- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17821531
I usually avoid politics on this community but thought this article kinda fit
You must log in or register to comment.
Conservatives are only capable of empathy if their ideology directly affects someone they care about. Good on them for finally getting there, but they’re a day late and a dollar short
Only sometimes capable of empathy if someone they care about is affected.
So rare that it gets a news article when it happens!
deleted by creator
Not everyone changes even when those close to them are impacted, sadly. I share your frustration and your point stands that it shouldn’t take someone close to you being impacted to show empathy but this is a good outcome.
We need more stories like this and we should always be encouraging of people who turn away from bigotry even if they should never have been going that way to begin with.
A lot of conservatives stick to their ideology in circumstances like this. It’s nice to see when they don’t, even if they should have left earlier.
Should be encouraging these acts instead of pointing at how slow they are.
No, fuck 'em. Positive reinforcement when conservatives finally accept LGBTQ+ family members hasn’t worked and conservatives have only leaned into their bigotry and hatred.
on the contrary, it has been shown that social normalization changes behavior better than shame or fear. It may not be happening as fast as you’d like but going the other route will just be counterproductive.
The other route of not praising them?
yes?
Stop acting like you live in a perfect world where the vast majority of voters are Left.
In 2024 we need every vote we can get, and if that means treating latecomers nice, it’s better than getting four more years of the GOP.
Slow motion is much better than no motion.
“Keep doing the counterproductive thing” is a terrible argument.
Acknowledging their change is fine. Celebrating it and plastering it on the news gives reasonable people false hope that most conservatives can be reasoned with when it is apparent conservstives have a tiny chance to change when it happens to them directly.
Or, wild idea’ when it happens to people they know.
And how does being mean to potential allies get more votes?
Acknowledging without celebrating is being mean?
Acknowledging without celebrating is being mean?
Now you’re just playing with definitions.
So what you’re saying is “perfection over progress”.
So tell me, last time a vote didn’t go perfectly your way, you took up arms and corrected the mistake of your government by force, yes?
How did that go?
So what you’re saying is “perfection over progress”.
Did you mean to respond to a different post?
Tell me if I wrong but if you show that won’t there also be a positive effect for people who need that last bit of push to finally see it?
You are thinking of reasonable people.
Only changing when it personally affects them is confirmation that positive reinforcement doeson’t work on bigots. Shame barely kept them from being publicly shitty for a couple of decades, but that was more than positive reinforcement.
hardcore bigots would’ve shunned the grandkid instead
molly coddling republicans’ sensitive feefees for the last 20+ years is what led to a world where a trump presidency is possible. TWICE
no, those “i’m all of a sudden open minded and tolerant” people can eat shit. fuck them
What you call ‘mollycoddling’ I call ‘winning elections.’
-
A father jumped in a river to save his children, succeeded, but then drowned.
-
A few years ago I risked a felony to save a life because there was no one else.
-
These grandparents had empathy for their grandchildren.
None of these deserve accolades. Each met their obligation to provide basic human responses to the given situation.
Grandparents that, without trans family, recognized the hatred they’d been sucked into, perhaps even recognized it as counter their religious ideology, rejected the system in wider scope on principle, then quietly tried to keep running their ideological race: That’s my hero.
Yeah, all of these deserve accolades, because we want to encourage empathetic behaviours. Minimizing someone’s actions when they do the right thing implicitly sends the message that it’s not important or valued to do the right thing.
While I understand and agree that some should receive personal encouragement, this is public accolade which is obviously quite different.
I’ve higher expectations for individuals I choose to trust and for society in general. Meeting the minimums for humanity isn’t good enough. The majority of the comments in response are exemplary of how we fail each other, and thus fail as a society.
if the goal is to try to reach other conservatives with this message, it has been shown that social normalization changes behavior better than shame or fear. they need to see their peers change their minds.
This makes sense. But, lemmy isn’t a MAGA, conservative, or leftist audience. It’s a neoliberal audience. My response to the OP is exactly what it should be.
If you aren’t training people–publicly–to meet the minimums of humanity, people aren’t going to learn it. This is the entire emotional labor argument, writ large. People will say, “I don’t owe you the emotional labor to explain this”, or “you need to educate yourself”, but the reality is that if you don’t, no one will.
No, it’s not fair. But life isn’t fair. If you want thing to get better, then you need to be better, and you need to keep working to make shit change, instead of expecting everyone to be better on their own. The people that are intrinsically motivated need to motivate all of the people that are extrinsically motivated.
I believe I’ve invested the emotional labor to explain myself quite well: Good job. But, you need to do better to earn public accolade.
That’s reality. Though some are still learning they’re not children to be coddled.
2. A few years ago I risked a felony to save a life because there was no one else.
Story time?
The only people I’ve told were individually rationalized as part of them understanding the potential risks, benefits, and expectations associated with the magnitude of presence I had in their life. In general, most are better off if I don’t communicate freely, including myself.
If someone provides an acceptable-to-me explanation of why it’d benefit society for me to tell this audience that story, then I will.
You could just say “I made it up because my parents starved me of attention when I was a kid”, it’s shorter
Nailed it. Homeboy here thinks nobody deserves accolades for doing the right thing… his own “story” is as real as Santa Claus.
deleted by creator
The only people I’ve told were individually rationalized as part of them understanding the potential risks, benefits, and expectations associated with the magnitude of presence I had in their life
We’re strangers on the internet, what are we going to do? Track you down and get you arrested for a potentially embellished to fake story?
potentially embellished to fake
Imagine my perspective knowing such is the audience’s perception.
Some nuance is better kept outside the digital world and individualized.
booo
-
