You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.
Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.
Comment on YSK about the different “ways of knowing”
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months agoI 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.
ttmrichter@lemmy.world 11 months ago
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 11 months ago
But in that case, the battle is already lost. I cannot engage with the person in a manipulative emotional way to use their emotions to shock them out of their mistaken positions. Any further communication regarding the matter is useless. And glossing over some topics is being an accomplice, but apparently that’s the only viable response.
Departing with people espousing damaging views for society, given that as you say reason is not a tool that works, is pointless.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
It’s only pointless if your sole objective is to demonstrate to everyone how right you are about everything.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 11 months ago
Or if you don’t want to be a silent accomplice of certain evils in society.
Would you have nice chats with a mass murderer about art?
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
Sorry you’ve lost me.
We usually lock up murderers to prevent them from harming others. That being the case, I guess you could chat to them about art if you were really interested in that.
That said, if you were trying to prevent future murders of course you’d need to try to understand the murderers perspective.