4 ms·

Colloquially, to say you completely relate to someone typically means you share an experience in common with them that grants you a deeper understanding of what

Colloquially, to say you completely relate to someone typically means you share an experience in common with them that grants you a deeper understanding of what they’re experiencing by virtue of having experienced it yourself. For example, as a white male, I’d never say I completely relate to the lived experiences of minority populations in the US. I can be sympathetic, empathetic, compassionate, etc. But I cannot relate to their experience in any sort of equal form. By the way, I don’t doubt your sincerity in any way—I’ve never met anyone who volunteered their time to the homeless who didn’t deeply care for them and their struggles. However, I still think it’s worth pointing out to ourselves the many small ways in which we avoid the homeless—and I’m equally guilty of it. I’ve found that helping the homeless is something it feels far easier to do in volunteer settings—when it’s in a specific place set aside for the homeless, at a specific time, and we can just leave the homeless behind when we’re done. Those of us who are not homeless feel good about helping, but feel annoyed when they come into “our space”—spaces like Starbucks. This is where we have the privilege and luxury to pay for our presence, and find our metaphorical feathers ruffled when someone inconveniences us—which we somewhat loudly underscore when we complain about the greater inconvenience we are willing to endure just so we can avoid the inconvenience of encountering the homeless.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. Second, I've had non-immigrants tell me they can relate to immigrant issues because of X in their family. I'd agree such language is probably sub-optimal. As an immigrant I'd never jump on them for it, regardless of race, religion or background. Language is about connection and understanding. Generally such situations involve someone trying to tell me 'you know what, I'm on your side', and I interpret it as such since I'm aiming to connect with them, not judge them. There's a certain trend in people that take language very seriously. In this trend there's a lot of talk about empathy while using it as a whip to virtue signal. It's quite ironic.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background. You've edited out some of the more substantial parts of your comment now, but I'll reply to everything you originally wrote. > First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. I apologize that explaining the colloquial meaning of the "I completely relate to X" has bothered you. You said you weren't a native English speaker, and I was only trying to further explain what that particular phrase means. Again, I'm sorry I bothered you by trying to explain the phrase. > There's a certain type of person who uses takes language very seriously and they seem to not really care what the underlying feelings are. Ironically they talk about empathy while using it as a whip. These judgmental types will point holes at other peoples actions under the guise of empathy in an effort to virtue signal. It's quite ironic. In your original comment, I found it quite ironic that someone would say they completely relate to the struggles of the homeless as an employed and housed person, and then complain about minor inconveniences they experience from the homeless (you occasionally can't use a bathroom when drinking coffee), and the extra inconvenience they willingly endure with the specific goal of avoiding the homeless (you specifically find a place the homeless cannot easily get to so you don't have to encounter them). Sorry, but that isn't virtue-signaling. That is making an observation based on taking your words seriously as a true communication of your underlying feelings—and I found it worth pointing out there was a clear and strong dichotomy of feelings and actions when you claim to completely relate to a given struggle, while following it up with actions you take to avoid being face-to-face with people who are living that struggle. I wasn't passing judgment on the dichotomy itself, or on you—I was only pointing out the clear conflict. > Though I don't agree I'm 'guilty'. What on earth do you suggest I do? Take them home? Be with them on the street? Of course it is safer to deal with the small % homeless individuals who are unstable in a controlled environment and of course I care for my own safety. I refuse to be guilt tripped over it though. I think this is where wires seem to have been crossed. I didn't suggest you're guilty of anything in the sense you've done something bad or wrong. Perhaps this is a result of using another English idiom, but when someone says "I'm guilty of it, too", they are simply saying, "I do the same thing!". I wasn't guilt-tripping you. I also wasn't suggesting there was anything you should do differently. I was simply observing and talking aloud, recognizing more of that complexity you said existed in dealing with the homeless. I was attempting to engage you and relate to the struggle I thought we both shared as two self-employed people, with a house, who care about the homeless, think the problem is complex, and recognize that we both do things that help us avoid the homeless when we don't want to be inconvenienced by their presence and/or the challenges we're faced with. I wasn't making a moral judgment against you. I wasn't making any sort of judgment at all. I was merely observing and communicating there was something we had in common. I'm a very introspective person, and I find it both valuable and personally beneficial to look at my own actions, and interrogate them for the underlying feelings behind them. I also find it beneficial to recognize when my actions are at odds with the things I say or believe I believe—not to pass any sort of moral judgment or guilt-trip on myself, but to better understand myself. For me, there is value in reminding myself that going to Starbucks and paying for a coffee is a luxury I enjoy. It's a privilege and luxury to have money that enables me to pay for goods and services, and I recognize there are plenty of people who do not have that privilege or enjoy that luxury. Reminding myself of that is something I believe helps me keep myself in check so I do not take such privileges/luxuries for granted, or think poorly of someone who is in a different socioeconomic state. When I walk into a public space, nobody ever thinks twice about my presence as a clean, employed white man—there are no groans, I am not watched, nobody worries when I go to the bathroom, nobody makes an effort to avoid sitting by me or interacting with me. Similarly, I don't worry that a Starbucks employee will call the cops if I'm just sitting in the Starbucks. That's a very clear privilege I enjoy as a white person who has a home and earns enough money to at least go to a Starbucks whenever I want. Anyway, that's a whole lot of words to write to ultimately try to accomplish a couple simultaneous goals: 1. I apologize for offending you by taking your words too seriously and engaging them as written. 2. I think there is value in interrogating our own actions to check how they align with our values and our conception of ourselves. Recognizing when our actions oppose our values is an important part of the feedback loop that helps us better align our actions with our values—especially when being true to our values requires we accept some level of personal inconvenience. Recognizing when we avoid that personal inconvenience isn't a moral judgment on failing—it's just another data point in the feedback loop.

NicolasGorden 7y ago

First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. Second, I've had non-immigrants tell me they can relate to immigrant issues because of X in their family. I'd agree such language is probably sub-optimal. As an immigrant I'd never jump on them for it, regardless of race, religion or background. Language is about connection and understanding. Generally such situations involve someone trying to tell me 'you know what, I'm on your side', and I interpret it as such since I'm aiming to connect with them, not judge them. There's a certain trend in people that take language very seriously. In this trend there's a lot of talk about empathy while using it as a whip to virtue signal. It's quite ironic.

bobwaycott 7y ago
We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background. You've edited out some of the more substantial parts of your comment now, but I'll reply to everything you originally wrote. > First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. I apologize that explaining the colloquial meaning of the "I completely relate to X" has bothered you. You said you weren't a native English speaker, and I was only trying to further explain what that particular phrase means. Again, I'm sorry I bothered you by trying to explain the phrase. > There's a certain type of person who uses takes language very seriously and they seem to not really care what the underlying feelings are. Ironically they talk about empathy while using it as a whip. These judgmental types will point holes at other peoples actions under the guise of empathy in an effort to virtue signal. It's quite ironic. In your original comment, I found it quite ironic that someone would say they completely relate to the struggles of the homeless as an employed and housed person, and then complain about minor inconveniences they experience from the homeless (you occasionally can't use a bathroom when drinking coffee), and the extra inconvenience they willingly endure with the specific goal of avoiding the homeless (you specifically find a place the homeless cannot easily get to so you don't have to encounter them). Sorry, but that isn't virtue-signaling. That is making an observation based on taking your words seriously as a true communication of your underlying feelings—and I found it worth pointing out there was a clear and strong dichotomy of feelings and actions when you claim to completely relate to a given struggle, while following it up with actions you take to avoid being face-to-face with people who are living that struggle. I wasn't passing judgment on the dichotomy itself, or on you—I was only pointing out the clear conflict. > Though I don't agree I'm 'guilty'. What on earth do you suggest I do? Take them home? Be with them on the street? Of course it is safer to deal with the small % homeless individuals who are unstable in a controlled environment and of course I care for my own safety. I refuse to be guilt tripped over it though. I think this is where wires seem to have been crossed. I didn't suggest you're guilty of anything in the sense you've done something bad or wrong. Perhaps this is a result of using another English idiom, but when someone says "I'm guilty of it, too", they are simply saying, "I do the same thing!". I wasn't guilt-tripping you. I also wasn't suggesting there was anything you should do differently. I was simply observing and talking aloud, recognizing more of that complexity you said existed in dealing with the homeless. I was attempting to engage you and relate to the struggle I thought we both shared as two self-employed people, with a house, who care about the homeless, think the problem is complex, and recognize that we both do things that help us avoid the homeless when we don't want to be inconvenienced by their presence and/or the challenges we're faced with. I wasn't making a moral judgment against you. I wasn't making any sort of judgment at all. I was merely observing and communicating there was something we had in common. I'm a very introspective person, and I find it both valuable and personally beneficial to look at my own actions, and interrogate them for the underlying feelings behind them. I also find it beneficial to recognize when my actions are at odds with the things I say or believe I believe—not to pass any sort of moral judgment or guilt-trip on myself, but to better understand myself. For me, there is value in reminding myself that going to Starbucks and paying for a coffee is a luxury I enjoy. It's a privilege and luxury to have money that enables me to pay for goods and services, and I recognize there are plenty of people who do not have that privilege or enjoy that luxury. Reminding myself of that is something I believe helps me keep myself in check so I do not take such privileges/luxuries for granted, or think poorly of someone who is in a different socioeconomic state. When I walk into a public space, nobody ever thinks twice about my presence as a clean, employed white man—there are no groans, I am not watched, nobody worries when I go to the bathroom, nobody makes an effort to avoid sitting by me or interacting with me. Similarly, I don't worry that a Starbucks employee will call the cops if I'm just sitting in the Starbucks. That's a very clear privilege I enjoy as a white person who has a home and earns enough money to at least go to a Starbucks whenever I want. Anyway, that's a whole lot of words to write to ultimately try to accomplish a couple simultaneous goals: 1. I apologize for offending you by taking your words too seriously and engaging them as written. 2. I think there is value in interrogating our own actions to check how they align with our values and our conception of ourselves. Recognizing when our actions oppose our values is an important part of the feedback loop that helps us better align our actions with our values—especially when being true to our values requires we accept some level of personal inconvenience. Recognizing when we avoid that personal inconvenience isn't a moral judgment on failing—it's just another data point in the feedback loop.