Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would argue that sympathy is more effective than empathy because sympathy doesn't ignore reason.It's not a weakness. Empathy is literally the emotion on which all of civilization is built. Civilization was not built, and never could be built, by a bunch of atomized individuals. It was built out of shared identity, which is a function of empathy. Once civilization got going, there were plenty of developments like slavery -- but still, empathy is the basis of a community or even a nation.
Your views are loathsome and disgusting. Empathy is the most powerful emotion. It is not a weakness at all; it takes great strength. And our best presidents have typically been motivated by empathy (see, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Obama), an dour worst presidents the ones who preached individualism or mindless tribalism (Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, Trump). This isn't a close call.
a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.
You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.why you give into a crying child when they want candy even when you know they shouldn't have it.
Yes, not everyone does everything the same way.You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.
Well, it's more complex than that. There was also the operation of normative gender roles, and in particular the idea that women were not aggressive or competitive enough to play with men.a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.
How would you know, since you possess neither?That doesn't change the point that empathy tends to disregard reason
If you are saying that there was ever a time when women's opportunities in sports were restricted by misogyny, I would agree. Women were supposed to stay in the kitchen, take care of the kids, were too fragile, etc.a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.
Yes, biology shows that males and females are significantly different in ways that are extremely relevant in athletic sports. Among other things males, in general, have 40-60% more muscle mass than females.b) if it's a strawman, then what is your argument? we can throw out fairness, because you haven't been able to show why the competitive advantage supposedly conferred by "maleness" is uniquely unfair compared to that conferred by genetically superior height, build, lactic acid processing ability, or any host of things that make elite athletes elite (also, when have sports ever adhered to a definition of "fair" that means everybody has an equal chance of winning?). you say "biology," but you're arguing exactly the opposite of the scientific consensus of biologists, geneticists, and doctors, so that's out. what's left?
(Intentionally ignored)How would you know, since you possess neither?
Yes, empathy has usefulness in human interactions. For example, your wife may want you to empathize with her when she's had a bad day. A head Coach may inspire his players by empathizing with the situation they are in.Empathy is the foundation of reason in human interactions. Consider a military leader, a quintessentially rational position. The leader is trying to rally troops that have taken huge losses in battle, have had to retreat to possibly terrible positions, and are exhausted. Is a speech about putting nation first really going to inspire them in that moment? Of course not. The leader has to understand how the rank and file are feeling; how to reach them in their times of difficulty; and get them to believe that they can turn it around.
I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.You're just confusing sympathy and empathy.
Remember: sympathy is feeling bad for someone. Empathy is feeling what they are feeling. Empathy requires rationality.
(Intentionally ignored)
Yes, empathy has usefulness in human interactions. For example, your wife may want you to empathize with her when she's had a bad day. A head Coach may inspire his players by empathizing with the situation they are in.
I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.
Yes, and when you put yourself in a position where you aren't just sympathizing, but are literally feeling their feelings, that is where reason tends to go down the drain. As it relates to trans women, YOU feel rejected, YOU feel left out, YOU feel like you aren't truly a woman and it makes YOU sad, and who wants to feel those things? Nobody, of course, so let's just allow males play in female sports because it makes US feel better.
Look back at this entire thread. All of the reasons given for allowing males and girls sports are related to feelings, not reason.
almost nobody is arguing that those biological differences don't exist. rather, i'm saying they are not any more insurmountable than the biological differences that differentiate a WNBA player from a woman whose basketball career ends after high school, which you have yet to refute other than pointing to an invisible moving target of "fairness." was it fair, for example, that zion williamson was playing against high schoolers half his size who probably haven't touched a basketball in close to a decade? don't bother answering, because you've been asked this question or a variation on it about 50 times and haven't come up with an answer.If you are saying that there was ever a time when women's opportunities and sports were restricted by misogyny, I would agree. Women were supposed to stay in the kitchen, take care of the kids, were too fragile, etc.
Yes, biology shows that males and females are significantly different in ways that are extremely relevant in athletic sports. Males, in general, have 40-60% more muscle mass than females.
There's nothing keeping women out of men's sports other than they simply can't compete at increasingly higher levels. Sure, you'll occasionally see a girl as a kicker on a HS football team but that's it.
You are confusing them. Empathy does not cause reason to go down the drain. Empathy is a mode of reason. It's a way of reasoning about subjective and/or phenomenological experience. The opposite of empathy is hegemony.I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.
Yes, and when you put yourself in a position where you aren't just sympathizing, but are literally feeling their feelings, that is where reason tends to go down the drain. As it relates to trans women, YOU feel rejected, YOU feel left out, YOU feel like you aren't truly a woman and it makes YOU sad, and who wants to feel those things? Nobody, of course, so let's just allow males play in female sports because it makes US feel better.
Look back at this entire thread. All of the reasons given for allowing males and girls sports are related to feelings, not reason.
And you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.You are confusing them. Empathy does not cause reason to go down the drain. Empathy is a mode of reason. It's a way of reasoning about subjective and/or phenomenological experience. The opposite of empathy is hegemony.
It's quite simple: you can't reason to your way to good policy if you don't know what that policy is supposed to accomplish. You cannot understand the goals of policy without empathy. Hegemony is not a mode of democracy. It is usually not reasonable (which is why it has to be hegemonic).
I'm not arguing with you about this. Once again, this is a topic I know well and you've never thought about except in slogans. Funny how our dynamics keep coming back to this.
I'm not.You are confusing them.
Empathy doesn't always cause reason to go down the drain. Empathy is about feelings. Feelings are not reason.Empathy does not cause reason to go down the drain. Empathy is a mode of reason. It's a way of reasoning about subjective and/or phenomenological experience. The opposite of empathy is hegemony.
What a policy is supposed to accomplish shouldn't be about feelingsIt's quite simple: you can't reason to your way to good policy if you don't know what that policy is supposed to accomplish.
That's silly. Of course you can.You cannot understand the goals of policy without empathy.
I'm not endorsing hegemony, nor do I think hegemony is the opposite of empathy.Hegemony is not a mode of democracy. It is usually not reasonable (which is why it has to be hegemonic).
Ok.I'm not arguing with you about this.
Wrong.Once again, this is a topic I know well and you've never thought about except in slogans.
That's your POV.Funny how our dynamics keep coming back to this.
He and Silence are just bad people.And you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
Zen didn't come to his beliefs after thought and reflection. He just hates women and queers.
^^^^^Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message.^^^^And you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
Zen didn't come to his beliefs after thought and reflection. He just hates women and queers.
Transphobia, homophobia, and misogyny don't require rebuttals - they are per se invalid.^^^^^Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message.^^^^