shapes of the letters and the thing we're talking about. (I may be being too pedantic in trying to parse that distinction into the discussion.)

Your point is an important one.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

The difference between empathy and compassion isn't semantics. Empathy is the act of feeling exactly what another person feels, which compassion is not. This is a big thing in Buddhism, so please do not write it off as wordplay.

This. I don;t really understand the assertion that 'empathy' is some big picture broad society idea. My underatand of empathy is that it is the ability to literally feel the emotions another individual has or would have in a situation you yourself are not actually experiencing at present. Sympathy is being able to imagine those feelings but not actually feeling them, and compassion is a desire to improve the situation of another person. Those three things seem like very distinct and concrete things to me, and certainly not synonyms of each other.

Odd that looking up the distinction between empathy and compassion is that compassion includes the desire to act/help. The concept of empathy without compassion or the desire to help puzzles me. I guess it is technically possible but I question one's ability to truly understand the feelings or plight of another without at least some base desire to help.

"I get you and what hardship you are going through. Cya!" If you can walk away without any tinge of regret for not extending even a gesture of respect or signifying the acknowledgement of their humanity then I seriously question whether you just observed and didn't understand.

fangblackbone wrote:

Odd that looking up the distinction between empathy and compassion is that compassion includes the desire to act/help. The concept of empathy without compassion or the desire to help puzzles me. I guess it is technically possible but I question one's ability to truly understand the feelings or plight of another without at least some base desire to help.

"I get you and what hardship you are going through. Cya!" If you can walk away without any tinge of regret for not extending even a gesture of respect or signifying the acknowledgement of their humanity then I seriously question whether you just observed and didn't understand.

Think of it this way. Empathy is saying I understand that discomfort with a changing world is part of what drives lukewarm Trump supporters.

Compassion would be saying I want to attempt to educate them that the changes they fear are not scary, or at least have a practical value (such as native population growth in the US likely cannot support programs like social security). OTOH saying that someone may be too far into their world view is not necessarily a lack of compassion as much as a recognition that ones time may be better invested in other projects.

Empathy with a specific disregard for compassion or sympathy is (based on my exceedingly limited understanding) one of the hallmarks of being a sociopath. As in said person can sense someone's unease, but exploit it for their own benefit or amusement.

fangblackbone wrote:

Odd that looking up the distinction between empathy and compassion is that compassion includes the desire to act/help. The concept of empathy without compassion or the desire to help puzzles me. I guess it is technically possible but I question one's ability to truly understand the feelings or plight of another without at least some base desire to help.

"I get you and what hardship you are going through. Cya!" If you can walk away without any tinge of regret for not extending even a gesture of respect or signifying the acknowledgement of their humanity then I seriously question whether you just observed and didn't understand.

Well an off the top of my head thought experiment: Two individuals, one an unrepentant multiple murderer serving life in prison, and another a poverty victim. I have empathy for both, I can conceive and feel how terrible each situation is for those individuals. I only have compassion for one of them. I don't want to lift the murderer out of his confinement to freedom, their choices led them where they are and they feel no regret for it. Where as I do want to help lift the poverty victim out of poverty, through UBI or welfare or what have you.

perhaps what the author is complaining about is less selective empathy than selective compassion, because I've definitely admitted to/demonstrated that here.

One disappointing thing I’ve noticed in the last half decade is that there is a subtle but unmistakeably negative connotation to sympathy. Viewing sympathy negatively - as though it’s easier and therefore not as valueable as empathy - belies a lack of understanding of the word.

I still have no interest in sympathizing or empathizing with Elliot Rodger, and I learned that few people have much interest in sympathizing or empathizing with Joe Biden, either, which I respect.

Cheeze’s theory that our generational views of how we spend our empathy is shifting from tribal structures to power structures really resonates with me. It explains why Elliot Roger and Joe Biden aren’t deserving of it, while victims of their privilege absolutely are.

I guess I can more readily see compassion without empathy. (such as sympathy) But I cannot see empathy without compassion. I mean maybe that can be characterized as a vampire or emotional vampire. I.E. someone who understands and sees but wants it for themselves, makes it their issue (all about them) or uses it for advantage or to manipulate.

Empathy without compassion:
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/h5PBErJ.jpg)

There's a new study out on what effects the Kavanaugh hearing have had.

A couple of examples:
Republican men are more likely to think most women falsely perceive innocent remarks and acts as sexist (up 24%) and less likely to believe women who say they've been sexually harassed (down 21%). Fewer people overall think sexism is currently a major problem (down 12%). There's a lot more in there, but not many had comparisons to previous survey results.

Stengah wrote:

There's a new study out on what effects the Kavanaugh hearing have had.

A couple of examples:
Republican men are more likely to think most women falsely perceive innocent remarks and acts as sexist (up 24%) and less likely to believe women who say they've been sexually harassed (down 21%). Fewer people overall think sexism is currently a major problem (down 12%). There's a lot more in there, but not many had comparisons to previous survey results.

That is as unsurprising as it is chilling.

From my coaching practice... I define empathy as understanding and acknowledging that the feelings that others are experiencing are valid and real to those that are experiencing them. It doesn't mean that you have to actually "feel" the feelings of others. It's that you need to acknowledge that they are having the feelings. Empathy also doesn't mean you have to "do" anything about the feelings of others. I don't mean that in a mean way, it simply means that it isn't necessary to "fix" anything. Taking a "fix it" approach can actually backfire as it serves to invalidate the person's feelings. This is the old, "I don't want you to do anything, I just want you to listen" challenge that is sometimes experienced.

JC wrote:

From my coaching practice... I define empathy as understanding and acknowledging that the feelings that others are experiencing are valid and real to those that are experiencing them. It doesn't mean that you have to actually "feel" the feelings of others. It's that you need to acknowledge that they are having the feelings. Empathy also doesn't mean you have to "do" anything about the feelings of others. I don't mean that in a mean way, it simply means that it isn't necessary to "fix" anything. Taking a "fix it" approach can actually backfire as it serves to invalidate the person's feelings. This is the old, "I don't want you to do anything, I just want you to listen" challenge that is sometimes experienced.

How does that differ from sympathy in the training?

thrawn82 wrote:
JC wrote:

From my coaching practice... I define empathy as understanding and acknowledging that the feelings that others are experiencing are valid and real to those that are experiencing them. It doesn't mean that you have to actually "feel" the feelings of others. It's that you need to acknowledge that they are having the feelings. Empathy also doesn't mean you have to "do" anything about the feelings of others. I don't mean that in a mean way, it simply means that it isn't necessary to "fix" anything. Taking a "fix it" approach can actually backfire as it serves to invalidate the person's feelings. This is the old, "I don't want you to do anything, I just want you to listen" challenge that is sometimes experienced.

How does that differ from sympathy in the training?

It's nuanced.

Sympathy is the feeling part of it. I can feel sympathetic to the situation a person is in if I've experienced what they're experiencing.

Sympathy isn't required in order to have empathy for the person, but it may allow me to better empathize with their situation or share an insight from my experience.

Gremlin wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

The difference between empathy and compassion isn't semantics. Empathy is the act of feeling exactly what another person feels, which compassion is not. This is a big thing in Buddhism, so please do not write it off as wordplay.

I hope I didn't give the impression I was writing off the difference--what I was trying to say was that as a word, "compassion" (or another word for the same concept) is not the same thing as the compassion itself, but is instead a symbol pointing to the compassion. That is, the difference between the words is in the meaning we assign them, not some universal connection between the shapes of the letters and the thing we're talking about. (I may be being too pedantic in trying to parse that distinction into the discussion.)

Your point is an important one.

heh you got your post in before I finished mine, which was directed at Fang's comment. All good!

JC wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
JC wrote:

From my coaching practice... I define empathy as understanding and acknowledging that the feelings that others are experiencing are valid and real to those that are experiencing them. It doesn't mean that you have to actually "feel" the feelings of others. It's that you need to acknowledge that they are having the feelings. Empathy also doesn't mean you have to "do" anything about the feelings of others. I don't mean that in a mean way, it simply means that it isn't necessary to "fix" anything. Taking a "fix it" approach can actually backfire as it serves to invalidate the person's feelings. This is the old, "I don't want you to do anything, I just want you to listen" challenge that is sometimes experienced.

How does that differ from sympathy in the training?

It's nuanced.

Sympathy is the feeling part of it. I can feel sympathetic to the situation a person is in if I've experienced what they're experiencing.

Sympathy isn't required in order to have empathy for the person, but it may allow me to better empathize with their situation or share an insight from my experience.

That makes sense to me, different from my understanding but I can follow the reasoning there.

The Origins of Anti-Litter Campaigns

I’ve never known anyone who was objectively pro-litter. Litter’s awful. It’s disgusting. We’re all agreed. But it seems that the nationwide anti-litter campaign, which began in the 1950s, was a bit less pure in its origins. According to Heather Rogers’ Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, the entire anti-litter movement was initiated by a consortium of industry groups who wanted to divert the nation’s attention away from even more radical legislation to control the amount of waste these companies were putting out. It’s a good story worth retelling.
Chairman_Mao wrote:

The Origins of Anti-Litter Campaigns

I’ve never known anyone who was objectively pro-litter. Litter’s awful. It’s disgusting. We’re all agreed. But it seems that the nationwide anti-litter campaign, which began in the 1950s, was a bit less pure in its origins. According to Heather Rogers’ Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, the entire anti-litter movement was initiated by a consortium of industry groups who wanted to divert the nation’s attention away from even more radical legislation to control the amount of waste these companies were putting out. It’s a good story worth retelling.

I was super confused at first because I thought this was about cat litter.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

The Origins of Anti-Litter Campaigns

I’ve never known anyone who was objectively pro-litter. Litter’s awful. It’s disgusting. We’re all agreed. But it seems that the nationwide anti-litter campaign, which began in the 1950s, was a bit less pure in its origins. According to Heather Rogers’ Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, the entire anti-litter movement was initiated by a consortium of industry groups who wanted to divert the nation’s attention away from even more radical legislation to control the amount of waste these companies were putting out. It’s a good story worth retelling.

I was super confused at first because I thought this was about cat litter.

Started by Big Dog, no doubt!
IMAGE(https://www-bsckids-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.bsckids.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Clifford-The-Big-Red-Dog-2019-768x457.jpg)

I don't know. There are factions within Big Dog that like the snack bar... I mean, litter box.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I don't know. There are factions within Big Dog that like the snack bar... I mean, litter box.

Gross. Also accurate.

NYT: Militia in New Mexico Detains Asylum Seekers at Gunpoint

ALBUQUERQUE — A right-wing militia group operating in southern New Mexico has begun stopping groups of migrant families and detaining them at gunpoint before handing them over to Border Patrol agents, raising tension over the tactics of armed vigilantes along the border between the United States and Mexico.

Members of the group, which calls itself the United Constitutional Patriots, filmed several of their actions in recent days, including the detention this week of a group of about 200 migrants who had recently crossed the border near Sunland Park, N.M., with the intention of seeking asylum. They uploaded videos to social media of exhausted looking migrant families, blinking in the darkness in the glare of what appeared to be the militia’s spotlights.

Professed militias have long operated along the border with attempts to curb the flow of undocumented migrants into the United States. But targeting the recent influx of families, who are legally allowed to request asylum and often quickly surrender to Border Patrol agents, is raising tension with human rights activists in this part of the West.

The above story made me wonder if any American families are staying over in Mexico without the proper paperwork. This lead me to wonder what would happen if they were arrested and their children put into a cage.

strangederby wrote:

The above story made me wonder if any American families are staying over in Mexico without the proper paperwork. This lead me to wonder what would happen if they were arrested and their children put into a cage.

The answer depends entirely on their skin color.