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.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
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. 

Posted
48 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

image.png.56264051583f42b8ca8b5a41b15774a4.png

Thanks for pointing out one of the dumber parts of the essay where the author reveals he thought the world was a race- and gender-blind meritocracy up until 2014.

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Thanks for pointing out one of the dumber parts of the essay where the author reveals he thought the world was a race- and gender-blind meritocracy up until 2014.

That was unintentionally funny, too, but the main call out there was showing the author, in his own words, is trying to say he and his ilk are still liberals.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

The question is what is that going to do to fix the situation? Is that going to bring them back to our side?

I think it will bring back some of the ones we want, and also probably help stop the bleeding. 
I think we are talking about a lot of things here:

1) younger people taking the blame and paying a social/economic price for the actions/inactions of older people, mainly boomers (an immense subject matter)

2) How affluent white progressives have been unaware of, or in some cases actively ignored or even celebrated the negative consequences to a subset of younger people

3) how MAGA enlisted resentment about that and channeled that towards their own ends

4)  what it takes for progressives to reestablish or maintain credibility with middle and working class millennials. 
 

Paying attention to them and indicating that their struggles are understood isn’t good enough by itself to make a political difference, but I do think it’s required for any sort of policy or plan or candidates to resonate. It’s the whole podcast thing- Kamala Harris should have done Theo Von and flown to Austin to do Rogan and  not done anything special other than be herself as honestly as she could and to push back as much as she wanted. The point of doing those venues would have been to signal to their audiences that they matter. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

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. 

 

We can literally do that too. In fact, we have an easier job now that we have a bunch of cartoon villains broadcasting every day how insanely shitty they are.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Thanks for pointing out one of the dumber parts of the essay where the author reveals he thought the world was a race- and gender-blind meritocracy up until 2014.

Yes, that was super dumb. It’s funny, I run into that a lot with younger millennials. They seem to labor under the impression that there was some golden age in the recent past when things were fair. I have no idea where it comes from. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

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. 

I think the argument is that for some of these aggrieved white males, sure, they are lost to the other side making promisses, etc.

But there are some who can be reasoned with and who can come around from the initial bloody nose with a little empathy and pep talk, who can be saved from the dark side.

You seem to think there is not a messy middle ground where perhaps slighted people can feel safe in calling out a wound, maybe feeling sorry for themselves for a minute or two, but then taking a step back and weighing everything out on the balance and making a decision to move forward as non (or less) aggrieved. You seem to think all these white guys who carp about the changes they are facing are either all lost causes or actually have no right to those feelings. At least that's what it seems like based on your responses.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

They seem to labor under the impression that there was some golden age in the recent past when things were fair. I have no idea where it comes from. 

1) They look around, and see how utterly fucky and fucked everything is.

2) They presume "surely things weren't ALWAYS this fucked.  Surely there must have been a period when things were fair and colorblind and merit-based.  Surely things weren't this shitty."

Women and minorities, upon hearing point 2:

hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAx

And....

die-hard-john-mc-clane.gif

 

Much like white people have started to realize that cops are by and large abusive, shitty liars who are crooked and have contempt for the rule of law, and minorities have the exact same responses as I noted above.

"Powerful people will act corruptly and purposefully divide you so they can completely fuck you over."  Yeah, that's always been the fucking case, but you fucking dumbasses thought you were on "team Powerful People" when instead you were ALWAYS on "team Get Fucked."

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...