>We’re all to blame at some level, and we’re all responsible for finding a solution.
This seems to blow away the entire premise of the article. This is either massive victim blaming or massively blaming everybody for the actions of a few. It's victim blaming if you're saying that people who are harassed online are responsible for their own harassment, and it's blaming everybody for the actions of a few if you're saying that unconnected parties are responsible.
This is not a new problem. Harassing phone calls, hate mail, and insults have existed long before the Internet, World Wide Web, and social media have existed. Could Empathy Scale to the Telegraph? I don't know, but I have a feeling that the answer to that is the same as the answer to this question.
Sometimes this helps, such as with criticism. It's a bit harder to give criticism in person because of the social pressure of being nice; it's much easier to criticise someone who can't slap you, and that means finding more critiques.
More critiques, however, doesn't mean better ones. It's very easy to dehumanize your partner in argument, which leads to a "they're evil, I'm good" perspective, which leads to more extreme (and more wrong) viewpoints over time.
In short, the article suffers from the very problem it complains about; that anonymity, which is bemoaned for producing Gamergate, is in turn what makes it possible to villainize Gamergate.
Jesus Christ calls his word truth. And in one of his sermons he says, therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
And here is a prophet showing what that can look like; It looks to me like empathy for another side with which you even have justification in disagreeing with is fairly important:
And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.
So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face.
And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.
And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.
And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets.
And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.
And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.
Empathy is a slow process of analyzing someone's emotional state so you can affect it. E.g. The Nazis were excellent empathizers. Rockets and dive bombers (Stuka) had sirens to intimate. The battle of Britain was a psychological one-and it almost worked. Prisoners were told to "remember your locker number" as they were ushered into gas chambers.
Don't confuse empathy with responsiveness, sympathy or compassion. We already have words for those.
Learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6Y3hoKI8U http://www.selfpsychologypsychoanalysis.org/empathy-mis.shtm...
They might get it better than you do. "Empathy" is the liberal word for the kinds of compassion that make people tolerant (for progressive values of compassion and tolerance ofc).
For talking about "empathy" this article is oddly and conspicuously broadcasting their political leaning. Why would OP choose to name the anti-abuse organization and support group that they did? Neither of which are known for their track record nor social work experts on staff. They're known solely because of the internet personalities at their helms.
I can tell you didn't watch the video or read the link either.
Watch the video. Read the link. Get smarter.
Empathy is understanding and feeling someone else's feelings. Putting yourself in their shoes.
Sympathy is having compassion for that person, even if you don't feel the same way. It's understanding, but more detached.
True, you need empathy to make art or to manipulate people or to frighten others - but that's not part of the definition of the word.
Kohut seems to want to redefine empathy so that he can use that word to describe the proper process of psychoanalysis, which he thinks shouldn't include what's commonly called empathy.
Redefining words from their widely accepted definition and acting as if you've discovered the meaning of life does not help anything, it just leads to hostility and confusion as you see in this subthread.
I don't really agree. What you are describing sounds like social engineering, which certainly requires a sensitivity to empathy. Either way, your argument is about a trivial difference, and they still had good things to say on the subject.
Did you watch the video? Did you read the link? Obviously not.
If you had, you would have listened to Heinz Kohut talk about how empathy is misused. Empathy is an informer for action-it has nothing to do with "connecting with people"
I also take it you don't know who Heinz Kohut is. Which means you're not educated in psychology. Anyone with any kind of decent education will study Kohut just as much as Freud or Skinner.
