Tactics and human empathy.
Offline Lately both believers and atheists have slammed the "in your face" tactics of SOME atheist and or atheist groups.
I take issue with this because this cuts to the core of WHY those who would advocate "cant we all just get along" which SOUNDS NICE, and is a good goal, often fails to take into account human empathy.
"Human empathy" as popularly sold in it's wrongful current form is a utopia. It is the well intended idea that we should all get along. DON'T GET ME WRONG, it is better to get along than it is to get violent. Which is why the Age of Enlightement produced an age of COMMON LAW.
But life is not black and white and people will not always like each other or always say nice things about each other. THAT is the part of the REAL human empathy I see far to many humans left and right and of every culture and race and label forget.
A layman's example:
I hate it when my Redskins lose to the Cowboys. I am sure for the players of either team they hate losing too. When a player loses or a fan's team loses it is NATURAL for them to bitch and even blaspheme the other team. THAT IS JUST SPORTS.
But what we cant do it seems, is apply that to politics and religion.
In the Olympics this year, one of the things that ALWAYS gives me hope for humanity is when I see what I saw at the Woman's Hockey Medal Presentation. Canada won the Gold, and my team USA had to settle for Silver. But I was happy for Canada, for the same reason I know myself, in my personal life, what it is like to win. ON TOP OF THAT, the Canadian fans CHEERED for USA when they accepted their silver.
I ADMIT sports is not what I am really addressing here.
What I AM pointing out is our individual ability as individual humans IN EVERY ASPECT of our lives, to feel the same full range of emotions we are all capable of, not just the one's we project on others.
The fact is there is no utopia and the only way for humanity to dictate to each other is to have some nut fuck it up for the entire planet.
So the only option other than our species narcissism leading to our self distruction would be to accept that we are all individuals with the same range of human emotions, good or bad, and actions good or bad, and the only THING we can agree on is simple, not to harm each other.
I like to bitch, my detractors like to bitch, and that IS part of human empathy, and REAL human empathy.
I know what it is like to win. I know what it is like to lose. I know what pain is. I know the feeling of wanting to bitch. EMPATHY is not warm fuzzy. EMPATHY is knowing that for good or bad, we are all the same, full of the same wants, needs and desires. And we as a species are capable of the same range of human emotion and action.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
One of the most tolerant, progressive, and utopian societies for it's time was a muslim theocracy.
Damascus was a focalpoint of human development for many years. People would travel there from all over.
I find that historically, the more inclusive a society is, the more successful it is.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Inclusive with the responsibility that dissent must be protected to avoid fascism. Part of dissent is blasphemy. And we all blaspheme each other.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
To be honest, I think these people have the same goals and aims as you.
I think the disagreement is in method and process.
"In your face" is a psychologically aggressive of challenging someone.
This can cause people to be psychologically defensive and close up, or it might dominate them and make the psychologically submissive.
Neither way is conducive to that person's rationality.
I personally think that to reach a person rationally, we need to get past the ego and get them to consider the issues with their own curiosity so they can come to their own conclusions in their own time. That said, big "too nice" can allow them to dissmiss and ignore challenges they don't like. I think you have to be very subtle and sneaky, put a subtle pressure on them to tackle the issue, but let them draw conclusions themselves rather than pressing upon them.
I used to be "against" the "in your face" tactics for this reason but a blog by Brian Flemming gave me a more open perspective. He pointed out that all these "let's be civil" people were used to having conversations with civil people as that was their usual medium/process of exchanging ideas. He pointed out that not all people interact in that way and the limiting yourself to only civil conversation was to wrap yourself in a bubble and ignore how it's really done in some places. This basically different people need talking to in different ways in order to reach them, i.e. the "multi-pronged" approach that RRS folk have often spoken about. While I think that these "in your face" tactics would be out of place in a several places, I can recognise that if there weren't places where they are appropiate then people wouldn't use them.
I agree that's empathy but did you have to go as far as to say it's "Real/True" empathy and imply that other forms of human empathy aren't real?
Thats what I said.
I don't want people falsely accusing me as advocating "in your face" as the only tactic to be used. I am merely pointing out that it scares the shit out of me anywhere in the world when people, of any label, try to institutionalize taboo laws to placate the emotions of others (no matter what their label is).
There is a disagreement on tactic. But not my detractor's rights to have library discussions, I am not against that. I am against government setting up taboos, be they to protect religion or atheists. I see far too many politically correct people on the left, all be it well intended, shooting themselves in the foot long term.
Library types are needed. But that doesn't always work and NO ONE deserves a taboo status "just because". The pope doesn't, Jews don't , Muslims don't and neither do atheists. My only issue is HOW laws are written and how government uses those laws.
We must accept ourselves as atheists, even the library types, that merely saying "Jesus is fiction" is offensive to many Christians. Since they fill most of the lawmaker's spots, law enforcement spots, judges spots, and make up most of the jury pool, I think it would be unwise to put the power of political correctness into the hands of those far to willing to discard the First Amendment in favor of religious protectionism.
So when I say "tactic" I am merely referring to a "hands off" approach when it comes to government. Let the words fly in the confines of the common law that we all share that already stipulates that no one, no matter their label, can physically harm, or advocate the physical harm of others. That is the only way we can say what we want as atheists without fear of government. If we don't protect offensive speech, we will be the first victims of such political correctness.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Fair enough.
I pretty much agree with all of that.
As a kid, I enjoyed offensive speech much more.
I think society has straight jacketed me to the point where I don't fully feel comfortable saying or hearing it, sometimes not even with friends.
The only time I feel fully comfortable with offensive speech is when I'm talking to myself.
That is pretty much lots of people, but we have to, as a species take into account that we all like to bitch, especially when pushed. If none of us had a way to vent there would be a lot of dead peple around us.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Empathy- the ability to discern the feelings and motives of others, and understand the degree to which they experience said feelings as well as the cause of such behavior (?)
This can't be true. I don't consciously exhibit the same range of human emotions as everyone else -my doctors know this, and I know this. I'll admit I am an oddity in this regard. (but hardly unique)
Well, we certainly have quite a few evolutionary leftovers from the last 'Ice Age' in terms of human psyche. As well, "wants" and "desires" are quite subjective, "needs" are not. I'd say that yes, we as a species do have many of the same needs; the facts back this up. The way we pursue those needs is what creates a sense of individuality.
As long as it's them and not me, I'm fine with it. The only problem I have with "in your face" is that it seems dangerous considering the rise of evangelical and political dissent in this country, right along with the rise of radical hate groups since.... January 21st, 2009... if I had to guess.
Correction: nonviolent dissent
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)