this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
365 points (96.2% liked)

Political Memes

9573 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 147 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

On the one hand, I think everyone hates that person who pulls the "I'm an empath" card.

On the other hand, "empathy isn't real" is a bad faith attack on the concept of trying to emphasize or even understand people that are different from you.

That's what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.

Debate is about understanding where the other person is coming from, identifying weaknesses in each other's position, and working towards shared truths.

Since he couldn't empathize, Charlie couldn't debate. So he went with the modern debate strategy: I only win when someone else is losing.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 61 points 2 weeks ago

That’s what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.

Spoiler alert: That's how fascists argue. It's all bad faith arguments.

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 51 points 2 weeks ago

I noted a while ago that I never once heard Kirk say an argument that wasn’t a debate fallacy. Not one time.

[–] al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 2 weeks ago

Every kirk debate I saw: spontaneous lead poisoning poor guy fell right out his chair.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What is the "I'm an empath" card?

Are there people who try to make out like they're Deanna Troi style empaths?

Or do you just mean people who claim to have particularly strong empathy / be particularly empathetic?

As an aside, emphasize isn't related to empathy, and I didn't think empathize is a word, although my spell-check apparently thinks it is?

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

As an empath, I'm really in tune with other people's emotions, and I cry all the time, so I know that you're super broken up about not knowing about the empath card - even if you can't stand to admit it to anyone but me, who's more in tune with your emotions than you are... Because I'm an empath.

No shit Susan, getting sad at the commercials for starving children doesn't make you an empath.

[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

It was half-facetious, but I think a lot of conservatives hear the word "empathy" and think of means this. (Watch the first 60 seconds and tell me you didn't cringe.)

Empathize is a word. It means" to feel or experience empathy", or "to be understanding of".

When I say Charlie Kirk was arguing in bad faith, I'm saying ~~he's~~ he was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think a lot of conservatives hear the word “empathy” and think of means this.

I think it's even simpler than that. Certain words just make them go "Are you calling me a nutcase/soyboy??!!" (or sth like along those lines)
Or the suggestion that therapy is actually a good thing and not a stigma.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

he was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.

Empathize: to feel as you imagine others feels. Sympathize: to understand/relate to others' feelings.

When I read about empathy & compassion in Daoism, Buddhism, various Hindu traditions, etc, they're referring to your 1st definition. The most important part is not to merely feel or understand, but to respond with support, ie, act with compassion.

Your 1st & 2nd definitions are typically understood as going together: to feel as we imagine others feel, we try to liken them to ourselves & understand their experiences vicariously. If you want to separate feeling from understanding though, the word sympathize exists for merely understanding or relating to.

I remember as a child getting upset and someone telling me they sympathize, explaining the difference with empathize (eg, they say that means they understand but they don't feel), which just infuriated me further

What the fuck do I care about whether you feel or understand? You understand & aren't helping. Fuck right off with your bullshit words!

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Empathize is definitely a word.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn’t think empathize is a word

It's weird you haven't figured out dictionaries.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

LOL. Super witty. I hope you're having a great day chief.

[–] krunklom@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're describing Hegelian dialectics - not debate.

Debates are usually about proving your position, and thereby proving the other person's wrong.

[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That's how I was taught to debate.

Unless your positions are mutually exclusive, it's often possible for both parties to justify their position.

From my experience, the zero-sum I'm-right-you're-wrong style of debate started when we started televising them. You may disagree, but I think debate was more productive when we weren't incentivized to score points on each other.

If that's Hegelian dialectics, then I prefer that to what you call debate.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago

Debate is about convincing your audience, not the people you're arguing against.

[–] krunklom@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

Anyone can teach anyone anything and call it whatever they want.

What you're talking about is the Hegelian concept of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

As the other commenter pointed out debate is about convincing your audience or judges that you're correct.

Your way of doing things is a much more constructive way of discussing almost anything on which you disagree with someone, in like, most cases, imo.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

He certainly wasn't trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth...

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I despise when women say "I'm an empath" and then continue to tell you how you feel when that is not actually how I feel. No. You don't get to claim to know me better than I do.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

".....so....you're an alien from Betazed? I don't understand."

This is the kind of thing that fuels his argument. People who are claiming they can literally read your emotions psychically. I get they don't really mean that, but that is what the damn word means.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's different from when they are using it as leverage vurses using it to relate. When it's used to relate it's a completely justified use of the word.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I dont know why you brought up "empaths." That is kinda bad faith if you ask me. No one is talking about pseudo science spirtualism. Empathy, mirroring the feelings of someone else when observing them, is a completely scientifically proven trait people have. There is no debate.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154617301031

[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did you stop reading after the first sentence?