8circles
-
Posts
6,384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by 8circles
-
-
But where are you supposed to go in a conversation like that? And why would you assume that the person hasn't empathized?
For example as I said above, I think freedom of movement is a basic right - it relates to what I think about land and resources and their ownership, that really, these are not things that can be privately owned as they are for all.
I also think that people have a right to live where they have always lived and invested labour.
These can easily come into conflict with each other. And no matter which side I were to come down on, someone could say "you need to empathize more with the other guys".
I really have no idea what that would mean beyond what I'd have already done, why they would think I haven't empathized with both situations, what I would say about my empathizing it that would be satisfying to this person, or how it would help untangle the elements of the problem. In fact it seems to me that unless they can point to something much more specific that they think is missing, bringing that into the discussion is very likely to obscure what is already going to be a complicated discussion. How would empathy help untie that kind of knot?
A conversation like what? I don't really understand what kind of conversation you are having that you've described in the OP, because you've summed it up with "empathy is everything" yet I don't see that.
"you need to empathize more" means exactly that. So according to the person you are conversing with, you aren't empathizing enough. So, either you aren't capable of more or you don't see them as worthy of more or you don't think there's any more empathy to be had. And the other person does.
As to how would empathy help to untie that kind of knot - maybe it's not untie-able. Is there a moral component that empathy or emotions can highlight? How does logic help untie it? Sometimes the best you can do is agree to disagree.
-
2
-
-
I think this is not only not off topic, but really where I think we have to go with it.
For me it means you have to first take a step back and address the premise. A lot of the time these aren't fundamental epistemological assumptions, they are things you can discuss.
I think sometimes there isn't really going to be a consensus, and if the question is something like immigration that requires effective action, or is about a social institution like marriage, you will end up taking one road as a society rather than the other.
I feel the same way as you about being asked to empathize with regard to things like this, I don't see how it could change my mind about something objective. It could convince me that there should be way to help those people as well, but it isn't going to change the objective point.
Not disagreeing with you really.
But objective points are not required to be without empathy (or emotion? I'm not sure which we're talking about really). So people can come to the same objective conclusion, one coming from an empathic or empathetic perspective and one coming from an apathetic perspective. Or maybe you would call it something else.
An empathetic perspective is not void of reason. Whether or not this applies to your OP, I don't know. But being asked to empathize does not mean "I don't care about logic, it's about FEEEELINGS."
-
2
-
-
Sorry,I'm in my car and quote isn't working.
Re: the abortion example. I think the way you laid it out is a very oversimplified way of looking at it that is really only useful for illustrating the hypothetical of an appeal to empathy. It isn't real. As an aside, it is really close to what I thought was real when I was very much what is known as pro-life. I'm still pro-life (and also pro-choice) but have a better understanding of the bigger picture.
-
1
-
-
Pam, YES! Exactly everything you wrote, my journey was the same as yours, including the layover at civil/religious separation.
I don't know what you call it - moral coercion, empathy, shame... It was an important step in finding my way. And I detest the word shame, but I am ashamed of my prior position, which I think is appropriate. So... Not sure what to do with that.
-
2
-
-
I'm pretty sure that any of the discussions here a few years ago about same sex marriage fell into the 'empathy or nothing' trap.
Opponents were just big old meanies who hated gay people.
Are some opponents like this ? Sure. Are most ? Probably not. Did appeals to think of all the gay and lesbian children of posters here work in any way to argue our case ? Almost certainly not.
I mean, sure, it had nothing to do with empathy really. It was more of a 'feel the way we feel or nothing' trap.
Empathy probably would have looked like really trying to understand what people felt they were losing, and what their thinking behind that was. Even if we continued to disagree, and fight our side. Whose to say our fight wouldn't be more effective for ditching the attempts at control of the emotional narrative, and attempts at real empathy ?
Anyway, that's just one example of using 'empathy' as moral coercion that comes to mind.
I understand what you're saying. I just don't see this moral coercion as such an awful thing in a discussion.
In this particular example, I actually know what people are feeling on both sides, because I've firmly held views on both sides in my life. I don't think that it's a matter of "real empathy" (which means that the other is "fake empathy"?) It's more believing one side is more deserving of empathy than the other. Is moral coercion useless in a discussion? I don't think so, but it probably depends on the people involved. Do people use moral coercion in discussion because "empathy is everything"? No, I don't think so. So I guess I'm unclear if this moral coercion is actually what the OP was talking about.
-
2
-
-
The trouble is, the person the OP discusses isn't being empathic at all. Just using an appeal for empathy to kind of shut down discussion. So, is that actually empathy, or empathic language at all ?
Idk, I wasn't there, but when I've had those appeals directed at me, it certainly hasn't felt like empathy, but more like shaming. And I can state with utter certainty that when I've done the 'but what about the children!' bit, it had nothing to do with empathy, but rather an attempt at moral coercion - using 'feeling' to try to sway people to my side of the argument.
I agree that people are by no means split into a simple binary of logical vs feeling.
Sure.
Like I said, I don't understand what this kind of conversation looks like because I've never seen it. Lots of the responses are talking about "super feelers" which is something completely different than what you're describing, so I'm clueless.
I do see the difference between actual empathy and moral coercion but I guess I'm not sure how that becomes such a huge negative that no discussion is possible because "empathy is everything".
-
1
-
-
I think super feelers are just meant to experience emotion very strongly, not only their own. I don't know if that's the same as empath or not.
I wouldn't have said empathy or emotion in general is opposed to reason - I think of it as a bit like sense information, and it can contain intuitive insights. Ideally they should work together. But I would say in a discussion of complex issues it needs to be filtered or organized by your rational faculties.
I don't know, at this point I'm really not sure what they were expecting or looking for.
Hmmm. Well, given what you've shared in this thread, it seems like they were expecting empathy.
It does no one any favors to act as though reason is enough. Humans aren't robots. Empathy can do a lot to improve understanding and finding common ground in discussion. Reason/logic isn't everything.
-
2
-
-
It used to really annoy me that someone I know used to go round charity ships and buy stuff to sell at a profit but I knew she really needed the money. Someone working for the charity - not on. Though some of the charities do it themselves. Like I said they all now are trying to get money not provide a service.
Just jumping off from here.
FYI, Goodwill is not a "charity shop" (again, I'm not saying that you are calling it that, kiwik). They are a non-profit but their mission is not to provide low-cost used items to people in need. They run their stores to make money to fund their services which "put people to work". Each Goodwill region will do this in different ways and through different projects.
They don't care if people buy from them and resell on eBay for a profit.
-
3
-
-
I am a coffee lover, but I'm not a coffee snob so take this FWIW.
I think that if your goal is to save money, you shouldn't need to buy any more equipment. That seems a little nonsensical to me.
Find a coffee that you like, already ground. Make it in the Aeropress. Get it ready the night before (unless you have extreme type of weather, which you might in FL). In the morning, heat the water in the microwave. It only brews for a minute, so take that minute to get your cup and any add-ins (milk, cream, etc).
FYI, I sometimes use a French Press but most often I use https://www.target.com/p/bella-single-scoop-coffee-maker-black/-/A-50983967#lnk=sametab. It has a reusable filter so is easy to clean and makes really good coffee IMO. I buy Lavazza or Bustelo coffee from Aldi. And I always keep a good instant on hand so there are no coffee emergencies. I NEVER drink my coffee black, though, so YMMV.
-
I have found most of this discussion puzzling because I don't really understand what kind of discussion this is about. I've never heard anyone say or hint that empathy is everything to the degree that the OP seems to be about. I think. It's unclear to me what that even means.
But, I will say, that I think it's entirely unproductive to posit empathy as a contrast to logic, or vice versa. It seems like maybe it's a combination of differences is personality, speaking/writing style, vocabulary, etc. and not really empathy vs logic. That seems like a lazy way of saying I'm right and they're wrong.
It's important to realize that while empathy, and empathetic language, may mean nothing to you, it may mean quite a lot to someone else, and that doesn't make them illogical.
I don't know what a super-feeler is. Is that the same as an empath?
-
6
-
-
I like it to be clear, but "clean" as you describe it isn't something I go for. I have been known to get rid of the weeds there if I'm doing my own driveway, but I wouldn't do it just for the gutter.
I do, however, care very much about people clearing out their own street gutter in the winter when snow piles up there and then the temps rise and everything starts melting. If you don't clear the snow before temps drop again, someone will have a nasty patch of ice right by their driveway. That bugs me.
-
Keep in mind that stores like Goodwill are not the same everywhere. They are divided into independently-run regions so the quality, pricing, and procedures vary quite a bit.
-
1
-
-
-
I think she's saying that how your daughter dresses is fine but she might not be able to play the games.
But her grammar is atrocious.
-
3
-
-
This was posted mere hours after the school shooting.
Not one mention of it being "too soon".
It's frightening the level of gun-worship in this country.
-
6
-
-
Homemommy, thank you for sharing your story.
I told a high school teacher what was happening at home ONCE, the only time I ever told a teacher. She did not tell my parents, she hugged me and told me she cared, and she gave me a passing grade even though I was unable to complete the projects because of home. But nobody intervened, and it was definitely a situation where somebody should have.
But there are two more benefits to school for abuse and neglected children:
1. Respite, a meal, awareness of and access to basic education.
2. Probably figuring out that what you endure at home is not normal.
In my own experience, I cannot ever minimize those two benefits. They are the reason my children have had a normal life.
This.
Without sharing too much. Despite the fact that I hated school because of bullying, teasing, not fitting in, etc. Despite the fact that educationally, I would have done better being homeschooled. Attending public school was an improvement in my life and as an adult I can look back and be grateful that I had that respite from home.
-
8
-
-
You must have skipped a lot of posts.
I didn't actually skip any.
He's at worst impolite and selfish. More likely bumbling and awkward.
She's leading him on and naive, stupid, an idiot, can't take care of herself, needs supervision, extra guardianship, can't handle herself in normal public interaction, weak, confusing, etc
-
2
-
-
"Slut shaming" is really what you've taken from this whole discussion? :001_rolleyes:
Certainly not the ONLY thing, but it's certainly there.\
Almost ZERO discussion about the man's behavior and nobody suggesting that he needs supervision because of his behavior.
-
1
-
-
I don't remember which shows were on when - after school or prime time - but I seem to be older than most of you LOL.
The Courtship of Eddie's Father
Facts of Life
Silver Spoons
Benson
Mr Rodgers
Electric Company (LOVED this show but I wasn't allowed to watch it because black people)
Punky Brewster
Webster
Mr Belvidere
Alf
My Two Dads
The Wonder Years
Oh - forgot about Degrassi
ETA again: I never realized that this was a real thing - Gigglesnort Hotel - my older sister uses this as a reference all the time.
-
That’s kind of ridiculous. I’m really trying to see it your way, but a voluntary sexual encounter by an adult female equals her being stripped of agency and repressed by the patriarchy.... how?
I think that could definitely be argued in some of these power differential cases, where a job or opportunity is at stake. Maybe you could even argue she feared, I don’t know, looking uncool? But she herself said she wanted the date, went back to his apartment, and never felt like she couldn’t say no or was unsafe.
What am I missing here, that somehow represents mysogyny and a lack of agency? Is it more sexist that she could go do these things and it is socially acceptable and normal or if she couldn’t and therefore this was aberrant or wrong to happen among two consenting adults?
Edit - I just had a thought. I could get the argument about her being stripped of her agency if you’re indicating that she said yes to something she didn’t want precisely because of coercion or pressure she felt she couldn’t say no to. Are you saying those pressures were generally cultural? Which ones in particular? Why would she give in and another woman would not, if it’s generally cultural to 2018 New York or whatever?
Yes, you are largely missing although you might be understanding me in your Edit.
This sexual encounter is not what stripped her of her empowerment, but it illustrates that it had already been done.
As to the questions in your edit, that would be a whole other thread entirely and we've actually had several here already. I don't have the time to do it justice right now, but the threads are there if you look for them.
-
No, not women.
It was suggested that in this situation, this women might have been too afraid to say, no, she didn't want to go to this guy's house. In public, where there was little risk and in any case he showed no intention of harming her.
If anyone is at the point where normal public interactions leave them completely unable to assert themselves, that's gone beyond where they are safe to be out by themselves. Most people who have kids at that stage don't let them out.
In any case, there's no indication in the text that she was, in fact, afraid. Maybe she felt she ought to be polite, but that's hardly the same thing. I have a hard time assessing myself in social situations because I have social anxiety. I've not spoken up when I ought to have, including back when I was dating. It kind of sucks, but if it was to the point where I actually wasn't able to be responsible for myself, I'd be looking for professional help. Despite being pretty extreme, I never felt I was anywhere near the point I couldn't account for my own actions, or lack of action.
How do you know if/when she became afraid? AFAIK people have mentioned that as a common occurrence, not that it necessarily applied here.
So, say it does apply - does she have to be afraid from the get-go in public? So, she can't have been comfortable there, then become afraid later?
What about sex? If she goes to his apartment, it means she wants to have sex? If she's naked, it means she for sure wants to have sex? If she's making-out, she for sure wants to have sex? If she has oral sex, she wants all other kinds of sex as well?
Only the first one was "normal public interactions" and we don't know that she at that point felt afraid at all.
-
1
-
-
They are, in that in any given situation they remove agency from the individual in order to say they couldn't act in a different way.
You are actually stripping her of personal agency in some effort to empower her. This isn't her fault because she didn't know any better because she has internalized misogyny is not helpful to empower women. Individual women are the only people who can start making different choices (in places like 2018 NYC where they actually have choices) if they want different outcomes.
A woman saying, "He brought me back to his apartment," has given away all of her agency to a man she doesn't even know. And in this article, she didn't even see that she did that. She assumed everything that happened was to her.
*I*'m not stripping her of any agency. I'm acknowledging that our culture has already done so and would like it to be changed.
-
2
-
-
This is at least twice now: "if you don't think ____ then you are ____."
There's no room for disagreement or discussion there. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with your point. Just telling me repeatedly I'm too misinformed or ignorant about the argument you're trying to make isn't a discussion, it's just not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem remarks and/or extremely patronizing, or maybe both.
Thinly-veiled ad hominem remarks and patronization don't happen in America 2018.
But I'm happy to re-phrase.
There is no similarity of meanings between the 2 phrases that you are comparing.
"Boys will be boys" is a way of excusing their behavior and doing nothing to change it. That's what it means. Do you disagree that that's what it means?
"she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" - which isn't actually what anyone except you has said and is actually a very disingenuous way to represent what people have been saying - is an attempt to explain the immediate questioning of her behavior and blame placed on her shoulders. It's a call to change the culture that strips her of her empowerment. That is exactly what several people have been explaining. Do you understand this?
The 2 phrases are not similar in any way.
-
1
-
-
To the extent that I know I can ask for red wine instead of white and decline to make out naked with someone who makes me uncomfortable, yes, I'd say most women (especially those privileged enough to be attending celebrity parties in NYC) in 2018 America can make those decisions for themselves without the internalized misogyny of our culture being a problem.
I don't think "she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" is an excuse any more than "boys will be boys" is an excuse the other way around.
I cannot clip your quote on my phone. To your last point. One is used as an excuse to do nothing, the other is a call to change our culture for the better. If you miss that then you are missing the point.
Would you eat this
in The Chat Board
Posted
Why do I not stress about leaving food out on the stove? Because I don't believe that it's that risky to leave food out for a few hours in my clean kitchen with my food prepared safely with clean utensils.
And, to spite my MIL who thinks that being a trained dietitian makes her the food-safety police despite the fact that she probably has the most disgusting kitchen I've ever set foot in.