Yeah, I knew it was taken out of context but is this really that much better? There are plenty of other examples.
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.
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
What a great concept to teach boys/young adults who are still developing or struggling with emotional intelligence.
The world is better without him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Spoken like an undiagnosed autistic. If only there were signs
This is something similar to what Sam Harris said.
Sam Harris advocates that empathy is the wrong metric by which to evaluate helping someone, and we should use compassion instead.
The difference? Empathy can be highjacked and relies on intuition. You see a news story about some little girl in your city who lost her arm in a dog attack, you feel more for empathy for her than a child in Africa whose whole family was just slaughtered by militant Christians.
So, instead, we should use compassion as our north-star. We can use logic to guide us to making choices which lead to preferable outcomes for those who need it most.
None of this relates to Kirk though because he’s a pseudointellectual grifter who failed to demonstrate empathy for anyone who doesn’t fit into his Christian nationalist world view. That’s my two cents.
As if Sam Harris isn’t a personally salient cause away from being Jordan Peterson. Dude has the same arrogance and flies in adjacent circles, so he could easily go full fascist grifter if some brainworms issue took hold.
That’s a lazy smear. Harris and Peterson are ideological opposites; atheist materialist vs. Christian traditionalist.
Sam regularly loses followers because he won’t bend to tribalism, which is the opposite of grifting. He’s not afraid to piss off his own base by saying the “wrong” thing.
You can call him arrogant, but suggesting he’s a fascist-in-waiting is stupid. His framework has always been about advocating for compassion and upholding the virtues of epistemology as a means of a more tolerant and equitable future.
Calling Peterson a Christian is wild. I strongly advise you to watch him react when asked about his belief. That man struggles to self identify as Christian, even when talking to his own people.
Christian or not, he is a supporter of white Christian nationalism
Of course, but that is a goal post shift.
My point isn’t, peterson is a good guy (or a bad guy, while he totally is). But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild, when the christian is struggling to call themself christian when talking to Christians.
The ideological divide between Harris and peterson might not be that big in their religious belief. Peterson might just believe that Christianity helps him in the causes that he cares about.
I’m not the person you were originally talking to, so I didn’t move any goalposts. Just pointing out the important takeaway here.
Well, it isn’t an important takeaway as the conversation is about that at all. And as it is a public discussion and you joined in to paint peterson as somewhat christian, you are moving the conversation from the topic of discussion to another topic that is more easily defensible. The classic goal post shift.
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.
As he said, Empathy requires, well…Empathy. the ability to recognize what a person MIGHT be feeling. It’s reading someone, and trying to relate. It doesn’t mean literally reading their mind, and channeling their emotions like a Vulcan Mind Meld.
On the other hand, Sympathy can simply mean pity, especially to someone like him. He can’t recognize your pain, all he can do is feel superior that he’s not in pain.
It’s the basic definition of Liberal vs Republican. Liberals (general term, not Neo Liberals) are concerned with society, Republicans are concerned with themselves.
