To me, it's disheartening to see this sort of knee-jerk reaction to the grandparent posting (and to see that post be down-voted). What btilly wrote is not a defense, it's reasonable and, more importantly, practical advice in combating tyranny. Moreover, IMO, if you actually want to reduce or put an end to tyranny, you need to understand the root causes for the desires of your opponents. That's empathy. Empathy is not agreement, it's not sympathy, it is understanding. Screaming at others that they're bad people will not change anything. If anything, IMO, it causes them to dig their heels and makes change harder.

▲

watwut 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

layer8 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

You seem to be confusing empathy with acceptance or tolerance.

▲

btilly 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is rare for that message to be delivered to either side, for the simple reason that the reaction to it tends to be bad. It comes as no surprise that you would have never seen such messages delivered to conservatives if you don't spend a lot of time in places where this might happen.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJX28l54YxE for an hour-long interview between a well-known conservative Christian and a liberal atheist exactly on the topic of the importance of having conservative Christians treating those they disagree with with empathy.

	▲	watwut 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It is rare for that message to be delivered to either side, Not true, I see it constantly deployed to the not-right-wing side. Constantly and pretty much everywhere where left of center and center mix. > It comes as no surprise that you would have never seen such messages delivered to conservatives if you don't spend a lot of time in places where this might happen. I did read conservative writings, forums and what not. It is indeed rare in that space. Center is simply not invested in telling conservatives to have empathy as much as they are invested in promoting empathy toward conservatives. > for the simple reason that the reaction to it tends to be bad. I do agree that overall in aggregate it is increasingly clear it was bad advice. And the one sided application did not helped.
	▲	Jotra7 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

Jotra7 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

bilbo0s 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	1659447091 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		>> you need to understand the root causes for the desires of your opponents. That's empathy. > Um, what we used to call that in the Marines, was "intel". Not "empathy". And that designation of the information you outlined made us surprisingly effective at combating opponents. This is the important part. Understanding "the root causes for the desires of your opponents" is not empathy. It's understanding something. Empathy is a relating to anothers plight. If you only understand it then there is nothing to cause pause before using that understanding to your advantage. It's a core part manipulation and deception. If the only thing that happened with that understanding is seeing what you can get from it or that there is nothing you want there or have use for, then that doesn't really help bring two sides together. Having the ability to relate to this understanding of another is when empathy happens. It's the empathy that gives one pause long enough to see there are other options that are not zero-sum. > No need to have empathy for anyone who doesn't have empathy for others. Disagree. Just because someone else can not relate -- now -- does not mean they can not later. I personally don't care for tit-for-tat games, thats simply a race to the bottom. Boundaries are the things missing here; one can have empathy for another that does not have it for them, that doesn't mean you also have to have a bleeding heart for them and let them walk all over you.