5 ms·
Sure, the idea that the right solution is always sympathy and material assistance is a bit reductionistic. But the idea that what's best for people is always t
by kazagistar 7y ago
Sure, the idea that the right solution is always sympathy and material assistance is a bit reductionistic.
But the idea that what's best for people is always tough love and a job is just as reductionistic and oversimplified.
And at scale, neither blanket solution is perfectly effective, but one at least leans towards kindness.
- DisruptiveDave 7y agoOf course, we agree there. Re: your final sentence, what I'm actually saying here is that this version of "kindness" may be actively harming some people in the long run. But because humans are generally bad at long-term thinking, we follow our instincts (i.e. "make this person feel immediately better any way possible in this immediate moment"). So, "kindness" isn't necessarily kind in these situations. Your desire to help is betrayed by your mind. Your actions are harmful. Think about that.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoI should clarify because I feel there is some confusion- I do not desire to help someone. I do not desire to be kind, nor compassionate. I merely find it more useful to be willing to listen to others and come from a place to desire to understand first, evaluate second, act third. I've stated to my companions that I'm not a compassionate, empathetic, or kind person (to their vehement disagreement) because my willingness to listen does not spawn from any of the reasoning you are pointing as flawed.
- DisruptiveDave 7y agoGood clarification. Listen -> evaluate -> act is a solid approach.
- BurningFrog 7y agoNick Lowe made a song out of this paradox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho
- coldtea 7y agoWhich is based on a line from Hamlet with the same reasoning ("I must be cruel only to be kind.").
- BurningFrog 7y agoThanks for teaching me this after all these decades! Very kind of you :)