I didn’t know crap about this guy a week ago. I have 2 sons who sort of like this guy but can’t really tell me why. They get pissed off when I ask about him although I’m not putting him down, since I knew nothing about him. Now though, after reading at least 10 articles from left/right/middle/ websites and can positively say that the one shot that killed him was a great fucking shot. No one should die for what they’re saying… but then Hitler said many things too but was not killed.
He was in many ways one of the causes of the decline of constructive political discussions. A man who’s income came from having political discussions asking people to prove him wrong and never ceding ground. Debate club disguised as discussion, then filmed and posted to the internet for the masses to see his ideas “win”. There was no evidence on a single issue that could change his mind except his donors telling him to or polling indicating he’s losing support over his stance.
In many ways it’s reminiscent of old videos in which preachers debate scientists about evolution before the scientists either learned to debate to a crowd or got replaced with science educators.
New age, huh?
1908, modeled on German Einfühlung (from ein “in” + Fühlung “feeling”), which was coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) as a translation of Greek empatheia “passion, state of emotion,”
I looked up empatheia and it turns out to mean maliciousness and having an opposite meaning
What a great concept to teach boys/young adults who are still developing or struggling with emotional intelligence.
The world is better without him.
Empathy is about understanding where someone is coming from. Plain and simple.
Charlie Kirk had no empathy because he had no interest in understanding where people were coming from when he debated with them. He was always on the attack and never tried to understand his opponent.
He was the apogee of the thoughts and prayers kind of people.
Empathy for me and sympathy for thee kind of people.
Not understanding the difference between empathy and sympathy also means they can’t understand how empathy is a strength that can be used to your advantage.
Is empathy a strategic imperative? A review essay
Despite its softer connotations, empathy is hard, requiring strategists to confront misperceptions and false assumptions, and overcome individual egos and national hubris. This article reviews the literature, examining some of the gaps and costs incurred. Whilst strategic empathy may have transactional and instrumental connotations, it suggests that the concept holds greater potential to transform strategy. Used wisely, it offers an ethos and means to put people first, foster greater security, and offer innovative approaches to contemporary challenges.
Yeah, I knew it was taken out of context but is this really that much better? There are plenty of other examples.
So the rest of the quote reveals a kind of sociopathic narcissism in which he argues that empathy doesn’t exist, so instead you just need to passively look down on others.
The context makes it clear that he does not mean “sympathy” in it’s “i support you” meaning but the “you have my sympathy” - aka “thoughts and prayers” - meaning.
I am starting to think that this guy was an asshole.
I mean this is how he argues too. Well, look where that got him.
Starting?
I honestly never heard of the guy until all of this. With that said, he worked for Faux News, so it’s a given.
The full context makes it even worse.
Empathy isn’t just about feeling, it’s about perspective. Not only do you attempt to understand the feeling, you try to understand the situation the person is in that led to those feelings. Sympathy is acknowledging something bad happened to someone, but that doesn’t mean you personally appreciate the emotions of the other person.
Charlie Kuck dropped out of college after 1 semester and it shows.
One semester? Looked like he was only there a couple hours TOPS before-- OH, oh, oh… I got ya.
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.
That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.
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?
Empathize is definitely a word.
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’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 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.
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?
…okay. I’m blocking you now, so I’m literally not including you anymore.
Bye Felicia
ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?
KIRK: Too many. [Applause]
ATTENDEE: In America, it’s five. Now, five is a lot, right, I’m going to give you — I’m going to give you some credit. Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?
KIRK: Counting or not counting gang violence?
If this had gone on, the next question should be “does gang violence only count as three-fifths of a violence to you?”
This was their framing before they went to the event https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN69cs5Ecab/
But also - even if you add gang violence to the figures, all it would do is dilute the number of trans shooters further, if taken as a genuine premise, he devastates his own argument.
Of course it’s not a genuine question though as he’s not attempting to have an honest discussion, he’s just trying to throw in a racist whataboutism to distract (and hopefully derail) the initial discussion. Standard right-wing chud ‘debate’ behaviour.
No the reason he asked that question about gang violence is because gang violence numbers are a huge percentage of mass shooting numbers, so if you take them out of the calculation then the percentage of trans shooters is much higher and it is a debate about trans shooters. On the other hand, if you include those numbers then it is a debate about guns in general and ideologies or mental health issues get lost in the noise. I would guess he mostly wanted to make a point that the definition of mass shooting is not really in line with how people think of them.
I thought the quote was bad, the full version is almost worse.
We go from “mean” to “mean and stupid”.
