Where is the Common Ground?

[kellyb]

Sensational to see leftists straining for common ground!

Another great thread

You're not a Trump fan yourself, tho, right? You voted for him for the SCOTUS picks?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think of it mostly as a mental "mark" on a human "mark", as in this:

http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/car_j-p.htm


Trump's a con artist who saw this demographic of hate radio listeners and infowars watchers and identified them, correctly, as marks.

Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Sure, kellyb, sure.



Revealing, once again, that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're making multiple mistakes of logic here.

First, you think I'm arguing for inverse empathy, that is, if empathy favors a policy, then that means I should oppose it. But that's not the case at all. I'm arguing that you shouldn't use empathy. Using it in an inverse manner is still using it.

Second, even if you want to use empathy to guide your public policy choices, that doesn't uniquely determine what those policies will be. Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.

Third, I'm not arguing about specific policies, I'm arguing about the basis for evaluating policies. So in regard to the policy you referenced, bail money, I haven't taken a stand for or against it. It's an issue I'm unfamiliar with. I'm not saying you should oppose the proposed change, as you seem to think. I'm saying you should evaluate it on the basis of something other than empathy. A proper basis of consideration should include logical analysis, and it can include compassion as well (because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy). It may well be that such an analysis will still favor this proposal. Because again, I'm not arguing for inverse empathy. Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable. And that means it's not reliably right or reliably wrong. If it was reliably wrong, then it would be incredibly useful for evaluating choices.

I am a liberal, yet I understand what you are saying about empathy versus other kinds of feelings(non-logical evaluation) and the combination with logic.
We disagree on the highlighted part.
It should always include compassion or some form of evaluation connected to some form of value. You can't do it based on logic alone.

 

[kellyb]

Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.

But they like helping the rich get richer, faster. That's what all these decades of hate radio and Fox have primed them to do. It's "the deep state" and immigrants who they see as the enemy now.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So basically everyone is agreement that we need to meet on common ground as long as they get to decide what the common ground is.

Glad we cleared that up. Next we can all agree that the other side needs to compromise with us on everything we're willing to compromise on.

Common ground is that we are all humans and worthy of consideration. The extreme ends of left-right don't consider the other side worthy of consideration.
But that doesn't mean that you have to go along with neither the extreme left nor right.
As a moderate there are subjects I won't compromise because it defeats the purpose of common ground.
And that has nothing to do with Trump in particular.

 

[WilliamSeger]

"Empathy" meaning "It is, in general, just a good base idea to at least try to understand how other people are feeling" is good.

"Empathy" meaning "If you truly understood how I felt you'd agree with me" is bad.

I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am a liberal, yet I understand what you are saying about empathy versus other kinds of feelings(non-logical evaluation) and the combination with logic.
We disagree on the highlighted part.
It should always include compassion or some form of evaluation connected to some form of value. You can't do it based on logic alone.

I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.

The point is that raw emotions can lead to bad decisions.
You need rationality and empathy.
Don't get bogged down in the definition game of what is the correct word.
Try to hold the point of what Ziggurat is saying. Raw emotions can lead to bad decisions.

 

[uke2se]

Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.

I don't think it would do any good. You can't "show" these people anything. You could provide solid evidence of Trump colluding with Russia and the best you could hope for is a "I'm glad he did". Most likely you would get outright denial of what's plainly in front of their eyes. We've seen plenty of examples of this already. Trumpists have elected to shut their eyes to reality and stick their fingers in their ears. They are unreachable, and we shouldn't waste time and effort trying to reach them.

 

[kellyb]

I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.

Right, and that has little to do with "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others", the dictionary definition of compassion.

Empathy simply is based on seeing (or trying your best to see) other humans as your "value equals" as a default.

I wonder if that's at the heart of the wealthy libertarian allergy to empathy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Empathy is not necessarily completely subjective. "Broad spectrum" empathy is possible.

No, it isn't. Whatever it is that you mean by that, it's not empathy.

Where are you getting your definitions of empathy and compassion from?

Get them from the dictionary, if you like. They aren't the same.

Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless.

Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system. Neither empathy nor logic provide a value system by themselves. But given a particular value system, you should use logic, not empathy, to compare options against your value system.

 

[ahhell]

Common ground is that we are all humans and worthy of consideration. The extreme ends of left-right don't consider the other side worthy of consideration.
But that doesn't mean that you have to go along with neither the extreme left nor right.
As a moderate there are subjects I won't compromise because it defeats the purpose of common ground.
And that has nothing to do with Trump in particular.

My concern these days is that it's not just the extremes that are dehumanizing the opposition. Seems like a tendency that's spreading to the middle too.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.

Actually, that seems like a case where you could have "empathy" for the people who have to drive on that road and live along it when you made the decision. In fact, I'm not sure what else you'd base it on.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.

Well, no! That has to do with that some humans overestimate their own abilities and don't understand that even 5 mph can make a difference depending on the type of road and so on.
And thus we are back to being rational. Some humans are not rational when it comes to their understanding of how they feel. I.e. I am a good driver and don't you tell me otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, that seems like a case where you could have "empathy" for the people who have to drive on that road and live along it when you made the decision. In fact, I'm not sure what else you'd base it on.

Really? You can't think of any other basis than empathy? A logical analysis of what speed limit actually maximizes safety seems a pretty obvious one. And no, lower speed limits are not always safer.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Really? You can't think of any other basis than empathy? A logical analysis of what speed limit actually maximizes safety seems a pretty obvious one. And no, lower speed limits are not always safer.

Why would you care about someone else's safety?

 

[kellyb]

No, it isn't. Whatever it is that you mean by that, it's not empathy.

Empathy is just a mental thing that happens when "observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others". In neuroscience.

Get them from the dictionary, if you like. They aren't the same.

I asked YOU where YOU were getting YOUR defintions of them from.

Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system. Neither empathy nor logic provide a value system by themselves. But given a particular value system, you should use logic, not empathy, to compare options against your value system.

So whatever you do, do not use observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others when building your value system?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality/logic/etc is" discussion?

 

[uke2se]

So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality is" discussion?

Nope. No chance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would you care about someone else's safety?

Lots of possible reasons. Compassion, for example. Self-preservation, if you like. Empathy isn't required. I need not know anything about another person in order to want them to be safe.