Man, I hate this comment. mk has an idea you disagree with? Fine. But you jump to personally insulting language, and, I think, a misunderstanding of why they posted this to begin with. I mean, you read THIS sentence: ...and think that he's advocating for a siloing off, and that he's falling into the mindset of white supremacy (and yet, simultaneously, Intersectionality Bingo) where no one gets to have an opinion about anything? For fuck's sake, he's trying to figure out how he should interact with experiences he hasn't had. The utility of this discovery is to fucking discuss it and suss out how to best do that. Your example of Trevor Noah, Tomi Lahren, and Anne Frank? That's clearly, clearly not the world mk is demanding. He isn't, and I'm not sure why you think he is. He literally says, "[My] understanding can grow, but I am fooling myself if I think that my empathy will continue to expand along with my understanding." If anything, he's putting forward in his reply to your comment that we can't have a perfect understanding of something, but that our limited perspective still has utility and we should be honest about the limitations of our understanding while we "react when we witness behavior that causes another harm." Hubski is a discussion-based website, and I hate how often the discussions dissolve into a dismissive, "I will bet you anything it's because you've been watching a few games of intersectionality bingo."In no way does this mean that we cannot, or should not take offense or react when we witness behavior that causes another harm. It only means that we should be genuine in our offense, and realize that the empathy we share is limited, whereas the sympathy is not.
You are arguing that without perfect experience there cannot be understanding.
My daughter is going through a phase right now. She'll misuse a word and when we correct her, she'll say "well that's the way I use it." Then we'll explain that the whole purpose of words is to communicate ideas between people and that if they don't agree on what the word means, then they aren't communicating. More than that, when they use a word wrong and insist that their way is right because they want it to be right, they're making everyone else wrong just so they don't have to get along with anyone else. Of course, she's not yet seven. MK doesn't have an idea I disagree with: he's redefining words for his convenience so he can judge the behavior of others. And while he may personally put forth a disclaimer saying that he still believes in good behavior, he lets stand that that behavior can be judged only on his terms, and subject to his understanding of the world. Never once does MK say "I" am going to be offended, he uses "we" which means I'm included under this edict, as is the rest of the world. Culture is controlled through language. Generally it's the conservatives griping about the changes made by liberals: political correctness is their touchstone but really, whenever you tell a group of people their language is offensive that group will lash out. And in this circumstance, there is no outgroup whose culture is being protected. Let's say I personally define marriage as being between a man and a woman. If I keep that to myself, do I impact the LGBT community? Certainly not as much as if I strive to repeal equal marriage laws. But in any interaction I have with anyone else, my backwards notion of union are going to color my perspective and theirs. I have an old definition that allows me to embrace a reality that has passed and gives me an anchor to keep myself from being swept into the present. I can define a girl as someone born biologically female - and make a self-righteous stink about bathrooms. Will that affect more than me? Or will my attitude impact everyone I interact with? You're arguing that since MK is not personally intending to use his ideas to circumscribe my behavior, there's no way my behavior will be circumscribed by his ideas. Yet as I previously discussed, this very approach has been used time and time again in any number of debates that I have personally taken part in. Triangulating to motive is the fastest and easiest way to disregard the actions of others - yeah sure Chick Fil A gives their employees Sundays off they also sponsor anti-gay legislation therefore we don't have to acknowledge anything good that they do. MK is asserting, with no evidence or discussion, the idea that empathy is a limited commodity. he is further arguing that since empathy is a limited commodity (QED), we should all behave as if we lack it. Your lack of empathy has hindered your ability to understand how MK's understanding and philosophy hinders his impact on my understanding and philosophy - you are here arguing that MK is allowed to argue that people have limited amounts of empathy but that I'm not allowed to call him out for it. You're trashing one of us. It happens to be the one you disagree with. And your sole contribution to this discussion is to attack me.
What's the point of the anecdote with your daughter? To compare me and mk to a seven year old? "Words have meaning" would have sufficed. The same anecdote without "Of course, she's not yet seven" would have served your rhetorical purpose. So why include that line? To belittle? My sole contribution to this conversation is to try and open the fucking dialogue up past, "Your idea is stupid, and you're dumb for saying things that are already a foregone conclusion in my mind," because ilex just made your exact point in a way that doesn't treat mk like an idiot for posting something. Nobody was compared to a seven year old, an overly sensitive liberal, or a white nationalist.
All the arguments you say I could have made simply I've made: You either did not see them, did not understand them or did not acknowledge them until I brought up my six-year-old daughter. Why did I include it? To either aid, encourage or force you to acknowledge my point. Your argument before is that I'm a meanie and I have no point. Your argument after is that I'm a meanie. Fine. The point stands that definitions proscribe behavior and whether or not mk wants to proscribe my behavior, his attempt at redefining words has that effect. More than that, I'm the only one arguing that empathy is not an inherently limited commodity despite the fact that mk offers no evidence or discussion to back up his assertion. mk's core argument is that we must use emotions other than empathy to shape our behavior because there isn't enough empathy to go around. ilex is arguing that we should be nice to people, veen is arguing that other definitions are more important and katakowsj is bringing up a book on the Dalai Lama. I'm the only one making a counter-argument of mk's core point and now, in addition to attacking me for disputing his right to shape my behavior through definition, you're attacking me for not responding to your obscenities kindly enough.An attempt at empathy is a necessity for understanding and empathy for the imperfection of the attempt is essential to bridge the misunderstandings inherent in any diverse society.