Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you know what you mean with these words. Part of this is just a limitation of the English language. But what does it mean to "accept the reality of another person's experience and view of the world"?

Like, actually play out the conversation, because I think you're reading into everyone's posts something that isn't there. Just because we are discussing the actual problems and solutions here in this thread, doesn't mean we are saying that the empathetic conversation also includes discussion. Those are two separate things, which I've tried to make clear to you repeatedly. 

The entire fucking thread my man. That's all you've been doing in response to my posts. 

This was Bozo yesterday:

Quote

Neither. It means to sit with them in their feelings, listen, and not argue with them or attempt to explain them away. It’s what separates empathy from sympathy.

That sounds exactly like what a blue-haired progressive might say to some chud Rogan fan. "Your feelings are valid and I want to sit here with you in them." I think we can all imagine the response that would generate from the chud and Bozo usually thinks that type of talk is very silly and counterproductive. 

I know he just read that and thought "I don't mean you say literally those words!" We get that, which is why we've all understood what he's been advocating this entire time to be that we need to indulge a chud's belief that he's been unfairly discriminated against, even when that's obviously a false belief. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Iceman said:

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

Because it is?

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Because it is?

Sure. It's worked so far. These issues don't even really exist if nobody owns anything.  
 

'Those folks have too much' is not the road to solving other people's problems. 

Edited by Iceman
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Iceman said:

'Those folks have too much'

It's only the billionaires I have issue with.  

Maybe let's Make the American Tax Code Great Again.  Like during the Eisenhower years.  Do you agree?

Edited by Bullneck
Posted
30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That sounds exactly like what a blue-haired progressive might say to some chud Rogan fan. "Your feelings are valid and I want to sit here with you in them." I think we can all imagine the response that would generate from the chud and Bozo usually thinks that type of talk is very silly and counterproductive. 

It is counterproductive. Recognizing something and accepting it as real (ie, not an act) is not validation. But you can’t really be credible to another person if you don’t take them in good faith and try to understand where they’re coming from. That’s very different from agreeing with them. 
It’s not a great analogy but for example, I’ve spent a lot of time with homeless people. Some of them are very angry and blame a lot of people for their problems, including people who are trying to help them. The first step when you try to reach those people is just listen, nod their head, and indicate understanding. But you must not validate because that can enable their worst ideas and actually doesn’t help get to them. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It is counterproductive. Recognizing something and accepting it as real (ie, not an act) is not validation. But you can’t really be credible to another person if you don’t take them in good faith and try to understand where they’re coming from. That’s very different from agreeing with them. 
It’s not a great analogy but for example, I’ve spent a lot of time with homeless people. Some of them are very angry and blame a lot of people for their problems, including people who are trying to help them. The first step when you try to reach those people is just listen, nod their head, and indicate understanding. But you must not validate because that can enable their worst ideas and actually doesn’t help get to them. 

and how do you think that is going to help? 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It is counterproductive. Recognizing something and accepting it as real (ie, not an act) is not validation. But you can’t really be credible to another person if you don’t take them in good faith and try to understand where they’re coming from. That’s very different from agreeing with them. 
It’s not a great analogy but for example, I’ve spent a lot of time with homeless people. Some of them are very angry and blame a lot of people for their problems, including people who are trying to help them. The first step when you try to reach those people is just listen, nod their head, and indicate understanding. But you must not validate because that can enable their worst ideas and actually doesn’t help get to them. 

Now I think you're just gas lighting us. I've said that multiple times in this thread and you've dismissed it as inappropriate. I've suggested that you're conflating discussion in this thread regarding the root cause of the problem with the discussion that would occur during the empathetic conversation. It is very clear you're doing that. It is also very clear that you're not being honest here because you very much have spent your time in this thread attempting to validate their feelings and telling us they must be right.

 

On 12/20/2025 at 6:22 PM, Dahobbs said:

If you want me to say I can empathize with his point of view even if I think his casual analysis is faulty, I can. I get why he might feel that way. I think other progressive policies attempt to address the root cause of the problem (e.g., higher progressive tax brackets, universal healthcare). 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 12:45 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

But again, how do you respond to people who weren’t lied to, but were in fact actually excluded from consideration for jobs or promotions on the sole basis  of their race or gender? 
Multiple people on this thread, including me, have said they saw this happening.
 

Are you promising that’s some kind of shared delusion? 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 4:09 PM, wildcat09 said:

Does being open to them require playing along with imagined grievances? 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 4:19 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, it requires you to be open to the possibility that they aren’t imagined, even if the reasons are more complex than it seems to them. If someone gets shafted, they got shafted. That should be enough for you. 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 4:26 PM, Dahobbs said:

You're confused. We are open to the possibility they aren't imagined. But I'll still require evidence. That isn't any different than how I treat any other problem. 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 4:59 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

That seems weird. If people are saying “I got shafted,” demanding they prove it to you is a weird way to engage them. 
Do you have the luxury of alienating them? 

 

On 12/21/2025 at 5:25 PM, Dahobbs said:

To answer your question another way, you appear to be conflating two different things:

1. Engaging with them and empathizing with their problems,

2. Identifying the root cause of them and addressing. 

If I'm just providing a friendly ear, I'm obviously not going to try and antagonize someone that is upset. It is perfectly possible to provide empathy without agreeing with them. 

That first step hardly requires discussion and is mostly passive. But if you want to get to the second step, yes, you need evidence and investigation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, softlynow said:

They'll still vote against the Dems even if you make admissions and show empathy, but yeah, the first step is admitting the problem/failure.

image.png.56264051583f42b8ca8b5a41b15774a4.png

Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Now I think you're just gas lighting us. I've said that multiple times in this thread and you've dismissed it as inappropriate. I've suggested that you're conflating discussion in this thread regarding the root cause of the problem with the discussion that would occur during the empathetic conversation. It is very clear you're doing that. It is also very clear that you're not being honest here because you very much have spent your time in this thread attempting to validate their feelings and telling us they must be right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole thread is just this:

DZeJUz1.gif.9902d0dbd4fd6ff35fff74756dfcbaf8.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

and how do you think that is going to help? 

Have you never had to deliver tought news to someone, a child, an employee, a player, that was coming from above you? Maybe you didn't completely agree with it or maybe you could see from their perspective how it wasn't fair and there was some tough breaks and bad news, but that decisions and strategy was set and the direction was final?

I think that's the posture he's saying to take. Acknowledge/address that the situation sucks for them and have some empathy but, like, there's not a lot we can do about it and it ain't going back the way it was. We can take 15 minutes to mourn it but we have to move on and build a bridge and get over it.

Or as Bezos famously said, "disagree and commit".

Posted
image.png.56264051583f42b8ca8b5a41b15774a4.png

Lemme translate. “We believed in the CONCEPT of a less racist society, but when we see that the result of that was white men losing their outsized role and presence, which mathematically means a reduction in our percentage chance of success, well…fuck that. We want that Don Draper Mad Men shit back.”
Y’all can keep running from that unavoidable conclusion, but you’ll just die tired.
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Lemme translate. “We believed in the CONCEPT of a less racist society, but when we see that the result of that was white men losing their outsized role and presence, which mathematically means a reduction in our percentage chance of success, well…fuck that. We want that Don Draper Mad Men shit back.”
Y’all can keep running from that unavoidable conclusion, but you’ll just die tired.

Reminds me so much of this lol

r/fuckcars - Are y'all the NIMBYs?

1 minute ago, G650 said:

The problem is all of us are finding societies disfavor. Because society is like 10 billionaires right now.

Preach.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Have you never had to deliver tought news to someone, a child, an employee, a player, that was coming from above you? Maybe you didn't completely agree with it or maybe you could see from their perspective how it wasn't fair and there was some tough breaks and bad news, but that decisions and strategy was set and the direction was final?

I think that's the posture he's saying to take. Acknowledge/address that the situation sucks for them and have some empathy but, like, there's not a lot we can do about it and it ain't going back the way it was. We can take 15 minutes to mourn it but we have to move on and build a bridge and get over it.

Or as Bezos famously said, "disagree and commit".

I spent my whole professional career doing that so yes. The question is what is that going to do to fix the situation? Is that going to bring them back to our side? If the answer is no, what will it take to bring them back to our side? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I spent my whole professional career doing that so yes. The question is what is that going to do to fix the situation? Is that going to bring them back to our side? If the answer is no, what will it take to bring them back to our side? 

I think the argument is, much like it does in your whole professional career, it helps people to get onboard with the new reality. Whereas if you were to take a more antagonstic tone of the just deal with it and glossing over the personal impact with a lack of implied care or empathy, it invites conflict.

The point is to minimize conflict.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I spent my whole professional career doing that so yes. The question is what is that going to do to fix the situation? Is that going to bring them back to our side? If the answer is no, what will it take to bring them back to our side? 

Appeal to the ludicrous unfairness of how it's going right now.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I think the argument is, much like it does in your whole professional career, it helps people to get onboard with the new reality. Whereas if you were to take a more antagonstic tone of the just deal with it and glossing over the personal impact with a lack of implied care or empathy, it invites conflict.

The point is to minimize conflict.

That does nothing to solve the problem, which is the other side is giving them someone to blame for their perceived slights and promising to eradicate the problem. 



×
×
  • Create New...