On the one hand, I think everyone hates that person who pulls the “I’m an empath” card.
On the other hand, “empathy isn’t real” is a bad faith attack on the concept of trying to emphasize or even understand people that are different from you.
That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.
Debate is about understanding where the other person is coming from, identifying weaknesses in each other’s position, and working towards shared truths.
Since he couldn’t empathize, Charlie couldn’t debate. So he went with the modern debate strategy: I only win when someone else is losing.
He certainly wasn’t trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth…
As an empath, I’m really in tune with other people’s emotions, and I cry all the time, so I know that you’re super broken up about not knowing about the empath card - even if you can’t stand to admit it to anyone but me, who’s more in tune with your emotions than you are… Because I’m an empath.
No shit Susan, getting sad at the commercials for starving children doesn’t make you an empath.
It was half-facetious, but I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this. (Watch the first 60 seconds and tell me you didn’t cringe.)
Empathize is a word. It means" to feel or experience empathy", or “to be understanding of”.
When I say Charlie Kirk was arguing in bad faith, I’m saying he’s he was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.
I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this.
I think it’s even simpler than that. Certain words just make them go “Are you calling me a nutcase/soyboy??!!” (or sth like along those lines)
Or the suggestion that therapy is actually a good thing and not a stigma.
I despise when women say “I’m an empath” and then continue to tell you how you feel when that is not actually how I feel. No. You don’t get to claim to know me better than I do.
“…so…you’re an alien from Betazed? I don’t understand.”
This is the kind of thing that fuels his argument. People who are claiming they can literally read your emotions psychically. I get they don’t really mean that, but that is what the damn word means.
It’s different from when they are using it as leverage vurses using it to relate. When it’s used to relate it’s a completely justified use of the word.
Unless your positions are mutually exclusive, it’s often possible for both parties to justify their position.
From my experience, the zero-sum I’m-right-you’re-wrong style of debate started when we started televising them. You may disagree, but I think debate was more productive when we weren’t incentivized to score points on each other.
If that’s Hegelian dialectics, then I prefer that to what you call debate.
I dont know why you brought up “empaths.” That is kinda bad faith if you ask me. No one is talking about pseudo science spirtualism. Empathy, mirroring the feelings of someone else when observing them, is a completely scientifically proven trait people have. There is no debate.
On the one hand, I think everyone hates that person who pulls the “I’m an empath” card.
On the other hand, “empathy isn’t real” is a bad faith attack on the concept of trying to emphasize or even understand people that are different from you.
That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.
Debate is about understanding where the other person is coming from, identifying weaknesses in each other’s position, and working towards shared truths.
Since he couldn’t empathize, Charlie couldn’t debate. So he went with the modern debate strategy: I only win when someone else is losing.
Spoiler alert: That’s how fascists argue. It’s all bad faith arguments.
I noted a while ago that I never once heard Kirk say an argument that wasn’t a debate fallacy. Not one time.
He certainly wasn’t trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth…
What is the “I’m an empath” card?
Are there people who try to make out like they’re Deanna Troi style empaths?
Or do you just mean people who claim to have particularly strong empathy / be particularly empathetic?
As an aside, emphasize isn’t related to empathy, and I didn’t think empathize is a word, although my spell-check apparently thinks it is?
As an empath, I’m really in tune with other people’s emotions, and I cry all the time, so I know that you’re super broken up about not knowing about the empath card - even if you can’t stand to admit it to anyone but me, who’s more in tune with your emotions than you are… Because I’m an empath.
No shit Susan, getting sad at the commercials for starving children doesn’t make you an empath.
Empathize is definitely a word.
It was half-facetious, but I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this. (Watch the first 60 seconds and tell me you didn’t cringe.)
Empathize is a word. It means" to feel or experience empathy", or “to be understanding of”.
When I say Charlie Kirk was arguing in bad faith, I’m saying
he’she was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.I think it’s even simpler than that. Certain words just make them go “Are you calling me a nutcase/soyboy??!!” (or sth like along those lines)
Or the suggestion that therapy is actually a good thing and not a stigma.
I despise when women say “I’m an empath” and then continue to tell you how you feel when that is not actually how I feel. No. You don’t get to claim to know me better than I do.
“…so…you’re an alien from Betazed? I don’t understand.”
This is the kind of thing that fuels his argument. People who are claiming they can literally read your emotions psychically. I get they don’t really mean that, but that is what the damn word means.
It’s different from when they are using it as leverage vurses using it to relate. When it’s used to relate it’s a completely justified use of the word.
You’re describing Hegelian dialectics - not debate.
Debates are usually about proving your position, and thereby proving the other person’s wrong.
That’s how I was taught to debate.
Unless your positions are mutually exclusive, it’s often possible for both parties to justify their position.
From my experience, the zero-sum I’m-right-you’re-wrong style of debate started when we started televising them. You may disagree, but I think debate was more productive when we weren’t incentivized to score points on each other.
If that’s Hegelian dialectics, then I prefer that to what you call debate.
Debate is about convincing your audience, not the people you’re arguing against.
Anyone can teach anyone anything and call it whatever they want.
What you’re talking about is the Hegelian concept of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
As the other commenter pointed out debate is about convincing your audience or judges that you’re correct.
Your way of doing things is a much more constructive way of discussing almost anything on which you disagree with someone, in like, most cases, imo.
I dont know why you brought up “empaths.” That is kinda bad faith if you ask me. No one is talking about pseudo science spirtualism. Empathy, mirroring the feelings of someone else when observing them, is a completely scientifically proven trait people have. There is no debate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154617301031
Did you stop reading after the first sentence?
No, but you included me.
Stop including me!
https://youtu.be/Lsg2qNR5q9I
…okay. I’m blocking you now, so I’m literally not including you anymore.
Bye Felicia