Comment on YSK about the different “ways of knowing”

• richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  And now in a human language, please.

  source

  • ttmrichter@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.

    Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.

    source

    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Really? Leaving people to believe stupid, damaging, dangerous things just because you don’t want to make a scene or don’t want even the least hint of rudeness (probably because you learned that extreme politeness, even at your own expense, is a value) seems a lot less empathetic to me.

      But you do you and follow “your own truth”.

      source

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think you’ve missed the core point of this whole thread.

        You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

        Separate knowing is understanding someone’s position logically or factually. Connected knowing requires an understanding of the context.

        You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

        Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

        Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ttmrichter@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

        I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.

        source