re: Does the Modern Left Confuse "Empahy" with "Excuses"?

Anyone else notice that the 2 biggest opponents in this thread are flaming liberals?

quote:

---

i made 2 typos?

---

It was more than that, but I am glad you corrected them

quote:

---

nutty view of the world.

---

The parts about stealing, immorality, etc. Basically the entirety of your two points and their gross generalities.

quote:

---

The parts about stealing, immorality, etc.

---

so you consider stealing to be moral?

quote:

---

Does the Modern Left Confuse "Empahy"

---

Why does the Modern Right want to talk about my feelings all the time?

quote:

---

i get accused of this often on here, and on facebook when i get into it occasionally. i get the same BS on the OT when i refuse to excuse (oh shite, catch phrase!)the behavior of a person who is in a bad position directly due to consistent bad decision making (often having nothing to do with politics). "empathy" has become a new buzzword, and it's literally getting to the level of misuse as literally. empathy is "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." it's about understanding an emotional state and knowing when another person is feeling that state. nothing more. so, when a SGR says that a person who is poor (because he/she made bad choices to become poor) doesn't have a right to steal the money of people who made good decisions (and are more prosperous), the SGR is not failing to take an emotional inventory of the poor person. the SGR is just making a logical-rational statement based in facts. the BGL claims the SGR lacks "empathy", because if the SGR could understand how that poor person feels, the SGR would want to help the poor person (via government redistribution, of course. individual charity is never an option). this is an emotional-irrational thought process. that belief also has nothing to do with "empathy". the BGL wants the SMR to excuse the behavior of the person whose bad choices led to a bad result. the BGL believes that if another person is not in an optimal situation, you should feel bad for him/her. and if you feel bad for him/her. that's empathy, and that's OK (and the SGR engages in that thought process). however, the BGL takes it one step further and demands you agree that the state should take from the non-poor to excuse the actions that led to the poor person becoming poor. that is NOT empathy. the SGR understands completely how bad poverty sucks. that's empathy. the SGR, however, uses this as an example and/or motivation to make the right decisions to do our best to avoid finding ourselves in that position. there is no better statement of empathy than that to me. we understand how bad it gets, why it sucks, and can put ourselves in the position of a poor person to understand. that's empathy. ETA: as a non-political aside, the biggest mis-use, just for the record, is with trolls. people love to criticize trolls by saying they lack empathy. the opposite is true, however. they completely understand emotions, emotional reactions, who has them, and how to evoke them. that's the whole point of trolling.

---

I can understand your overall point, but I think your view is just too simplistic. Dichotomizing an isssue like this with so many variables into good decisions = prosperous vs bad decisions = poverty isn't an accurate overall representation.

As a quick example, two 20 yr olds decide to drink and drive. They both get pulled over and arrested. 20 yo "A" is the son of a wealthy senator. 20 yo "B" is the son of lower class, yet hardworking, parents in the rural south. A's dad uses his connections to get the charges dropped. B doesn't have such luck and now must try to get a job with a DUI on his record. Same decision, very different outcomes.

LINK

Weak. Figures.

Instead of calling his argument a straw man you could have responded with a well thought out rebuttal. You didn't. You chose to take the feeble minded way out. So don't be confused.

quote:

---

20 yo "B" is the son of lower class, yet hardworking, parents

---

It's interesting that folks tend to raise examples of not 1%'ers, but rather 1/100th of a percent rich kids in these discussions.
The decision was bad regardless. Correct?

But the larger point SFP makes doesn't relate so much to individual occurrences, or episodic "bad luck". I think he is referring more to comprehensive patterns of behavior. E.g., High roller lifestyle on middle class income. 2nd kid for an unmarried 20y/o. Truancy, followed by gang participation, followed by crime, prison, etc. That kind of thing.

Given a pattern, even your 1/100th of a percent rich kid runs into trouble eventually. But he'll not likely question the outcome in any terms of fairness. If he does, no one will listen.

OTOH, 10years down the road and struggling to make ends meet, the once multiparous unmarried 20y/o often will question the outcome. She'll lament her status, and her destiny in life which at 30 might be more apparent to her. Equally often she'll gain a sympathetic ear. Politicians will insist folks with her identical background who made better choices in former years now need to supplement her income.

quote:

---

It's interesting that folks tend to raise examples of not 1%'ers, but rather 1/100th of a percent rich kids in these discussions. The decision was bad regardless. Correct? But the larger point SFP makes doesn't relate so much to individual occurrences, or episodic "bad luck". I think he is referring more to comprehensive patterns of behavior. E.g., High roller lifestyle on middle class income. 2nd kid for an unmarried 20y/o. Truancy, followed by gang participation, followed by crime, prison, etc. That kind of thing. Given a pattern, even your 1/100th of a percent rich kid runs into trouble eventually. But he'll not likely question the outcome in any terms of fairness. If he does, no one will listen. OTOH, 10years down the road and struggling to make ends meet, the once multiparous unmarried 20y/o often will question the outcome. She'll lament her status, and her destiny in life which at 30 might be more apparent to her. Equally often she'll gain a sympathetic ear. Politicians will insist folks with her identical background who made better choices in former years now need to supplement her income.

---

Like I said, I understand and can get behind SFPs overall point. I just think there are some clear pitfalls. I am not arrogant enough to believe I am where I am today simply due to my hard work, my responsibility, my work ethic, my motivation etc. At least 90% of my success I attribute directly to my parents hard work, my parents responsibility, my parents work ethic, my parents motivation, etc. The same applies to many of my friends who are very successful. I think this part of the equation often gets left out of these SFP BDM vs. GDM threads.