A clearly sensationalist title that I think shows this guy is just trying to make a name for himself rather than add to the conversation of "empathy is good, we need more of it, here is how we could do that." Provocateur, etc.

Seriously, "the problem with too much empathy", it's like, what's the opposite of a phrase like this? "The solution for reducing empathising so that its effect is not negative to me"? Empathising is an act of self-expressive courage man! You do it because feelings are a fundamental part of the human experience and how we RELATE to EACH OTHER. And you can do that TOO MUCH?!?!

I believe empathy is a sense, not a rule dude. Just because other people are starving doesn't mean that because of "the rule of empathy" then I should act. I think empathy is rather a sense where when something happens with someone, I experience, I observe, then I feel, and it is that feeling which is part of both my capacity for empathy, and my actual empathy.

PS - I don't look at or try to look the world objectively, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! Everything is subjective! The only truth is what we share together. I do not share this dude's opinions about what the word "empathy" means.

GOSHDARNIT this guy describes how people interpret the world through their personalities and then immediately goes on to clarify nothing about what he said, he says people need to talk about what they each believe because people have different perspectives, BUT then he immediately says "I'm not saying that facts don't exist or that they're not relativistic or anything like that" THEN WELL WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?!?!?! DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING?!?!? DO PEOPLE HAVE TO TALK OR NOT TO MAKE SENSE OF THINGS!?!??! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to believe he's trying to be helpful to humanity somehow but I don't see it.

Gender reassignment and hormone therapy aren't covered by military healthcare, so that's not the issue. Honestly, I think Trump is either so misinformed that he believes they are covered, or he knows that by implying they are with the phrase "tremendous medical costs" his base will be outraged by an imaginary government expenditure on 'queers'.

And that's why this guy doesn't deserve the copyright on the phrase. He certainly didn't invent it or make it popular. I hope that Coke counter sues.

Odd, as a Canadian (from Ontario even), I've never heard of this guy or his video and "out for a rip" has generally been a well established phrase used by motorheads for who knows how long - but certainly well before 2015. Still, best of luck, definitely shouldn't let massive corporations get away with trademark infringement; they certainly don't look the other way when the little guys accidentally slip up.

The term "political correctness" originally came about as a disparaging way for assholes to describe not being an asshole.

“Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite”
-Iain M. Banks

Basically, while there are undoubtedly some idiots who take it too far, in general, I'm ok with it no longer being socially acceptable to call people niggers, queers and bitches.

The whole intellectually/vertically/gravitationally/whateverly challenged nonsense was invented as a parody of political correctness and in general, no-one actually uses those terms to describe anyone.

The problem is that people see the worst excesses of political correctness and assume that that's the whole point. It's like seeing one police shooting and deciding that law enforcement itself is a bad idea.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely used the phrase "that's not politically correct" when talking to another human.

Oh, and even "politeness" isn't immune to politicisation. When I was younger, it was drilled into me that it was polite for a man to hold a door for a woman, or to pay for dinner on a date. It was considered polite for children to be seen and not heard. Good luck having an "apolitical" discussion about those topics.

Very strange phrasing, given that the visuals all seem to be from the film "Joe's Apartment". I don't think the song is, though.

I totally agree with her that environmental concerns turn "conservatives" off on any argument (funny, since it's conservation of the environment that they can't abide).
I think she should also be using financial phrases, because done properly, renewable energy saves you money in the long run. My solar system, for instance, paid for itself in the first 8 years of an expected 20 year lifespan, so I get 12 years of 'free' electricity and ignoring rate hikes, but most right wingers would claim it will never pay for itself and is nothing more than pie in the sky hippy fantasy because that's what Alex Jones and his ilk told them.
Showing people that being responsible will actually save them large sums of money is the number one way to convince them to change their behaviors, it's far more effective than any philosophical arguments. It's the main reason I bought my system, and is also a main reason I want an electric car.

Side note: the 'sit in your car in your garage' argument is the same one I use against anti-smokers. I tell them, "you sit in the car you drove here in to complain about some smoke with a hose from the tail pipe going into the window, I'll sit in my car smoking, and we'll see who dies first.". This is to illustrate that their complaints about the dangers of smoke are ridiculous and negligible compared to their own polluting behaviors.

The scariest part to me is that you can read my whole comment and think I'm defending the cop.

What I'm talking about is things that happen because a cop is poorly trained or undertrained, and I said that several times.

But go ahead and pull a couple phrases out of context if you get off that way.

"quality proteins" do you even science bro? You're trying to call out health professionals on their lack of scientific ability, but you go an use a phrase that means absolutely nothing beyond the meat commercial it came from.

I'm not going to waste 30 minutes of my time getting a list of studies together, because all you ever do is reply with aggressive hyperbole.

I think this is a tad bit overblown; I have to review agreements, (T&C/MSA/etc.) all the time and sometimes the wording is INTENTIONALLY vague and broad, and sometimes legal meanings of words and phrases are not the common definitions. It's why you have legal counsel.

I'm no fan of Trump, by any stretch, but a 70-year old dude who doesn't like to read fine print isn't terribly surprising to me.

"kindergarten up-skirt tee hee" is perhaps the best phrase to date to explain why anime very frequently irritates me. Thank you.

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.