logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Empathy in Politics, Addressing a question thats commonly asked especially during elections
net2007
post Oct 31 2020, 10:15 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Happy Halloween Americas Debate!

So I saw a question on Quora.com recently where a member asked the following....

QUOTE
"Are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)? It seems like Liberals are more interested in the common good for everyone, while Conservatives are more interested in personal wealth and safety."


https://www.quora.com/Are-Liberals-Democrat...alth-and-safety

This is an older question that I found so my answer is unlikely to stir much in the way of conversation on Quora. However, the assumption that was made in their question is very common so I think it's important to address. With that said, I thought I'd take this topic and bring it to a few different platforms for debate. Most of what you read below will be the answer I gave on Quora but I've adapted it some to be more relevant here. True to America's Debate tradition I'll also follow things up with a few questions at the bottom.

So are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)?

To give my own perspective here, I don't see any evidence of this. Despite how divisive things have gotten, I don't think that most people have an inability to empathize with others. Liberals and conservatives often have different ways of approaching problems but we also face many of the same struggles. With that said, it's not impossible to relate to others in political discussions.

There's no shortage of unfair and shallow-minded people on both sides of the political aisle but I'd consider that the most divisive amongst us tend to be the most vocal and tend to get the most attention because of it.

The idea that conservatives have trouble empathizing or are prone to bigotry is not only common, it's even emphasized in our elections. We could point to a number of policy stances where the right and Republicans have focused on more than economics or "safety", such as school choice, opportunity zones, and prison reform but the idea that conservatives are unempathetic is a character argument first and foremost.

During election seasons, Democrat politicians, strategists, and media pundits have gone to these types of character arguments for a long time and this has only amplified under the Trump administration. In fact, from what I can tell their number one strategy right now goes something like this...
  • Trump is unempathetic, rude, and even bigoted so vote for Joe Biden because he's a safe, mature, and moral alternative to the president.
Frankly, I think criticizing Trump over his tone is perfectly understandable. I believe most people understand that he can get carried away with his rhetoric. He's very blunt and has said things before that have added fuel to the fire. Having said that, I worry that many Americans don't understand exactly how divisive Democrats can be and I'm not just talking about left-wing extremists and protesters who go too far. I'm talking about the leadership in the Democratic party and that includes Joe Biden.

This isn't a one-sided problem so to gain a clear perspective requires looking at the words and actions of both the left and right. The question is, do conservatives really stand out when it comes to lacking empathy? Personally, I don't believe so. While I think most liberals in the general public are willing to show an interest in the "common good" and express empathy, the radical left and Democrat politicians often don't.

So to get to the heart of this topic, if I were to include moderate liberals, classical liberals, the far left, and Democrats, we're obviously talking about a mixed bag of individuals. However, the far left and Democrats who are in positions of power or influence have...
  • On numerous topics and on numerous occasions, accused conservatives of exactly the same type of behavior that they exhibit on a regular basis.
Why is this important?

If we were to think about this in simple terms, it'd be important to establish what empathy is. Unlike the word sympathy, the word empathy implies that we not only feel emotions for another person but we feel for them because we can relate to their struggles. In fact, the definition of empathy is...

QUOTE
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.


With that considered, projection is quite different. It's probably the polar opposite of empathy because those who project usually aren't concerned about others because they can relate to them, they condemn others because they assume or act as if their own problems relate to others.

So the words projection and empathy are fairly similar, the primary difference is that when someone projects, it usually comes with a condemnation of others and doesn't require that they actually "share" anything with those who are being condemned. This makes projection particularly relevant in conversations about empathy.

  • For Substantiation


If anyone finds it hard to believe that projection is commonplace on the radical left and with Democrats who are in positions of power or influence, consider some of the following examples...
  • Recently Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refused to answer whether or not they'd pack the supreme court. The left-wing of the Democratic party has been pushing for court-packing so there's reason to believe this idea is, at a minimum, tempting to the Biden campaign. Either way, Biden and Harris have gotten backlash for not giving a clear answer on court-packing. The way Democrats handled this was by simply claiming that Trump and Republicans are the ones who are court-packing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWXGnkfj3dc

Joe Biden isn't alone either, many Democrats are now accusing Republicans of court-packing. For example, Senator Dick Durbin said the following...

QUOTE
"The American people have watched the Republicans packing the court for the past three and a half years,"


https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-sh...-the-past-three

The members at ad.gif are experienced so I wouldn't doubt most of the members here understand this already but for informational purposes, Republicans are filling vacancies to the Supreme Court for existing open seats. Court-packing is the act of increasing the number of seats on a court. Imagine if a football game were to end with the score 14 -17 and someone decided to come along and add a 5th quarter to the game to give the losing team a chance to catch up. Essentially that's what Democrats have been suggesting when they talk about court-packing.

For more examples of projection...
  • Generally speaking, the states with the highest unemployment rates today are blue states with Democrat governors. This is due primarily to Covid-19 shutdowns. We can have a fair debate about shutdowns, at a minimum I think we should continue to be careful. However, the states with the highest Covid-19 death rates are also generally blue states with Democrat governors. Yet numerous Democrat politicians are pointing almost solely at Trump for any bad news or statistic in relation to Covid-19. Some of the scrutiny being directed at Trump is warranted so I think this would come across differently if they were saying that Trump should share in taking responsibility but many prominent Democrats aren't saying that.
Covid-19 statistics are a very involved topic, I started gathering information on them months ago when I writing a reply to Julian's Covid topic here and a bit prior to that. I never finished that reply but since that time I've learned a lot so if anyone wants me to elaborate on the arguments I made in the last bullet point, I'd be happy to. For now, I'll share one last example of projection in our national politics because this example will be a bit involved...
  • In relation to the Ukraine, Biden was accused of a quid pro quo and within a year Trump was being accused of a quid pro quo with the same exact country, an accusation that eventually led to Democrats impeaching Trump.
To go over this story some...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...prosecutor.html

Originally, it was the following quote from Joe Biden that caught the public's attention...

QUOTE
"I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired."


https://youtu.be/_jyT1rnW9fA

The prosecutor that Biden is referring to was Viktor Shokin who happened to be investigating Burisma Holdings which is a major Ukrainian natural gas producer. For informational purposes, Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings and they were under investigation for corrupt business practices.

This story has recently resurfaced due to leaked emails that reference both Joe Biden and his son Hunter and due to Tony Bobulinski, a whistleblower who was a former Biden business associate.
As far as the Trump quid pro quo narrative is concerned, it became national news almost immediately, even in the first few days when all we had to go on was the complaint of an anonymous whistleblower who only had secondhand knowledge. Additionally, some of those who supported this narrative criticized anyone who wanted Trump's whistleblower's name to be publicized and that remained the case well into the impeachment hearings. The New York Times was even scrutinized for releasing information.

New York Times criticized for publishing details about whistleblower...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-n...blower-n1059331

On the other hand, the Biden quid pro quo story has been treated quite differently. A lot of people who are in positions of power and influence, don't want to talk about this even with a whistleblower who has publically and voluntarily come forward with information. In my opinion, based on Joe Biden's 2018 comment alone, this has the appearance of a quid pro quo even without Bobulinski recently coming forward. Some Democrats have argued that this wasn't a quid pro quo because Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted investigator Shokin fired but given Biden's son was on the same board that was being investigated for corruption, I think this should be looked at because that gives Biden a motive to fire Shokin that others wouldn't have had.

The primary evidence that was used to target Trump was a phone call that he made with President Zelenskyy. Other than that, it was mostly hearsay testimony. Here's the Trump/Zelenskyy phonecall transcript from NBC news...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impe...sident-n1058581

If anyone can point out something as clear and obvious as Joe Biden saying...

QUOTE
"I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired."


I'm willing to listen. Personally, given the timing of this and lack of interest in looking deeper into accusations against Biden, I believe Democrats were projecting and perhaps even focused on a Trump quid pro quo narrative to divert attention away from Joe Biden. Either way, I will say this much. Projection happens a lot in politics and both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of it. In fact, both political parties have a range of problems. I happen to believe projection is one of the Democratic party's greatest problems but I also think that should be open for debate as well.

So I want to be clear here. My argument isn't that most Democrats and left of center Americans blame others for their problems or that divisive rhetoric is what defines Democrats Trump also lacks empathy in key areas and frequently speaks out of his rear end. However, the stereotype that conservatives lack empathy when compared to the left is little more than misinformation and that's my primary point.

To move on and switch focus some...

Lacking empathy or talking past others in political discussions is behavior that can spread to civilians who have taken what corrupt politicians and media pundits say at face value. Although I think most people are far more concerned about the everyday struggles they face rather political drama, the problem is that the more someone gets involved in politics, the more they get exposed to those who set out to divide or indoctrinate.

I want to share just three personal exchanges I've had on Quora to illustrate what this can do. This is about more than projection, sometimes being outright disrespectful or having a conversation where the arguments of others are completely disregarded can also show a lack of empathy, and again I don't believe these behaviors are exclusive to the political right.

As a side note, despite the lack of activity at ad.gif these days, political discussions are still very much alive online although many of them aren't very civil or insightful...
  • Example 1
https://www.quora.com/Who-tends-to-be-right...chard-St-John-7

This conversation started with me responding to the answer of a conservative member on Quora. More or less, I agreed with his points. I didn't resort to personal attacks but was critical of the left and didn't mince words about it so this attracted the attention of a member who repeated and defended numerous left-leaning positions and talking points. Take a look at the discussion that's linked above to judge for yourself if they were effective at communicating their beliefs but to give you a brief summary.

My use of the term "pro-abortion" was condemned and characterized as "libelous" yet this member repeatedly made rude, condescending, and hypocritical remarks that seemed to get worse with each passing reply. To quote some of his rhetoric, he had the following things to say...

QUOTE
"I want to be very clear here: Your claim is blatantly false if not libelous. Oh, and screw you."

"I had to laugh at that. Really, are you that unobservant?"

"Thanks for wasting another of my Saturday mornings."

"Get a life, dude."


I found this a bit amusing because these comments were coming from someone who expressed concern over how I was framing abortion. I disagreed with most of his points and engaged in some banter of my own in this conversation but also repeatedly gave credit to liberals where I felt it was due and gave olive branches where I felt I could. For example, here's some of what I said to try to reach some middle ground with him...

QUOTE
"I can understand some wanting to use the term fetus, particularly at an early developmental stage."

"I'm not against abortion in extreme circumstances"

"The problem isn't so much with the women who have had an abortion"

"I have no doubt that there are well-meaning Democrats and liberals or ones who will be straight forward and honest about abortion."

"There are many legitimate criticisms that should be made when conservatives do something wrong"


He absolutely would not reciprocate and short of me agreeing with him or becoming pro-choice I have doubts that he would have. I'm fine with a heated discussion but when a person is held up to standards that aren't being met by the other participant in the conversation, it calls into question their sincerity. Talking about empathy is easy and pointing towards others when it's felt that they made an unfair or libelous statement, is also very easy. Checking our own behaviors to see if we're living up to any expectations that are placed on others, I believe is much more difficult and also more rare than it should be in political discussions.

Again, anyone here is more than welcome to read these exchanges to judge for themselves if I'm giving a fair characterization of them. This is just to share some of my personal experiences to go along with some of the articles and videos I shared previously.
  • Example 2
https://www.quora.com/Are-conservatives-les...nswer/Al-Nelson

In response to the question... Are conservatives less creative than liberals? a member on Quora gave the following answer...

QUOTE
"Yes. The science is clear.
Conservatives are less open to new experiences, more fearful, less tolerant, require more structure, hierarchy and organization. They value tradition, constancy, familiarity. They resist change, innovation, experimentation."


Given I'm very interested in science, I was willing to dive in deep on this topic. I wasn't convinced by most of his claims and had a different perspective to share in many ways but in this conversation, I said very little to stir the pot. I even started pulling up sources that supported his arguments but by the end of it, all he had to contribute was a short, rude, and sarcastic paragraph...

QUOTE
"Man, save yourself thousands of words. I have worked in creative fields my whole life, as a creative and managed departments of creatives in entertainment, recruited, evaluated them, studied the science and reality of it. No **** (Ben Shapiro) firehose of blah, blah, blah will undo 50 years of hands-on experience in art, music, TV, film and video games. BTW, you do not want to use those images to portray creativity, they are the other thing."


For informational purposes, the images he's referencing in that quote are of some of my mother's artwork. I presented pictures like these to show creativity on behalf of those who aren't liberal...

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-021aa...50feeab0544fb8c

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-49b67...1a5a3c8b846e7c1

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9a49c...1d42762e776052f

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3630d...90b47d8dd21da0d


My primary argument was that the left and right often simply differ in some of their creative interests. I also think that political beliefs can also be very irrelevant to creativity. Overall, A LOT of statistical information and scientific studies were presented in this conversation so I still think it's well worth a read. I just wish I could have kept him engaged in the discussion longer because we shared at least one creative hobby.
  • Example 3
I'll just go over this one briefly...

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-conservatives-...ael-Matthews-60

In this example, there wasn't much in the way of substance. This member flat out agreed that she was discriminating against conservatives although she justified that by characterizing all conservatives as infants who think unacceptable behavior is okay...

QUOTE
"half of the country's politics being divided between infants and professors. Why would anyone argue with an infant?"

"Yeah I discriminate against groups that think unacceptable behavior is okay."


This is very interesting in relation to the topic of projection or hypocrisy because if someone dehumanizes an entire race, gender, or political group, then almost any behavior would become justifiable. That may be, in part, why some people exhibit behavior that they condemn others for, they view their political opposition as morally inferior. Consider that if someone genuinely believes that another group is outright fascistic, it can go a long way to diminish their incentive for treating them fairly or with respect.

A lot of people do characterize conservatives as generally unempathetic, unintelligent, bigoted, or a combination of the three. Particularly those who are in a position of power or influence and these stereotypes of conservatives are pressed during election seasons with absolute determination.

So to wrap this up

Election day is almost here and many people are confident that Joe Biden is a safe, mature, and empathetic alternative to the president. This, above anything else, may win Biden the election. Is Trump empathetic? I think we could all point to examples where he hasn't been but again I think if the character traits of opposing political parties are being assessed, it'd be important to look at both sides.

Nearly every unappealing thing that Trump says becomes mainstream news. On the other hand, the primary argument being made against Biden appears to be that he lacks mental acuity. Personally, I think Biden's temperament and capacity for empathy should also be a topic. This is frequently overlooked but it's not uncommon for Biden to become emotional or lose his temper when he's challenged or can't answer a question.

Joe Biden...
  • Called a young woman on the campaign trail a 'lying dog-faced pony soldier" and this was someone who was likely listening to Biden's speech because she was considering voting for him. This happened at one of his events after a simple question was asked.
  • Biden called another man a "a damn liar" and what sounded like the word "fat". Although Biden denies he used the word fat, it's clear that he lost his temper regardless. Biden even challenged this man to do pushups so it's not hard to believe that what sounded like the word fat was indeed Joe Biden body shaming a senior citizen.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/12/06/joe-bid...-voter-fat.html
  • Biden told a young black man who was considering voting for him that "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black"
  • Biden said "You can't go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" and then said, "I'm not joking".
This barely scratches the surface, it's an ongoing problem for Biden that appears to be intensifying with time.
  • Very recently when Joe Biden was asked about his position on court-packing, he went as far as to reply that voters "don't deserve" to know where he stands.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender...rt-packing/amp/
  • Again, very recently, Joe Biden said "we don't do things like those chumps out there with the microphone are doing, the Trump guys. It's about decency" "we have to come together"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5qTv62BTO8

This last example highlights the assumption that Biden has an empathetic character. Biden himself has used slogans such as...

QUOTE
"Make America Moral Again"


and has said...

QUOTE
"We're in a fight for the soul of America."


But is he living up to those standards? For me, Biden saying that "we have to come together" in the same sentence where he's calling his political opponent's "chumps" speaks for itself.
Biden's temper and mental acuity problems have been severe enough for his campaign staff to alow or perhaps encourage him to use a teleprompter to answer questions. Teleprompters are typically used to give prepared speeches so there are many reasons to be concerned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD6MnMYj3Cs...eature=youtu.be

Most of us have a degree of bias, myself included so the information I shared here is just to help fill in the blanks some. Personally, my experience has been that the far left and Democrat politicians have characterized conservatives as bigoted and unempathetic for a LONG time so it's not surprising to me that many of them have lacked empathy for conservatives for a LONG time. Between that, how the Senate treated Brett Kavanagh during hearings, and the ongoing violent rioting, etc. etc. I don't see the evidence that conservatives are lacking in empathy, at least not by comparison to any other major political group.

As chaotic as things have gotten, I still think that most Americans can empathize with their political opponents but it's rough out there. The little insults and stabs that some people take are one thing. What worries me the most is the sheer amount of misinformation and false narratives that are taken at face value, particularly by those who are just becoming active in politics. There's usually a lot more going on than what can be learned by hearing one opinion or set of facts and unfortunately no shortage of individuals who will cover one set of facts as if they end the debate or can't be challenged. Belief systems can take many years to develop and when a bad idea is learned from a very young age as part of that belief system, it can be nearly impossible to reverse. If someone grows to believe that a particular political party or movement cares about "the common good for everyone" often they'll be willing to overlook inconsistencies and problems within that movement. Politicians know this and use it to their advantage. Journalists and veteran political debaters know also know this so I believe there's a danger of indoctrination that can't be understated.

Questions for Debate....

1. "Are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)?"

2. Do you believe Americans are generally unempathetic towards those with opposing political viewpoints?

3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?

4. How important is character in a politician and are there any specific character traits that you view as most important?

Bonus: Who are you voting for and why?

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 31 2020, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
droop224
post Nov 1 2020, 01:21 AM
Post #2


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,866
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-sh...-the-past-three

The members at ad.gif are experienced so I wouldn't doubt most of the members here understand this already but for informational purposes, Republicans are filling vacancies to the Supreme Court for existing open seats. Court-packing is the act of increasing the number of seats on a court. Imagine if a football game were to end with the score 14 -17 and someone decided to come along and add a 5th quarter to the game to give the losing team a chance to catch up. Essentially that's what Democrats have been suggesting when they talk about court-packing.


I want to debate court packing on a separate debate, but this is a prime example of why its so hard to debate conservatives. Twilight Zone. Republicans have gone a complete 180 from what they said just 4 years ago. It doesn't matter. A Republican does not need to be fair, their constituency care only that they think they are "winning".

Lets get to this debate, welcome back Net.
QUOTE
So are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)?


Here is my issue, you got enough wiggle room in here to mix and match to make your point.

Individuals. As individuals your political party won't determine your level of compassion to people you know or your level of generosity to people you don't know. It's impossible to answer.

Politicians. Well again a politician is an individual. You can easily find a Republican that did something compassionate and a Democrat that did something horrific.

It's cherry picking heaven and one thing about you Net you LOVE to cherry pick!!

But if we look at the politics and the policies supported by Democrats vs Republicans, like: "You're either with us or against us!!" Would that be more of a policy espoused and supported by Conservatives or Liberals? War, killing a bunch of Human Beings, liberals or Conservatives?? Free health care for human beings?? Liberals or Conservatives?

Oh I got one. Trick question, "Stealing... from the rich!!" Conservative or Liberal? Compassionate or not? aaaaaaggghhh!!

See due to the immense rationalization abilities of the Conservative it's difficult proceed in this debate earnestly. See Conservatives live the code "if we do it and we think we should... it's good!! But if you do it and we don't want you to....it's bad"

9/11/2001 killed 3,000 Americans. How many human beings have died as a result of our actions? Is the number proportionate? But here comes good ol Conservative rationalization process. "How many human beings would die if we don't act?" How is this answered? The answer: However the conservative wants. They can make any number they want. They'll probably bring up the holocaust.

I've had debates on this board with Conservatives that have argued that dropping NUKES on Japan was the more compassionate option because the other option would have to be kill millions.

I mean as a group, a political platform, what are the compassionate political programs/platforms that conservatives(Republicans) stand for that liberals(Democrats) stand against? Excluding abortion, name just three(3).

Edited to add:

Do you conservatives on this board know about "Republican Jesus"

2. Do you believe Americans are generally unempathetic towards those with opposing political viewpoints?

Depends how you spin it. I am generally unempathetic to political viewpoints that say we need to protect the wealth of the richest 5% of Americans. While i don't agree on Conservative views on abortions, i am empathetic to those political view.

3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?

No. Except Fox News. They are awful.

4. How important is character in a politician and are there any specific character traits that you view as most important? I'll say it should be important.

Bonus: Who are you voting for and why? Biden. because I am anti-Trump. Trump isn't the devil, he's a Human being like the rest of us. We all have a little of Trump's personality in each of us, and its the worst part of us.



This post has been edited by droop224: Nov 1 2020, 05:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 4 2020, 03:08 AM
Post #3


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop I'll get you a reply here in a few days or less. Good luck tonight, the race looks tight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 5 2020, 07:56 PM
Post #4


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,866
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 3 2020, 09:08 PM) *
Droop I'll get you a reply here in a few days or less. Good luck tonight, the race looks tight.

Well take your time. Meanwhile we having a Democratically elected President calling for votes to no longer be counted because he was winning... See Republicans are cool with this... but they can't believe the dastardly Hillary Clinton having an email server that she received emails from the State Department.


Edited to add: Let me correct myself. The President only want to stop counting votes... in the States he is losing. If we stop counting all together we can all go home, the election is over. What kind of person votes for this type of person to lead us?


This post has been edited by droop224: Nov 5 2020, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 6 2020, 03:08 PM
Post #5


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,227
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



1. "Are Liberals more empathetic than Conservatives?"

No. Iíve seen a lack of empathy from both. Is it equally so? I canít answer that question. Unfortunately, it seems like the unempathetic ones have the loudest voices - and shock value is sensational and drives social media and the news.

2. Do you believe Americans are generally unempathetic towards those with opposing political viewpoints?

No. Perhaps, Iím being overly optimistic, but again, I feel the unempathetic voices are in the minority, but are the loudest.

3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?

Yes. Conflict seems to be where the media sits right now- they thrive on it, it makes the money. Itís one of the biggest problems for discourse in this country. Everyone wants to be a talking head.

4. How important is character in a politician and are there any specific character traits that you view as most important?

Character is important. Integrity is vital - it is also hard to find in many politicians on both sides of the aisle. Biden is not the bastion of integrity, but Trump is the antithesis of it. His behavior at the moment exemplifies that.

Bonus: Who are you voting for and why?

Biden. Because heís not Trump. This election, IMO, has been less a repudiation of Republican conservatism (look at the down ballot) and more a repudiation of Trump - and deservedly so.

Trump is not the devil, but he is a narcissist and, I would argue, a sociopath (at best). He is not good for democracy - heís made that abundantly clear over the last few days.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Nov 6 2020, 03:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 6 2020, 04:13 PM
Post #6


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,866
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 5 2020, 01:56 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 3 2020, 09:08 PM) *
Droop I'll get you a reply here in a few days or less. Good luck tonight, the race looks tight.

Well take your time. Meanwhile we having a Democratically elected President calling for votes to no longer be counted because he was winning... See Republicans are cool with this... but they can't believe the dastardly Hillary Clinton having an email server that she received emails from the State Department.


Edited to add: Let me correct myself. The President only want to stop counting votes... in the States he is winning. If we stop counting all together we can all go home, the election is over. What kind of person votes for this type of person to lead us?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Nov 19 2020, 05:41 AM
Post #7


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 750
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



1. "Are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)?"

My personal experience says no but one side puts considerable effort into making a public spectacle of it.

2. Do you believe Americans are generally unempathetic towards those with opposing political viewpoints?

The rise of cynical and jaded reactions might be the result of a polarized environment.

3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?

Yes. I think the best description was found here describing how there are fiefdoms which are nothing more than echo chambers.

4. How important is character in a politician and are there any specific character traits that you view as most important?

The character of a person while important is not the defining feature of a successful movement. Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard have illustrated politics is a group sport and not an individual one. Both had careers which were tolerated at best and outright extinguished when the time was right.

Bonus: Who are you voting for and why?

As an outsider I cannot participate. I can only watch.

The why part will take a little more to elaborate on. I will root for the side that reveals and roots out corruption. I would side with the incumbent in this case because he is a lightning rod for criticism and much has been revealed about the media and intelligence agencies during this presidency!

I started constructing a flow chart of how and when empathy was employed in the modern era and it was a surprisingly messy endeavor. It is revealing but not particularly pithy. The parties employ empathy differently as their priorities are different. Big surprise not so much. If you want more detail just ask.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 19 2020, 06:43 AM
Post #8


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,866
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Trouble)
I started constructing a flow chart of how and when empathy was employed in the modern era and it was a surprisingly messy endeavor. It is revealing but not particularly pithy. The parties employ empathy differently as their priorities are different. Big surprise not so much. If you want more detail just ask.
Would love to see it, so i am asking.
QUOTE
The why part will take a little more to elaborate on. I will root for the side that reveals and roots out corruption. I would side with the incumbent in this case because he is a lightning rod for criticism and much has been revealed about the media and intelligence agencies during this presidency!
Well i'll give President Trump this much, he absolutely revealed corruption.

QUOTE
My personal experience says no but one side puts considerable effort into making a public spectacle of it.
I think that's the point if we are insinuating politics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 27 2020, 10:31 PM
Post #9


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,866
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Is this thing on? unsure.gif mrsparkle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 28 2020, 08:38 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,372
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 27 2020, 06:31 PM) *
Is this thing on? unsure.gif mrsparkle.gif


It is, Droop. laugh.gif
I can only speak for myself, but lately I've "progressed" from talking about politics to just staring.
In gobsmacked speechless amazement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 30 2020, 04:46 AM
Post #11


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 27 2020, 05:31 PM) *
Is this thing on? unsure.gif mrsparkle.gif


Yea, I've just done a very bad job on giving timelines. I'm finally done with the reply I'm writing for you for the most part but I still need to read it so I can do a spell check, make sure the links are positioned in the right spots, and perhaps see if there's something I can remove to shorten things just a bit. This will be a very long reply.

I'm confident I'll be finished either late tomorrow or on Tuesday, knock on wood.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 30 2020, 04:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Dec 1 2020, 05:02 AM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 750
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Would love to see it, so i am asking.


I apologize droop224 for the tardiness. I haven't been ignoring you. I've been doing battle with Canada Post. They been leading me around in circles as this subject has really branched off in ways I had not anticipated and the books I have ordered have been out of print a good long while.

For example I initially tried to argue at the individual level and for every example there was a counter. I looked at the empathy in genetics as a inheritable trait. While interesting it didn't address the more group oriented leanings of the authour's thread. I looked into the modern parlance of the psychologists of the day and the result was they danced around the issue magnificently.

What I can say is that empathy cannot and should not be isolated in itself as it follows a package of emotions depending on who is evoking and whom is receiving. Then watch as empathy changes over time.

So for my seat of the pants assessment based on life experience,

Empathy was expressed more often to figures on the left than the right. You are less likely to get a direct answer from one side than the other but that of itself might be due to lack of knowledge and humility rather than outright apathy. Conversely, a more left leaning person is much more likely to engage in a "what if" question which is not always a good thing if the question is out of the depth of the person in question. For debate purposes let's take the worst case, is it better to encounter a sincerely apathetic person who honestly expresses themselves and honestly expresses a position that is not to your liking verses say, a person who very receptive but later is revealed to be quite the fibber? And to make things just a little bit more complicated what if both situations are true?

What psychologists have found is the more a person expresses empathy the more likely they will express schadenfreude when someone who dissents from their view.

QUOTE
They found that those at the higher end of empathic concern were significantly more likely to want to stop the speech when the speaker was from the opposite party. Those at the higher end of empathic concern were even more likely to show schadenfreude for the injured student when the speaker was from the opposite party, being more likely to find it funny and amusing that the student was injured. So much for empathic concern!


In a nutshell if one side behaves badly, eventually the other side will too. Politics can become tribal after all. Once the world 'badly' is in effect all the other emotions mentioned above come into play. So we now have empathy and envy. Empathy and apathy. My personal favourite, empathy and exhaustion could be argued persuasively. The evolution is when empathy and antagonism come together and you see a discrepancy in power of who is on the receiving end and who is not. The pinnacle, empathy and loathing or ressentiment is where historical reading comes in. History gets interesting when we can honestly say X loathes Y but when looking at the evidence we find the Y had reason to loath X after being on the receiving end for something but not vice versa.

And therein begins my reading list as I'm finding the past was rich in ressentiment.
    Soren Kierkegaard - The Present Age, noting the 19th century incited much envy which made people consider themselves as equals yet still sought advantage over each other.
    Max Scheler, a German sociologist who made a salient observation of the time, "I can forgive everything, but not that you are - that you are what you are - that I am not what you are - indeed I am not you'. Think this guy had some insight on the current problems?
    Hannah Arendt whose concept of negative solidarity needs to be explored in a time of melting pot immigration patterns who are in an ossifying economy.
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau who wrote negatively of the modern economy what it does to the soul, becoming part of someone else' society and how to maintain autonomy in it
I'm sure I am missing others which have escaped scrutiny so far but I am always open to suggestions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Dec 2 2020, 04:49 AM
Post #13


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 31 2020, 08:21 PM) *
Lets get to this debate, welcome back Net........"


Thanks for waiting for this, it took a while to put together. As I said, this reply is very long so it's probably better to read it on a tablet or computer. This reply can be referred back to later as well because I consolidated many sources here. I'll be addressing the points you gave and the question you asked me with a detailed overview to give you substantiation and hopefully some information that'll give you a different perspective. I think this topic is very important. I'll be shortening future replies but am willing to look at any information you present.

To comment on the Republican Jesus video that you shared here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA&t=7s

I thought parts of this were funny. Obviously, this is satire and is a view of the GOP as seen through the eyes of a skeptic but overall it wasn't bad. I'm not religious, I defend Christians primarily on the grounds of religious liberty which I believe is important. From what I understand though, Christians describe Jesus as someone who did believe in taking personal responsibility as well. In other words, they describe him as very giving but not to the extent that he was foolish.

I'll address your quote below before getting into the heart of the topic....

QUOTE
Here is my issue, you got enough wiggle room in here to mix and match to make your point.
Individuals. As individuals your political party won't determine your level of compassion to people you know or your level of generosity to people you don't know. It's impossible to answer.
Politicians. Well again a politician is an individual. You can easily find a Republican that did something compassionate and a Democrat that did something horrific.
It's cherry picking heaven and one thing about you Net you LOVE to cherry pick!!



Cherry-pick by comparison to who though Droop? In my opening post, I shared three examples of the left and Democrat politicians blaming others for the same types of things they do, three examples of personal debates I had to show both projection and personal attacks, and six examples of Joe Biden using the same type of insults that people dislike when it comes from Trump and most what I mentioned came with either direct quotes or links, including the personal experiences I've had. I figure that you'll disagree with some of what I share, that's fine but you made claims and characterizations of your own without substantiating them. That not uncommon in debates and I don't believe that every debate even needs souces. You've also shared substantiation in the past so I'm pointing this out primarily because of the charge you're making against me.

Also, believe it or not, I respect the fact that you're willing to debate these topics. I don't always agree with the points you make and we've had our share of heated discussions but you have the guts to engage with those you disagree with for more than a couple of minutes. If you've meant what you've told me in the past, there might be more that we agree on than you realize. You once told me that you don't believe in evil, neither do I. You're quick to point out that morals and preferences can vary and that what's considered exceptional to Americans, may not be considered exceptional to others and I can understand those arguments. We disagree on a lot but more than anything I think we disagree on which political party is more productive, empathetic, and willing to reach across the aisle.

As I said in my opening post, I wrote a lot of it on Quora.com originally and I'm lucky if I can get the left-wing members their to read three paragraphs, let alone an answer where I show every example I know of to substantiate my arguments. I think classical liberals and moderate Democrats are often very thoughtful and intelligent. I'll maintain that the majority of Americans on both sides of the political aisle mean well and try to be rational but those types generally don't have the desire to discuss politics because there's too much b*******.

The individuals I've spoken with online over the last couple of decades who are on the far or "modern left" have generally had short attention spans. Many of them have been rude, emotional, and unintelligent so I can only go so far with examples if I have any hope of my answers there being read. Now, I may come across as hypocritical because I sound rather rude myself right now but I'm not a stranger to throwing a few jabs during a debate. There have been moments where I haven't been polite and I've engaged in my fair share of banter but I pick and choose my moments and don't do that out of necessity.

Take a quick look at the different approaches I used in the Quora debates that I shared in the opening post if you want. In one of them, I was more willing to rustle some feathers. The other two, not nearly as much. Especially in this exchange...

https://www.quora.com/Are-conservatives-les...nswer/Al-Nelson

I've done this for nearly 20 years now and regardless of the tone that's taken, I see these kinds of responses on a regular basis and they don't exactly scream compassion or empathy.

I'd much rather have a nice conversation where individuals with opposing viewpoints can at least make a genuine effort to understand where others are coming from and perhaps every now and then acknowledge if they make a good point. Even if two participants in a conversation ended in complete disagreement if, at a minimum, there was clarity on why there was disagreement, that'd account for something but many of the individuals I've spoken to on the modern left don't seem to be debating the conservative they're engaged with. It's as if they're debating a caricature of conservatives that they're learning about from those who dislike conservatives.

To move on, don't get me wrong because I agree with the point that you made here...

QUOTE
Well again a politician is an individual. You can easily find a Republican that did something compassionate and a Democrat that did something horrific.


You're alluding to the fact that individual examples can only get us so far. I agree, in fact, I've made that point myself many times. I could reveal a lot of nasty and divisive rhetoric on the modern left and within the Democrat party, more than you might realize but none of that would negate the fact that this behavior happens frequently on the political right as well. So I don't think my examples are representative of most people who vote for Democrats or who identify with liberalism.

My primary argument and motivation in the opening post was to dispel the common stereotype that conservatives lack empathy. I did that by showing that the character traits that some people associate with the political right are actually common human traits that are not hard to find on the left and within the Democrat party. That's where I was coming from however I do hold the view that the radical left is larger and more organized than the radical right. For that reason, I also believe that violence and intolerance is more common on the left overall but regardless, that idea should be open for debate.

If that's something you want to debate, I'm open to that but we've been in this spot before. I've offered to explain some of the best evidence for this with you because the substantiation I'm talking about now goes far beyond individual examples. I'm not talking about the violent rioting or a lack of civility in online discussions, I think that's relevant circumstantial evidence but this is quite different. I put together some statistics from non-partisan sources that together reveal something important. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been pieced together by the media whether it be mainstream or alternative news sources.

These statistics are a bit involved but I'll get into detail on this later if you request this information. Keep the last paragraph in mind because it's quite important if you're under the impression that there's no evidence of what I'm saying beyond individual examples.


QUOTE
See due to the immense rationalization abilities of the Conservative it's difficult proceed in this debate earnestly. See Conservatives live the code "if we do it and we think we should... it's good!! But if you do it and we don't want you to....it's bad"
9/11/2001 killed 3,000 Americans. How many human beings have died as a result of our actions? Is the number proportionate? But here comes good ol Conservative rationalization process. "How many human beings would die if we don't act?" How is this answered? The answer: However the conservative wants. They can make any number they want. They'll probably bring up the holocaust.
I've had debates on this board with Conservatives that have argued that dropping NUKES on Japan was the more compassionate option because the other option would have to be kill millions.
I mean as a group, a political platform, what are the compassionate political programs/platforms that conservatives(Republicans) stand for that liberals(Democrats) stand against? Excluding abortion, name just three(3).


I understand the points you're making about 9/11 and how opinions on dropping nuclear weapons could come across as unempathetic. I obviously can't read the conversations you're speaking of to determine exactly how these "conservatives" were behaving but in the case of dropping bombs on Japan, whoever you're talking about was essentially debating the morality of a decision that was made by a Democrat president. Putting aside the fact that atomic bombs were dropped under Harry Truman's administration when Democrats had control of the House and Senate, In recent decades Republicans have been more willing to support the wars we fight although I think that dynamic is starting to change.

Regardless, I have no doubt that there are conservatives who lack empathy and I know of conservative policies where empathy isn't a significant factor. With that said, more than anything I think many Republican politicians do a poor job of emphasizing the importance of empathy and are less prone to making emotional pleas to the public. This is also a trend with many conservative speakers. For example one of Ben Shapiro's catchphrases is...

QUOTE
"Facts don't care about your feelings"


From what I've seen, Democrats and the left are often more prone to talk about "feelings" or "empathy" but sometimes they do this to a fault by making emotional arguments in situations where the facts don't support their narrative. I think emotions can easily be manipulated as well so I keep that in mind. I'll give you a perfect example...

Joe Biden asked this question when he was being interviewed on CNN...

QUOTE
"Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists? Have you ever heard it?"


https://www.politicususa.com/2020/08/28/joe...premacists.html

One one the ways you can tell the media and Democrat politicians are on the same page is that they repeat many of the same talking points. Media pundits have repeatedly claimed that "Trump refuses to denounce white supremacy"...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/51887...and-stand-by-on

More recently some have switched to saying that Trump "finally" condemned white supremacy. Here's a quote from CNN's Jim Acosta...

QUOTE
"Trump has finally condemned white supremacists... on Hannity."


https://twitter.com/acosta/status/1311846345674829825

Similar talking points have come from left-wing alternative media. For example, The Young Turks have also made this claim...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkqqY-tq_VA

This would be important on the topic of empathy because, If taken at face value, these Democrats and left-wing journalists are essentially looking out for us by ensuring that our president isn't supporting hate groups. I'm not going to argue that there aren't Democrat voters and liberal Americans who genuinely believe that Trump hasn't denounced white supremacy but the Democrat party leadership and journalists should, and probably do know better in most cases.

So, here's a compilation video of Trump denouncing either white supremacy, neo-nazis, the KKK, or David Duke..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JmOSsv-KSg (It's over 8 minutes long so I don't expect you to watch all of this but I'd encourage you to watch at least a couple minutes of it.)

I'm looking into these things on my own and don't have a research team to help me figure all of this out. Democrat Party politicians and media pundits have the resources and staff necessary to do proper research and the responsibility of being honest and forthcoming with the public. The way they've spun this topic is one of countless examples that has led me to disagree with the type of answer you gave here...

QUOTE
3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?
No. Except Fox News. They are awful.


I can't say that I understand these kinds of positions unless you're saying that the news media is in touch with what you and other liberals believe. I still like to ask questions like this to get a feel for where online debaters stand compared to what polling and surveys are revealing. Sometimes I still hear opinions like yours but I think the public's take on the MSM has been shifting on this for quite a while. Classical and moderate liberals will often call out the media, even some left-wingers and progressives who are frustrated with establishment government and media are starting to call them out, although it's still rare.

I generally don't like Cenk Uygur or Bill Maher for that matter but sometimes they hit the nail on the head...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzG-Gi94hog

What Cenk Uygur is getting right here is that the media and "corporate Democrats" work together and "suppress" information that they feel works against them. I believe he's wrong on some of his other assumptions though. For example, the idea that the media has taught "generations of Democrats to whisper" I don't believe that holds water at all.

He has his moments though. For example, he condemned election polling for being wildly inaccurate again.

Have you considered the polls and how they reflect on the media? From what I understand, the polls were off in this election more than in 2016 in some states with one poll even having Trump losing by 17 points in Wisconsin and Susan Collins losing by 12 Maine. Yet Trump got within a point in Wisconsin and to update the left-wing source below, Susan Collins won Maine by nearly 9 points...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/no...-repeats-itself

Those are 17 and 21 point polling errors with numerous other polls also being far less accurate than they should have been. Do you not feel that this is a sign that the MSM poorly represents the mindset of your average American? From my perspective, this is just one of many signs demonstrating that the MSM is out of touch.

I've seen a lot of statistical data that points towards a biased and untrustworthy mainstream media but it's not hard to witness this problem by turning on one of these networks either. However, perhaps the nail in the coffin on this is the success of Fox News. I get that you don't like them but here's what I'm getting at. Fox News was created specifically because Rupert Murdoch saw an opening in the market for a conservative news network. In the 80's CBS, NBC, and ABC, (also known as The Big Three), were dominant. Murdoch recognized that these networks had a liberal bias so he capitalized on that by creating Fox News.

Fox News doesn't attract more viewers than their competitors because they get everything right or avoid highering biased news anchors. They attract more viewers because Murdoch was right and the bias that he spotted then has only gotten worse with time. Think of it this way, today the liberal viewers in America are dispersed between multiple networks like CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS while conservative viewers usually funnel to the only mainstream network that'll give substantial coverage to topics that are relatable to them and that's exactly why Fox News has crushed the competition in the ratings for so long.

I'm not saying that Fox News doesn't have its share of problems, I think they're more successful simply because they've lacked serious conservative competition in the MSM. This could be changing though because Newsmax is starting to get a lot of attention from those who feel that Fox News isn't conservative enough but at the end of the day, perhaps any network that has a strong liberal or conservative bias is going to be out of touch in the eyes of many Americans.


To move on, I want to answer your question from before more directly. The rest of my reply here will be the most crucial and bring in the most substantiation...


QUOTE
I mean as a group, a political platform, what are the compassionate political programs/platforms that conservatives(Republicans) stand for that liberals(Democrats) stand against? Excluding abortion, name just three(3).



I think in order to answer that, we'd have to acknowledge that a policy can work for some people while working against others. We probably agree on that much so to address your question, there aren't as many policies where there's absolute support by one party and total opposition from another, as people would think but I can certainly show you examples where Republicans are giving much more support to policies or programs that could be considered compassionate.

I'll get to the kinds of examples you might be after here soon but first I'd like to show an example where some people assume that Democrats are taking the compassionate position.

On the topic of border security, Democrats often claim that they're on the side of showing concern about the wellbeing of the poor and disadvantaged. In some cases I believe they are trying to be compassionate but this topic has many layers. The conservative position on border security isn't strictly about balancing economics. As far as I'm concerned, economics are a distant consideration in this case. I think it could easily be considered incompassionate to allow deadly drugs to cross the border with the current opioid epidemic we're in but more than anything, I think that those who are wanting to cross our southern border illegally are being used.

This is a human rights issue in more ways than what far-left Democrats are letting on. Immigrants are often used by drug cartels, young women and girls are often either sexually abused or get sold by sex traffickers, and the trip itself is dangerous. I've seen immigrants who are severely dehydrated, swimming across rivers, and even toddlers getting dropped from the top of border fencing and as all of this is taking place, we have some on the left who insist on incentivizing Immigrants to cross the border illegally.

I'd like to think we could fix that by taking care of every immigrant who wants to come here but that's where economics do come into play. Perhaps we could make the naturalization process less time-consuming and legalize those who are already here but Democrats want taxpayer-funded healthcare and college for all American citizens AND the expensive proposals laid out in the Green New Deal AND want many of these taxpayer-funded services for virtually any undocumented immigrant who comes here, etc. etc. At a certain point the money runs out and the promises become empty ones. So to me, incentivizing people to cross the border illegally when the left knows the dangers involved and knows that promises are being made that can't be kept, isn't compassionate or empathetic.

Even if I were to assume that these promises could be kept, theirs no doubt that America isn't in a position now to handle large influxes of immigrants so what does that mean? It means that many on the left have been luring immigrants right into the hands of understaffed border patrol agents during an administration that's intent on deporting them only to point the finger elsewhere when the situation gets out of control. So this topic isn't one where the left dominates in compassion or empathy. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle have often failed to consider the impact of their words and actions.

In short, I don't assume that a left-leaning policy or idea is based on empathy just because they say it is. Same applies to conservatives, I disagree with and think they oversimply quite a few things. I view myself as a pragmatist and in my case, that's put me on a path to agree with conservatives more often. Dedicated ideologues can get to where they defend their political movement of choice even if it means ignoring inconsistencies or facts that they feel threaten that movement.

This section will directly go over policies and ideas with compassionate elements that have high Republican support
  • School Choice
Under the Trump administration, Republicans have generally been on board with these kinds of programs. Many Democrats have tried to depict this as an effort to undermine public schools but that comes despite the fact that school choice has bipartisan support from the general public and the fact that some media sources, that aren't conservative, are supportive of the idea...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020...umn/4831964002/

For more information, here are some details on the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, a bill that was sponsored by Ted Cruz in the Senate....
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4343

QUOTE
"I believe every student has the fundamental right to a quality education, as a quality education is the gateway to the American dream and stable, family-sustaining employment," Sen. Cruz said. "I introduced the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, which will drive increased investment in our students, by creating a federal tax credit for taxpayers that donate to scholarship organizations supporting elementary and secondary education as well as secondary and post-secondary workforce training

......

"Every student in America deserves to learn in an engaging, meaningful and personalized way," Secretary DeVos said. "No student should be denied that opportunity simply because of where they live or their family income."


A similar bill was sponsored by House Republican Bradley Byrne, not to mention that all of the 110 cosponsers were Republicans as well...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congres...1434/cosponsors

This is a policy where Republicans are givng all of the support to a bill that has compassionate elements but the broader topic of School Choice has had support from within the Democrat party, especially in the past. However, it's a struggle to get bills passed because of the partisanship and Democrat party indecision. Now, I'm sure that you can come up with a source where a Democrat or someone from a teachers union doesn't like this bill but that goes without saying. You can find Democrats who frame nearly everything Republicans want to do as wrong but those who are interested in the truth should be getting both sides of the story. Speaking of framing, let's look at the next issue...
  • Covid-19 Stimulus Packages
Look at how Democrats in Congress have dragged their feet on stimulus packages. For the most part Democrat politicians have been complacent in this but finally, more of them have started to voice frustration over Nancy Pelosi's unwillingness to work with Republicans. Even CNN started taking aim at Pelosi and not for 30 seconds either. Wolf Blitzer actually pressed Pelosi in a similar way that the media does with Trump nearly every time he speaks...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqPltMpWIwo (Full CNN Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvV7IUVhb5Q (Body Language Review)

Here's one quote...

QUOTE
"1.8 Trillion Dollars and the President just tweeted, "stimulus, go big or go home", he wants even more right now so why not work out a deal with him and don't let the perfect, as they say here in Washington, be the enemy of the good?"


Pelosi generally didn't have good answers or excuses here because she was continuously asked follow-up questions and that's key when someone is dodging or resorting to character attacks. You can look at either video above, but I'd recommend looking at the body language video at some point. Mandy does body language readings but is half comedian as well and does some poking. Nothing that you haven't seen before or done yourself so you might find it amusing if you can take some jokes at Nancy Pelosi's expense. Mandy's points about Nancy Pelosi are solid if you look closely at how she's behaving here.

To continue, Trump had to sign an executive order just to get unemployment benefits extended. As I mentioned in my first post, Democrats have been more aggressive with shutdowns so if they're forcing Americans to lose income by staying locked down at the same time they're refusing to pass another stimulus package to make up the difference, would you personally consider that to be compassionate? Republicans have made concessions and have been willing to spend a lot of money here, even going against the wishes of many fiscal conservatives so I'm sure Democrats could have made concessions of their own.

This raises the question of whether or not Democrats were trying to stall this latest bill until after the election to make sure Trump didn't get credit just before the election because Democrats helped to pass previous bills. They dragged their feet but at least they eventually did something. Besides, Nancy Pelosi suggested in this CNN interview that she wouldn't like the optics of Trump being able to sign another check so it's a fair assumption that they stalled on this for political reasons. If that's the case, they're essentially playing with the lives of Americans who are in desperate situations to score political points.
  • The Republican parties policies on civil rights (This section is crucial because it explains why we have the GOP)
Due, in large part to Trump, the Republican party has been far more apprehensive about having a large military presence overseas so if you want to go back as far as 9/11/2001 and talk about WW2 to make a lack of compassion argument, that opens the door for a lot of history.

To talk about slavery, I can guarantee you that it wasn't Republicans who were responsible for that. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln and the party was founded only a few years prior to that as an anti-slavery party. To briefly explain this, prior to the Republican party, there was the Whig Party. It was more diverse than the Democrat party but very conflicted. Disagreements over slavery is what led to the downfall of the Whig Party. In short, members of the Whigs who were opposed to slavery broke away from the Whigs to form the Republican party and they made slavery illegal as soon as they had the political power to do so. Republicans even tried to abolish slavery before they had the political power to pull it off.

The KKK has also been described by some as the domestic terrorist arm of the Democrat party and for good reason. I'm not trying to suggest that the Democrat party simply supported slavery, segregation, and the KKK. I'm telling you that KKK members were Democrat party delegates and politicians, that slave owners were disproportionately Democrats and it wasn't even close, that Democrats were opposed to abolishing slavery, and that the Democrat party wrote segregation laws and gave the majority of the opposition to overturning them in the 1960s.

For substantiation of my claim that Democrats opposed abolishing slavery (and more)...
  1. Democrats blocked the 13th Amendment which Abolished slavery. It later passed with only 23% support from Democrats and 100% Support from Republicans.
  2. The 14th Amendment which granted citizenship to former slaves passed with 0% support from Democrats and 94% support from Republicans.
  3. The 15th Amendment which prohibited denying the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" passed with 0% support from Democrats and 100% support from Republicans.
I will say that our fight to make these amendments stick was ongoing after these amendments were passed, especially in regards to The 15th Amendment but the opposition from Democrats at the time should speak for itself....

https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi...h_Amendment.htm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factche...ext/3456606001/

The USA Today article is a left of center source I threw in there just to look at how they're framing these historical facts. They rate this claim as true although they say it's lacking in context. They don't say exactly why it's lacking in context other than to point out that there weren't many Democrats in office when the 14th and 15th Amendments were passed to be able to cast yae votes, but who cares? Democrats didn't have as many politicians in the U.S. because several states with Democrat politicians decided to secede to form the confederacy, in part because they wanted slavery so there's no way that they would have cast yae votes anyway.

In fact, if we look at the 14th Amendment, it was passed under the 39th Congress and while it's true that Republicans outnumbered Democrats 136 to 38 consider the following. Even after Democrat controlled states in the south seceded, the remaining 38 Democrats who still served in the U.S. still wouldn't vote with Republicans to amend the constitution. In other words, Democrats in the north and south supported slavery. So what other context USA Today is looking for is beyond me. They probably just wanted to put something vague in their fact-checker to raise doubts. 38 Democrats had just witnessed their own party get crushed in the south in large part because America was rejecting slavery, yet they still didn't want to give rights to former slaves. In my eyes, that speaks volumes.

https://history.house.gov/Congressional-Ove.../Profiles/39th/

For substantiation on my claim that Democrats gave more opposition to various civil rights acts in the 60's, you can look at the following links...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact...-democrats-did/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/20...vil_rights.html
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/s346

All of these bills were aimed at racial discrimination and every one of them got more opposition from Democrats. In a couple of these bills, there were more yae votes cast by Democrats in raw numbers but only because Democrats were in the majority. By percentages, Republicans were more in favor of these bills which is corroborated by the fact-checker above.

Bear with me on some of this scrutiny. When I look at how Democrats handled all of this foul history, it was very much the same way they handle things today in many cases, by simply projecting problems that they're largely responsible for themselves, onto others. In the 50's and 60's Democrats were very divided over civil rights. More or less the party was trying to process its history with some politicians wanting to adjust tactics and others wanting to stick with the ways of the past. I'm not going to say that this was a one-sided issue where there weren't Republicans with the same motivations as Democrats but, in a nutshell, the Democrat party repeatedly suffered crushing defeats in regards to both slavery and other civil rights concerns that still divided white and black Americans later on.

Ultimately, the Democrat party was faced with either evolving or going the way of the Whigs. Clearly, they did evolve and eventually did everything they could to disassociate themselves from slavery, the KKK, and other civil rights atrocities. I don't think most Democrat politicians today would support those kinds of horrific injustices but I also don't believe they've shaken all of their authoritarian roots either. They also still try to do what they can to mask their history.

They've done this by saying that slavery is America's problem, the problem of the white man, or the problem of the south. They've even described the Republican Party of the past as progressive or liberal and push the narrative that our political parties really just switched sides in the 1960s. They say A LOT to direct attention away from their own party but most of these narratives fall apart on NUMEROUS levels.

For example, are Democrats right when they say Republicans used to be progressive or liberal? Well, this is where we have to define conservatism. Abraham Lincoln described himself as a conservative and viewed conservatism in a similar way that many conservatives do today. To conserve the principles that were laid out in the U.S. constitution. In Lincoln's case, slavery and other civil rights injustices were a threat to the principles that were laid out by our founding fathers. To quote one of Lincoln's speeches...

QUOTE
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"

....

You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary

....

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers."


For the full quote and speech, you can go here... https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historycultu...nionaddress.htm

Clearly, Democrats are leaving a lot out. I do think that Lincoln could be described as a liberal in the sense that he was highly supportive of individual liberty and that brings us back to a debate we've already had. Here's one of the most common definitions of liberalism...

QUOTE
"A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."


Perhaps valid examples can be shown by members of both parties of how they're supporting individual liberty but one thing is crystal clear to me. The Democrat party is no more supportive of individual rights than the Republican party and I don't think that many people would argue that Democrats are more friendly to "free enterprise". To explain my position on this Droop, I believe that Democrats who are in positions of power and influence are less about individual rights than they have been in VERY long time.

Left-leaning colleges do things like ban speakers who they disagree with and create free speech zones, we see trends to where conservatives are commonly censored, banned, or fired for exercising their free speech rights, etc. etc. I've seen no shortage of evidence that Democrats are trending towards collectivism rather than individualism. In large part that's why I wasn't surprised by the national survey that was released by the Cato Institute...

https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-re...re-afraid-share

QUOTE
"50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions.

These fears cross partisan lines. Majorities of Democrats (52%) independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.

Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe. However, centrist liberals feel differently."


It shouldn't be surprising that the group who is most in favor of firing someone simply over who they support for president are also suggesting in the same poll that they feel the most comfortable expressing their political beliefs.

Lastly, look at the lockdowns. I think there's a healthy debate to be had as to how much lockdowns are helping but it is undoubtedly the largest infringement on individual liberties that we've seen in a long time and Democrats have been far more prone to pushing them. So, while I don't doubt that many liberal citizens and Democratic party voters value individual liberty, I don't believe that those who are in positions of power and influence in the Democrat party are more liberal than Republicans, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Terms like "the left" and "leftism" are on the rise because the word liberal doesn't accurately describe everyone who's in the Democratic party.

So for Democrats to try to suggest Republicans used to be liberal is a disingenuous way to try to disassociate today's Republican Party with the Republican party of 1860 because what we're talking about is classical liberalism first and foremost. In other words, the Republican Party believed in individual liberty early in its formation, so the question is; does that still hold water today? There's diversity of thought in the Republican party and corrupt rhinos for sure but Republicans still tend to have classical liberal beliefs on issues like free speech, individual liberties, and free enterprise, while being a bit more economically conservative and conservative in the sense that they're more interested in conserving the principals that were laid out in the U.S. Constitution, as Abraham Lincoln was suggesting.

As for Democrats who are attributing slavery to the south while suggesting that our political parties switched sides, here are a couple of videos from Dinesh D'Souza who articulates this better than I can. I highly recommend that you look at these videos, they're not long..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma5PT1uwvj0 (Commentary on the southern switch narrative)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7OMGBDMao (Commentary on the southern switch narrative)

And here's a video where D'Souza is commenting on some of what I mentioned before...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3g7yEB1KsM (Commentary on Abraham Lincoln as a self-described conservative and defining the word conservative as it applies to American politics)

Almost done with the civil rights portion of this reply. If you're still reading this then kudos to you for sure, I know this is a long reply and that you're not going to be in agreement with everything you're reading.

D'souza can be a polarizing figure and he's gotten a fact wrong here or there but is generally spot-on. So...

to help substantiate my claim that Democrats were disproportionately slave owners

D'souza once made the following argument..

QUOTE
"The year before the civil war, no Republican in the United States owned a slave"


D'Souza wasn't just including politicians in that statement, he was including the entire U.S. population so needless to say, his comment caused quite a stir. It triggered a lot of research on behalf of left-wing professors and historians. His claim was eventually debunked but apparently, it took 150 historians over a year to finally come up with the names of about a dozen Republicans and keep in mind that there were about four million slaves in America at the time. That's how lopsided the Republican and Democrat parties were on civil rights at a time when we saw some of the worst civil rights atrocities.

The following link helps verify that historians could only find about a dozen examples of Republicans who owned slaves....

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ght_140756.html

QUOTE
"No. 1 Elder: "Republicans did not own slaves. Democrats owned slaves."

PolitiFact: "The claim that Republicans did not own slaves is false, and Elder corrected the record on Twitter the next day. ... 'As to no Republicans ever owning slaves, I was wrong, and I've corrected it on social media,' Elder said in a statement to PolitiFact. 'There were at least 10.'"

PolitiFact noted: "'Republicans were obviously the party of abolition, but there were in fact Republicans who owned slaves,' Kruse told us. ... [Slave owners Francis P. Blair and Benjamin Burton] were not the only two. After conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza made a similar claim on Twitter, Kruse and other historians on Twitter identified eight more prominent Republicans who also owned slaves in 1860."


If historians struggle to find just a dozen examples of Republicans in the entire U.S. owning slaves then it's not accurate or fair to put the burden of slavery on all Americans. There was slavery when America was founded and that shouldn't be understated but slavery in America persisted and the number of slaves skyrocketed in large part due to the Democrat party. Our history reveals that we had some Americans who wanted slavery and other Americans who did everything they could to abolish slavery.

To wrap this section up, the trend where Democrats project problems that they're contributing to onto others didn't start recently with the kinds of examples I shared in the opening post, they've been doing it for decades. Journalists and politicians have done this for a long time and progressive historians assist them by simply leave A LOT out in their teachings. The left is dominant in the MSM, academia, and when it comes to big tech. These industries are very good at framing the argument. For one last example on civil rights to further show how they're doing this...

In 1924 KKK members, some of whom were Democratic party delegates, gathered, marched, and burned crosses as the Democratic National Convention took place. They were supportive of Democrat William Gibbs McAdoo who did not repudiate the KKK. Take a look at these two Wikipedia articles, one of which covers William Gibbs McAdoo, and one of which covers Donald Trump...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gibbs_McAdoo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

At a minimum, the Wikipedia article briefly mentions that McAdoo didn't denounce the KKK but they praise him on more than one occasion, going as far as to say...

QUOTE
"McAdoo was enormously appealing with his handsome looks, obvious enthusiasm, and boundless energy. He had an uncomplex personality that was always persuasive, optimistic and self-assured."


On the other hand, the Wikipedia article on Trump repeatedly covers him in the most negative way possible. Nearly every section mentioned something negative or controversial. Even on topics where classical and moderate liberals often give Trump credit, this Wiki page fails to do so. I get that Trump is controversial and I don't think that any outlet should give him a pass when he's in the wrong, but they should at least pretend to show some balance if they're to be taken as anything more than left-wing activist.

Wikipedia even tries to go to a similar argument on the KKK as they did with McAdoo by saying that Trump...

QUOTE
"repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists"


I already demonstrated how misleading this claim is earlier, so to explain how messed up this is. The politician who refused to denounce the KKK at a time when they were at their worst, Wikipedia described as appealing and handsome but the President who actually did repeatedly denounce the KKK and white supremacists, Wikipedia claims he repeatedly refused to do so.

Wikipedia may not be mainstream and Wiki pages are indeed written by volunteers but I can't say I entirely blame those who get misled. If people see the same misinformation on Wikipedia that they see on networks like CNN, later to read something similar in papers like the New York Times, it can become very easy to believe that they're looking at corroborating evidence when in reality they're just witnessing people spread a rumor that's no more complex than when busy body neighbors exchange gossip. D'Souza makes a similar argument on how different media and big tech outlets often exchange the same misinformation.

To move on before wrapping up, If you want to look into more policies and ideas that have high support from within the Republican party, you could look into...
  • Opportunity Zones
  • Prison Reform
And...
  • Police Reform
Prison reform is far from being a policy idea that only has support from Republicans. Democrats have been talking about it for years but it took a Republican president to get it though. In fact, the bill I'm referencing is The First Step Act and it was introduced by Ranking Member Doug Collins, that's the Republican who often sits next to Jerry Nadler. We would have had police reform legislation passed as well if it weren't for Democrats blocking it. Here's a speech that Senator Tim Scott gave on the Senate floor about this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMlmHZv2bRI (Speech Highlights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZdXwWpYFA8 (Full Speech)

These videos are important. Tim Scott gives a very impassioned speech about personal racial discrimination, George Floyd, and highlights how Democrats negotiate with Republicans. I've watched many of these House and Senate hearings in their entirety and have seen how Democrats on the floor of the House and Senate often behave so I have no reason to doubt Tim Scott here. The full speech is 33 minutes long, it's well worth a watch if you ever have the time because the highlight video leaves a lot out.

After Tim Scott introduced The Justice Act and after his speech, he received racist phone calls and threats from those who were also hating on other Republicans which makes it probable that Tim Scott is right that these attacks came from the left. Even Senator Dick Durban called this legislation a...

QUOTE
"token, half-hearted approach."


https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-scott-lib...racist-messages
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/tim...sing/index.html (To CNN's credit they did cover this story as well. I just wish they had far more balance in primetime when the majority of people are watching)

You can also look below for proof that Democrats disproportionately voted against holding a final vote on this police reform legislation, which ultimately led to the bill dying...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/s126

Democrats claimed that the bill didn't go far enough but it's just like what Wolf Blitzer said to Nancy Pelosi..

QUOTE
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"


There's no perfect bill and neither side is going to get everything they want in most cases. Personally, I think that there was a lot in this bill that could have helped. You're free to take a look at the details to judge for yourself...

https://www.scott.senate.gov/media-center/p...d-states-senate

End of Examples


Again, I don't think that the examples I shared here are representative of most Democratic party voters or liberals. I just think the politicians and journalists on that side are far more corrupt than they were 15 years ago and that the radical left is getting worse. If you want, take your time and do more research on what I presented here before replying. If you think that something I said needs to be picked apart you could always do that a bit later.

I will say this, if you were to do research by simply looking for reasons to dismiss any idea or policy that has support from conservatives, you're sure to find them. Some sources and journalists are going to disagree with almost anything conservatives say or present and it's as simple as that. There are many fair and understandable counterarguments to conservative positions but also no shortage of hyperpartisan Americans out there who are in a position to influence others. I don't think that these types of people generally give a damn about you, the problems you face, or the information you receive as long as you're supportive of them and skeptical of outside opinions and facts.

I read your America on Fire thread and took notice of where you said...

QUOTE
"Most impressive thing I've seen. More Whites in my social media feeds speaking out. Not the perfunctory admission that there are "bad apples" but Whites coming to the conclusion of the systemic racism and racial biases in our law enforcement strategies."

And....
QUOTE
"Fair to say, left wing puts more weight on the system, while right wing tends to see problems as generally a bad apple here and there."


I think there's A LOT more information that could surprise you but trust takes a long time to build. If you're in a position where you believe wholeheartedly that conservatives and Republicans, as well as their policies, are lacking in empathy by comparison to what the Democrats are offering and you've believed that for decades, then it can take years or decades for that viewpoint to change. It's also not my job to convince you because you may be very content with where you're at. I'm just hoping I'm presenting some information that you haven't seen before.

For instance, I believe there's a wide range of systemic discrimination issues, it's yet another area where we agree. I may disagree with you in the sense that I believe left-wing politicians and institutions do a lot more to contribute to this problem than they let on and discriminate on more issues than race alone but, at a minimum, we agree on some basic concepts which means we could potentially find more common ground. Just a thought.

This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 2 2020, 12:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Dec 11 2020, 06:58 AM
Post #14


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Trouble @ Nov 19 2020, 12:41 AM) *
1. "Are Liberals (Democrats) more empathetic than Conservatives (Republicans)?"

My personal experience says no but one side puts considerable effort into making a public spectacle of it.

2. Do you believe Americans are generally unempathetic towards those with opposing political viewpoints?

The rise of cynical and jaded reactions might be the result of a polarized environment.

3. Does the news media and social media give a poor representation of the mindset of your average American?

Yes. I think the best description was found here describing how there are fiefdoms which are nothing more than echo chambers.

4. How important is character in a politician and are there any specific character traits that you view as most important?

The character of a person while important is not the defining feature of a successful movement. Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard have illustrated politics is a group sport and not an individual one. Both had careers which were tolerated at best and outright extinguished when the time was right.

Bonus: Who are you voting for and why?

As an outsider I cannot participate. I can only watch.

The why part will take a little more to elaborate on. I will root for the side that reveals and roots out corruption. I would side with the incumbent in this case because he is a lightning rod for criticism and much has been revealed about the media and intelligence agencies during this presidency!

I started constructing a flow chart of how and when empathy was employed in the modern era and it was a surprisingly messy endeavor. It is revealing but not particularly pithy. The parties employ empathy differently as their priorities are different. Big surprise not so much. If you want more detail just ask.


I'm in agreement with most of what you've said here.

Here's how I view Trump. On the downside, Trump has many character defects. He often says things that are immature, he congratulates himself to a degree that can be off-putting, and to give Democrats credit, they're right that Trump often says things that are factually inaccurate. In part that's why I didn't vote for him in 2016. I also doubted he'd be the type who would try to follow through on policy.

Trump still frustrates me a good bit but I've believed that the pros outweigh the cons with him for a while now. The fact that he wasn't previously a politician was problimatic in a couple areas but I'd argue it was a positive factor most of the time. Also, as you were saying, a lot has been revealed about our media and intelligence agencies in recent years as well.

I'd go as far as to apply your statement to numerous institutions that have also been exposed. In many cases, Trump isn't the one pulling the trigger either. Many corrupt politicians, journalists, lawyers, and academics who have been targeting Trump have often self-sabotaged. Perhaps some of these corrupts individuals feel that as long as there's a loud and obnoxious person at the top, that not many people are going to care what they're doing. I'd argue that others have felt that it's acceptable to break ethical standards or the law if that's what it takes to combat Trump because they believe he's dangerous.

Overall, I think a lot more is visible to the public today for sure. How many people would know who Michael Avenatti is without Trump? My guess is not many. Avenatti obviously didn't go to prison because of Trump, the Nike extortion case had nothing to do with him as far as I can see. The pending court case where Avenatti allegedly stole $300,000 from his own client (Stormy Danials) is somewhat related to Trump but more than anything, I ask this.... Does it really help someone who repeatedly breaks the law to raise their profile by rubbing their face in the media constantly? Additionally, the MSM, most notably CNN, didn't do themselves any favors by repeatedly having Avenatti on as a pundit or by talking him up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJwjYPQvhQ

I think that CNN was so eager to have someone new on their network who would throw some punches in Trump's direction that they didn't properly vet Avenatti which has actually happened more than once on CNN with their guest and contributors. More importantly than Avinnati, it's often mainstream Democrat politicians who have crossed lines when going after Trump. If more of Trump's opposition in the media and in government had been smart, they would have simply stuck to the merits and taken the high road. It's not as if Trump doesn't stick his foot in his mouth so they would have had no shortage of material to work with if they could have controlled themselves and not embelleshed so much.


QUOTE
Empathy was expressed more often to figures on the left than the right. You are less likely to get a direct answer from one side than the other but that of itself might be due to lack of knowledge and humility rather than outright apathy. Conversely, a more left leaning person is much more likely to engage in a "what if" question which is not always a good thing if the question is out of the depth of the person in question. For debate purposes let's take the worst case, is it better to encounter a sincerely apathetic person who honestly expresses themselves and honestly expresses a position that is not to your liking verses say, a person who very receptive but later is revealed to be quite the fibber? And to make things just a little bit more complicated what if both situations are true?

What psychologists have found is the more a person expresses empathy the more likely they will express schadenfreude when someone who dissents from their view.

QUOTE
"They found that those at the higher end of empathic concern were significantly more likely to want to stop the speech when the speaker was from the opposite party. Those at the higher end of empathic concern were even more likely to show schadenfreude for the injured student when the speaker was from the opposite party, being more likely to find it funny and amusing that the student was injured. So much for empathic concern!"


In a nutshell if one side behaves badly, eventually the other side will too. Politics can become tribal after all.


I've never seen this research before so it's interesting. I also took notice of this quote from the source you shared...

QUOTE
"In one study based on surveys taken from a nationally representative sample, they found that as empathic concern increases, individuals are more likely to be biased toward their own party and are more likely to show increased hostility toward the outgroup. The effect was particularly pronounced among partisans and was much weaker among "leaners" and independents."


I'm not an expert in this area but I'd imagine that there's some "cause and effect" taking place in many of these situations. If someone expresses strong empathetic or "empathic" concern within a certain belief system and they're confronted with someone who they feel is a threat to that belief system, I could see how feelings of frustration or anger could come easily for them. In a way, perhaps that's fairly similar to how most people would respond to someone they loved getting hurt VS. how they'd feel if an acquaintance went through the same experience.

Also, if we're going by the following definition of empathy....

QUOTE
"The ability to understand and share the feelings of another."


I'd imagine that most people would find it more difficult to understand their political opponents and for those who don't even try to understand their political opponents, if someone like that is confronted with an individual who disagrees with them on policts it'd be very difficult to experience empathy for them because the word "understanding" is baked into the definition. This topic has many layers because the brain and our emotions are very complicated. Perhaps other people tend to just be more emotional in a general sense. So they feel empathy easily, but also get angry or happy quite easily. I've known some people in my life who seem to fit that description.

Our understanding of the brain and human emotions is a science on many levels and it's complicated when mixing science with politics. These two fields do intersect from time to time but biases can make it extremely difficult to figure out what's going on. I debated this point in one of the Quora.com links I shared in the opening post...

https://www.quora.com/Are-conservatives-les...nswer/Al-Nelson

QUOTE
"The former [science] is more about logic, reason, and a pursuit of truth. The latter [politics] has often been more subjective, emotional, and it's a field where honesty is in short supply. So the question becomes, what takes the dominant role on this topic, partisan politics or science?"


In part, I said that because he was very absolute in his descriptions.....

QUOTE
"Yes. The science is clear.

Conservatives are less open to new experiences, more fearful, less tolerant, require more structure, hierarchy and organization"
.....


It can be difficult to determine what role politics play in our behaviors but personally, I don't think our intelligence, creativity, or capacity for empathy are traits that are determined by our political beliefs. However, I am picking on trend differences between the left and right when it comes to behaviors. I just don't believe that these differences in behaviors are inherent to either side. There's a lot of variation between individuals who reside within any large political movement as well so they're not entirely monolithic. I figure it is fair to ask what impact a political belief system can have on how we behave though.

On the video that you shared here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONeb8mRPYI...Nvp_scC7bEErLUE

I could go on and on about the media and big tech, there's no question that there's censorship and narrative crafting at play. I even think they're doing it now on the topic of voter fraud and impropriety, regardless of whether or not there was enough of it to overturn the election. I've heard numerous people argue that there's no evidence of voter fraud, a rumor that started in the media. The first definition of the word evidence in Merriam Webster is simply...

QUOTE
"an outward sign : INDICATION"


With that said, even lie detector test results are considered evidence even though it's typically not the kind of evidence that's admissible in court. I think what happened is that many journalists and pundits conflated the word evidence with proof, and that was likely intentional in some cases. It would work against the interest of the MSM if someone were to prove that there was widespread voter fraud. If you ask me, that's why some media outlets don't even want the public to believe there's been evidence worth reviewing at all.

As far as the news media is concerned, I figure that journalists are human so I don't expect them to not have biases. I have my own share biases myself, as do most people but I believe that if someone truly wants to consider themselves a journalist then putting aside those personal biases as much as humanly possible should come with the job. In my mind, a good journalist is willing to present information that they personally disagree with, without telling us why they disagree with it. It should be up to the public to decide right from wrong and true from false.

If someone is an opinion anchor or writer, that's different. I think it's okay to have anchors like Don Lemon or Sean Hannity as long as they're honest about where they're coming from. I'd still prefer it if there was more of a balance between how many biased left-wing and right-wing journalist are in the mainstream media but, at a minimum, if more of them were honest about where they're coming from, that account for something. That's one area where I do give Fox News some credit, the conservative Anchors on Fox have regularly admitted they're conservative. Anchors like Don Lemon have described themselves as non-partisan and independent-minded, which they are not....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blB9mQJQXd4

I believe that honesty and clarity can go a long way, even for those who disagree with each other adamantly,

This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 11 2020, 07:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 22nd, 2021 - 04:37 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.