CDZ Is empathy the key to this hate and division?

[Mac1958]

ITs getting very difficult to stay above the fray, no safe haven, when even the people you respect as level headed & smart seem to have caught a case of the crazy's.

At some point the scale tipped, where those who try to stay above the fray became outnumbered.

When those calling for reason start getting attacked, you have yourself a problem.
.

 

[MaryL]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

Sure. But won't happen. We had the Antislavery movement. We fought the slavers. We die. And we have the children of slaves that forget that and live vile hate filled lives and can't transcend. Is that a legacy of racism or just human weakness? Compassion, let alone EMPATHY doesn't seem to have much respect in those worlds . Just retribution.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Not that anyone who is black happens to think of slavery all day. How do you all personally view allocation and discrimination according to self-agency, or stereotypes? I mean, why if you hear from people about religion, no matter how painful unrelated events are, then deal with it through religion is the empathetic sentiment. Communism comes to mind, taking from production, and giving to "the need". Maybe that's good too, people don't always know themselves. Your thoughts?

Black people for example are refocusing these energies to other efforts, not an exact accounting, for example, or reperations, per se. What do you think on that example?

 

[toobfreak]

Is empathy the key to this hate and division?

How do you have empathy in a society that is actively tuning out direct human interaction in favor of cellphone chat rooms and internet groups? Our kids are growing up with their whole world in their back pocket with key taps and emoticons.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Nah, or people like to pretend they do and also use it as a tool to make people seem disconnected. Korean Americans are 90% Presbyterian, that's not a big fancy sign is it, then people tell you and talk about it and want that, and not much else forthcoming to talk about.

 

[Mac1958]

Is empathy the key to this hate and division?

How do you have empathy in a society that is actively tuning out direct human interaction in favor of cellphone chat rooms and internet groups? Our kids are growing up with their whole world in their back pocket with key taps and emoticons.

Good point, no doubt the isolation brought on by technology is a contributing factor to this.
.

 

[Dekster]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

As I see it, the problem is that the empathy card can only be played in one direction. No one asks or expects the poor person to have empathy for the better off; the black person to have empathy for the racist; the LGBTQUFHKZ person to have empathy for straight people, etc.

 

[Mac1958]

As I see it, the problem is that the empathy card can only be played in one direction. No one asks or expects the poor person to have empathy for the better off; the black person to have empathy for the racist; the LGBTQUFHKZ person to have empathy for straight people, etc.

Yeah, I can see that, and much of that to me is the fact that we've been purposely divided into little, competing grievance groups, hyphenated Americans. There are so many little squabbling tribes that trying to empathize with all of them is a huge task. It doesn't need to be that way.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Probably the first Liberal you meet is 17 in class saying, duuudes, dudettes, legalize marijuana And Prostitution, *yay*, free lunch period.

Dude, there is nothing wrong with saying 'dude'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think people confuse empathy and sympathy. Not even sure if empathy even exists.

If I stub my toe, other people can sympathize with my pain, but I am the only person feeling it. Pain is not telepathically transmitted to those around me.

But, gosh, I'll bet other people have stubbed their toe before as well and have also suffered similar pain that they can then recall and thus empathize with you.

Still more have had pain that produced a reaction similar to yours and that allows empathy as well.

Gosh darn, we can empathize with each other after all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

As I see it, the problem is that the empathy card can only be played in one direction. No one asks or expects the poor person to have empathy for the better off; the black person to have empathy for the racist; the LGBTQUFHKZ person to have empathy for straight people, etc.

The 'better off' person and the racist and the straight person can be victimized by radical populists, a clumsy and insensitive government, or religious zealotry.

Your presumption speaks more of the problem of empathy than you meant to methinks when one cannot even imagine how one can be victimized by society simply because someone thinks they fall into the wrong categories.

 

[JimBowie1958]

ITs getting very difficult to stay above the fray, no safe haven, when even the people you respect as level headed & smart seem to have caught a case of the crazy's.

At some point the scale tipped, where those who try to stay above the fray became outnumbered.

When those calling for reason start getting attacked, you have yourself a problem.
.

When news becomes entertainment in our media, the extremes are more sought after instead of boring rational discussion.

We have to restore news reporting to its own purpose, to inform, and not entertain.

 

[Mac1958]

We have to restore news reporting to its own purpose, to inform, and not entertain.

That would be the ideal, but I just don't think you can get there from here.
.

 

[JoeB131]

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Oh, the thing is, we understand PERFECTLY why uneducated white people vote for Trump.

Because they look at how they don't have the strong unions and opportunities their parents and grandparents had.

The reason why we dismiss it is because they decide to kick down instead of punch up. Challenging the One Percent and Wall Street types who've been chipping away at their lifestyle for 50 years now is a hassle. you say something, you might get fired.

But someone like Trump comes along and tells them that some guy with no connections, no money and a limited grasp of the English Language is responsible for all their woes, they buy into it.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Our kids are growing up with their whole world in their back pocket with key taps and emoticons.

Here's a crazy idea to combat this: Don't allow your children to use mobile devices until they either can prove they won't abuse them or they can wait until they're adults and obtain them on their own. The concept of actually being parents instead of friends to your children has escaped so many.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We have to restore news reporting to its own purpose, to inform, and not entertain.

That would be the ideal, but I just don't think you can get there from here.
.

It would take a cable network I guess that is genuinely well balanced and objective, and I doubt it would dominate, but would be a strong competitive choice of several.. Right now OAN is the best news network, IMO, but they are fairly heavily slanted to the right, not sure how objective they really are.

One way to tell how objective and balanced a news network is would be how much it pisses off partisans in both parties.

 

[percysunshine]

I think people confuse empathy and sympathy. Not even sure if empathy even exists.

If I stub my toe, other people can sympathize with my pain, but I am the only person feeling it. Pain is not telepathically transmitted to those around me.

But, gosh, I'll bet other people have stubbed their toe before as well and have also suffered similar pain that they can then recall and thus empathize with you.

Still more have had pain that produced a reaction similar to yours and that allows empathy as well.

Gosh darn, we can empathize with each other after all.

They would be remembering it, not feeling it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think people confuse empathy and sympathy. Not even sure if empathy even exists.

If I stub my toe, other people can sympathize with my pain, but I am the only person feeling it. Pain is not telepathically transmitted to those around me.

But, gosh, I'll bet other people have stubbed their toe before as well and have also suffered similar pain that they can then recall and thus empathize with you.

Still more have had pain that produced a reaction similar to yours and that allows empathy as well.

Gosh darn, we can empathize with each other after all.

They would be remembering it, not feeling it.

Bah, mere semantics.

The memory of a feeling can be as tangible as the feeling itself, both being a product of the mind.

 

[Mac1958]

We have to restore news reporting to its own purpose, to inform, and not entertain.

That would be the ideal, but I just don't think you can get there from here.
.

It would take a cable network I guess that is genuinely well balanced and objective, and I doubt it would dominate, but would be a strong competitive choice of several.. Right now OAN is the best news network, IMO, but they are fairly heavily slanted to the right, not sure how objective they really are.

One way to tell how objective and balanced a news network is would be how much it pisses off partisans in both parties.

Yep. When you have wingers from both ends screaming, that's a good start.

But I really don't know what kind of viewership an actual straightforward, calm, dignified newscast would draw right now. We'd rather eat donuts than broccoli at this point. We're used to fireworks and rumor and accusation.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. When you have wingers from both ends screaming, that's a good start.

But I really don't know what kind of viewership an actual straightforward, calm, dignified newscast would draw right now. We'd rather eat donuts than broccoli at this point. We're used to fireworks and rumor and accusation.

We have one. It's called the PBS Newshour. It's viewership is so low it needs a government subsidy to be a thing.

Oh, yeah, and broccoli sucks.

Here's the thing, you get the same news on Fox as you get on MSNBC. You'll know whatever stupid thing Trump said. If Trump said, "Mexicans want to eat your babies" today, you'd know about it no matter what TV station you watched. So on Fox, you'll get a ham-handed excuse about how he really didn't mean, while on MSNBC you'll get a "see-see-see" complaint that Trump is racist, like we didn't already know that.

The thing is, the middle of the road dumb-asses who don't have strong opinions on things are probably not paying attention to the news to start with. They'd be the ones who had no idea Trump actually said that.