3 ms·

I'm not limiting outward action. I'm making a case for additional inward action: empathy. Edit: I think you're mistaking empathy with passivity.

• ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
  I saw plenty of empathy in the discussion for the slop-copy author. I also saw plenty of empathy in the discussion for Don Ho. There was probably more of the second than the first, which makes sense, as the victim deserves more empathy than the perpetrator, especially while the perpetrator continues to victimize others.
  • dmos62 5mo ago
    You misunderstand empathy. Its purpose is to see things clearly: a wrongdoer, victimizer, etc. is still human. A victim is not more human. Empathy is outside circumstance. Only when you don't understand it, you start using it in concert with sympathy. They're different things. Ask yourself this: do you need a lack of empathy to recognize that someone is acting in a destructive way?
    • ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
      If your entire argument is predicated upon a singular, unsupported claim by yourself that I misunderstand something, I don't think we'll have a productive conversation (especially if the claim is not correct). I said what I said: There were people showing EMpathy for the people on both sides of the conflict in that thread. I said it because it's true. It's true and it's understandable, and probably better than if it were for just the perpetrator. Perhaps it is you who misunderstands the term? Between us two random people out of billions, it might statistically be just as likely, and neither of us is an impartial judge of the other's understanding. Do you see how that approach to discussion is thus not productive?
      • dmos62 5mo ago
        We lost each other a ways back. Thanks for the discussion.