4 ms·

Sure but I think if an appeal to empathy was going to work we’d already have seen it work.

haswell 2y ago
Progress if often gradual and the result of continuous pressure over long periods of time. Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy, but I don't think "we'd have already seen it work" is a framing that makes sense.
- weard_beard 2y ago
  Is it even desirable to avoid something nature selected for? The biggest assumption here is that these epigenetic mutations aren’t desirable for survival in a chaotic and violent world
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    It's only undesirable under the assumption that a chaotic and violent world is an acceptable state of affairs.
    - weard_beard 2y ago
      I could swallow that argument but in isolation this feels like using the abused as lab rats so we can more thoroughly destroy them at some future date
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  Progress is completely random and arbitrary. Sometimes it zooms forward, other times it regresses. The universe has no mystical rules that demand that it continue. >Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy I don't even think we use the word "empathy" correctly. It makes sense to me when we're talking about a non-general empathy, where you see a particular person close to you (physically, if not emotionally) and you feel for them. You can't have empathy with some abstract hypothetical. You can't even have empathy for some large loosely defined group of people of the non-hypothetical sort. And, most of all, it's largely spontaneous. If you go into it having already decided you feel empathy for them "just on principle", then what you're feeling isn't empathy. It's performative. It's virtue signaling. Pretending that is empathy does empathy no favors, and it does no favors to the people who are supposedly being empathized with. Because it is performative, it's always just this thin veneer of compassion over an inadequately hidden contempt. Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy, the hatred is buried deeper but festers all the more for it. Appeal to pragmatism instead of empathy. You can make rational arguments if you're trying to be pragmatic. Appeal to justice. Appeal to anything but empathy. When I hear the word "empathy", I know that I'm about to have a load of horseshit dumped on me. You all know it too, even if you're worried that other people will shun you if you admit it out loud.
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? For example, watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Could you also accept the possibility that even if such a person could recognize empathy, they still lack or block the capacity to feel the empathy, and therefore the only use the recognition has is in manipulation (use it to corroborate a point, or use it to spread an attack, or just fuck it, just use it for anything since you can't actually feel it). You don't have to actually do anything with empathy, you can literally just sit there and cry. If you think empathy has a use first and foremost, then sure, I can see why you think someone is using it in a performance. You see, some of us cry because it hurts us. To get a better understanding, let's use something very analogous - Cringe. When we watch someone do something cringe, we feel it. The same is true for empathy you see, that's what it is. We feel someone else's pain. Psychologists say those that don't feel it are sociopaths. "Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy" Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. This is not a problem for people that were raised without confusion. You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me or not (common). Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? We are all a constant work in progress. The gene expression of apathy needs to be studied as well.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      >Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? I don't bake cakes, so I of course can't recognize a cake. Everyone knows this. Magical thinking demands that it be true. You have an immaterial soul that connects you to the universe, Jeebus, and the ghost of Elvis Presley. >watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Sure, they might do that if they were lying. Which in many cases they are. So much of the real world around you is inexplicable, isn't it? There are these secret sociopaths all around you, they look just like anyone else and they're all serial killers waiting to Hannibal Lecter you! Or maybe, everyone's like this, but some large fraction of the population is engaged in this weird cultural phenomenon where you all compete to appear more virtuous to each other than you really are. But admitting it would just ruin the fun, eh? And what if you admit it, and then everyone else doubles down and insists it was real for them, outting you as the serial killer? Can't have that. Empathy is only possible for people within your Dunbar number. Everyone beyond that only requires and only gets whatever civility is merited for diplomatic purposes. In your way of thinking, these so-called sociopaths... every single human is one. At least to the other 8 billion people who don't happen to be in their Dunbar circle. This explains how the cops can be so callous to the wrongly accused and to the victims alike. How soldiers are so quick to run off and commit war crimes (with or without sanctioning by superiors). Why those schoolteachers abuse the little kindergarten kids. And on and on and on. To you it's mysterious. Invisible monsters out there ready to pounce and eat you. It's why you can't fix any of this, why all those problems seem to grow out of control. Too busy trying to get everyone to pretend they have empathy which they don't. >We feel someone else's pain. You pretend you feel it. You don't. This isn't Star Trek, you don't have telepathy. This isn't Harry Potter, you don't have magic. But again, people will look at you weird if you admit you can't. >Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. I don't at all. I have a superior talent for recognizing it. As in, you have no ability to recognize it, no potential to develop such a skill, and can't even think about it rationally enough to appreciate your shortcomings. >You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me "Please humiliate yourself so I can go back to competing in the Virtue Signaling World Championships! Your mama didn't love you nyah nyah nyah!" Except she did. And I've had a few people in my life over the years who did care about me. I'd say instead it's people like yourself who have the confusion. Constantly complaining about narcissists that you somehow don't see coming a mile away. Constantly begging for updoots on reddit, your entire generation, for whining about how you might have to go no contact with your parents because they won't acknowledge your new puppy as just as important as their actual grandchildren. Hell, the most extreme of your sort have invented entire new crackpot pseudo-religions where you're not allowed to eat food because you're supposed to have empathy for it. >Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Please private message me about the state you are licensed in, and which business name you practice under. I will accept your diagnosis if I have these details.

Progress if often gradual and the result of continuous pressure over long periods of time. Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy, but I don't think "we'd have already seen it work" is a framing that makes sense.

weard_beard 2y ago
Is it even desirable to avoid something nature selected for? The biggest assumption here is that these epigenetic mutations aren’t desirable for survival in a chaotic and violent world
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  It's only undesirable under the assumption that a chaotic and violent world is an acceptable state of affairs.
  - weard_beard 2y ago
    I could swallow that argument but in isolation this feels like using the abused as lab rats so we can more thoroughly destroy them at some future date
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
Progress is completely random and arbitrary. Sometimes it zooms forward, other times it regresses. The universe has no mystical rules that demand that it continue. >Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy I don't even think we use the word "empathy" correctly. It makes sense to me when we're talking about a non-general empathy, where you see a particular person close to you (physically, if not emotionally) and you feel for them. You can't have empathy with some abstract hypothetical. You can't even have empathy for some large loosely defined group of people of the non-hypothetical sort. And, most of all, it's largely spontaneous. If you go into it having already decided you feel empathy for them "just on principle", then what you're feeling isn't empathy. It's performative. It's virtue signaling. Pretending that is empathy does empathy no favors, and it does no favors to the people who are supposedly being empathized with. Because it is performative, it's always just this thin veneer of compassion over an inadequately hidden contempt. Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy, the hatred is buried deeper but festers all the more for it. Appeal to pragmatism instead of empathy. You can make rational arguments if you're trying to be pragmatic. Appeal to justice. Appeal to anything but empathy. When I hear the word "empathy", I know that I'm about to have a load of horseshit dumped on me. You all know it too, even if you're worried that other people will shun you if you admit it out loud.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? For example, watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Could you also accept the possibility that even if such a person could recognize empathy, they still lack or block the capacity to feel the empathy, and therefore the only use the recognition has is in manipulation (use it to corroborate a point, or use it to spread an attack, or just fuck it, just use it for anything since you can't actually feel it). You don't have to actually do anything with empathy, you can literally just sit there and cry. If you think empathy has a use first and foremost, then sure, I can see why you think someone is using it in a performance. You see, some of us cry because it hurts us. To get a better understanding, let's use something very analogous - Cringe. When we watch someone do something cringe, we feel it. The same is true for empathy you see, that's what it is. We feel someone else's pain. Psychologists say those that don't feel it are sociopaths. "Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy" Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. This is not a problem for people that were raised without confusion. You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me or not (common). Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? We are all a constant work in progress. The gene expression of apathy needs to be studied as well.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? I don't bake cakes, so I of course can't recognize a cake. Everyone knows this. Magical thinking demands that it be true. You have an immaterial soul that connects you to the universe, Jeebus, and the ghost of Elvis Presley. >watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Sure, they might do that if they were lying. Which in many cases they are. So much of the real world around you is inexplicable, isn't it? There are these secret sociopaths all around you, they look just like anyone else and they're all serial killers waiting to Hannibal Lecter you! Or maybe, everyone's like this, but some large fraction of the population is engaged in this weird cultural phenomenon where you all compete to appear more virtuous to each other than you really are. But admitting it would just ruin the fun, eh? And what if you admit it, and then everyone else doubles down and insists it was real for them, outting you as the serial killer? Can't have that. Empathy is only possible for people within your Dunbar number. Everyone beyond that only requires and only gets whatever civility is merited for diplomatic purposes. In your way of thinking, these so-called sociopaths... every single human is one. At least to the other 8 billion people who don't happen to be in their Dunbar circle. This explains how the cops can be so callous to the wrongly accused and to the victims alike. How soldiers are so quick to run off and commit war crimes (with or without sanctioning by superiors). Why those schoolteachers abuse the little kindergarten kids. And on and on and on. To you it's mysterious. Invisible monsters out there ready to pounce and eat you. It's why you can't fix any of this, why all those problems seem to grow out of control. Too busy trying to get everyone to pretend they have empathy which they don't. >We feel someone else's pain. You pretend you feel it. You don't. This isn't Star Trek, you don't have telepathy. This isn't Harry Potter, you don't have magic. But again, people will look at you weird if you admit you can't. >Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. I don't at all. I have a superior talent for recognizing it. As in, you have no ability to recognize it, no potential to develop such a skill, and can't even think about it rationally enough to appreciate your shortcomings. >You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me "Please humiliate yourself so I can go back to competing in the Virtue Signaling World Championships! Your mama didn't love you nyah nyah nyah!" Except she did. And I've had a few people in my life over the years who did care about me. I'd say instead it's people like yourself who have the confusion. Constantly complaining about narcissists that you somehow don't see coming a mile away. Constantly begging for updoots on reddit, your entire generation, for whining about how you might have to go no contact with your parents because they won't acknowledge your new puppy as just as important as their actual grandchildren. Hell, the most extreme of your sort have invented entire new crackpot pseudo-religions where you're not allowed to eat food because you're supposed to have empathy for it. >Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Please private message me about the state you are licensed in, and which business name you practice under. I will accept your diagnosis if I have these details.