Can we just be honest about how these Charli Kurt support has only have sympathy for him because they see themselves or their family members in him. They relate to his abhorrent views. These are the same people who were masturbating to the George Floyd video, spamming memes of Sonya Massey and Breonna Taylor, and vandalizing Emmitt Till’s memorial
He says sympathy is a better word because no one can feel another persons pain. Which is just…wrong? You can relate to someone’s pain especially if it’s similar to something you went through. Hence why support groups exist. Also saying empathy is a new age term is wrong 🤦♀️ I guarantee so many people posting the second part of his quote have said they’re empaths before and are only switching up now because of him.
Looking back, I see that too. I thought the main quote circulating was the empathy one and just assumed. Totally my bad. If anyone wants to learn more about why people don’t support him, I’d highly recommend looking at roguednc’s post about it. It’s the twelfth row down, third post (on the right). It really put things into perspective for me as I hadn’t heard much of him until this. It goes through a lot of the things he’s said about gun violence, slavery, women, etc.
The whole quote mentioned sympathy in a positive light. He was against empathy because he viewed it as an impossible emotion to feel. You cannot feel exactly what others feel. But sympathy is good, and it is possible. Feel for others. You clearly are someone with infinite empathy but zero sympathy.
I hate to break it to you friend, but empathy is in fact a real thing, one which is entirely possible to feel. I recommend watching the video on empathy vs sympathy by brene brown if you haven’t, it explains both empathy and sympathy, as well as the differences between the two, quite well. Plus #4 had a great explanation of it as well above, you should read that
I don’t feel the context really helps matters here. Having the solution be armed guards everywhere, including in and around schools, is more dystopian than anything. He’s acting like everyone should be constantly afraid, and we need to defend ourselves from some unknown domestic force. He’s using an innate human fear of the unknown to disguise the fact he’s arguing that the children dying in school shootings are a necessary loss. I vehemently disagree
That’s just where personal politics comes into play… I’d feel much safe knowing a gunman is deterred by an armed guard and will be defeated by one. I also think there’s a difference in “acting like everyone should be afraid” and being smart in today’s world… we’re students of color afraid or smart last week when they didn’t come to class after those AWFUL threats? He again dosent bring up children dying at all in the quote so not sure where that’s coming from or where you can be deciphering that
Another great example of the armed guards situation. When those threats were made to our student body, what was the response? To flood the campus w cops !( carrying rifles looking imposing and almost “dystopian” as you might call it. There isn’t another response that ensures safety while at school. That’s just where things are going in today’s world of crazy people killing innocents.
I’m not sure what happened at your school, I don’t go there, but I’m sorry you had to experience that. I understand what you’re getting at with being smart in today’s world, there’s a lot going on that is cause for concern, I agree with you there. But it seems to me he’s trying to suggest that there is some opposing force embedded in our society that’s trying to rise up, which would obviously cause people to be afraid and distrust one another. THAT is where he’s trying to inspire fear, and
that’s where it goes beyond just being smart. Plus, if these people who make these kinds of threats had significantly more limited access to guns, it would be much less of an issue. Also, he doesn’t need to specifically mention children for it to matter here. He’s saying the annual gun deaths are necessary. That includes those children who die in school shootings. Just because he’s not saying that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Next, your point about the reductionist approach. Saying that those
deaths are necessary isn’t really taking a reductionist approach. It’s saying ah well, it is what it is and we can’t change it, I’d rather be able to own a gun than prevent the deaths of others. Truly taking a reductionist approach would mean to eliminate as many of those gun deaths as possible. Which, he claims in the quote not to know how to do, although most other countries in the world do it just fine. I’m not by any means saying we shouldn’t be aware of what’s going on in the world, I’m
actually arguing the opposite. It’s important to see and learn for yourself what’s going on, and how we might be able to solve it, either as a people or through our own representatives in office. Finally, I agree that a significant police response to a threat like that is absolutely important, but having that police presence there 24/7 isn’t the solution to the problem. Reduced or eliminated access to firearms would significantly reduce the likelihood and number of those threats
His reductionist approach is yet again not set in a utopian world. How can we possibly get rid of guns at this point in America? He’s all for better background checks and making sure gun owners are not psychos. You can’t compare other countries to America when it comes to guns.
He suggests in the quote you posted that we need access to guns to defend ourselves and rise up against some tyrannical government. Which, even just in mentioning it, suggests that this is an imminent possibility, and is encouraging people to distrust one another out of fear they are somehow a part of this tyranny
Neither is mine set in a utopian world. It’s set in a world where people don’t have to be afraid of getting shot and killed just going to work or school, and also don’t have to be afraid of extensive police or armed presence around them at all times. Which given our history of prejudice in law enforcement, is entirely a valid fear. I think better background checks is a great first step, and none of this will happen overnight, but it’s a goal we can work towards. If its been done elsewhere, it
The amount of sheer LEGAL guns in America trumps other countries, ILLEGAL guns is even worse. They are absolutely not comparable. The UK has stabbings not shootings. And not because they don’t have a gun problem, they don’t have guns! We are too far passed that point. Guns out number people in America. Saying to just get rid of them is silly.
Just because people believe that, doesn’t mean they believe murder or revolution is the solution. There are many solutions based in peace and cooperation. Yes, governments fail. I’d even go so far as to say our government is currently failing. But without better gun control, people do shit like what happened to Charlie himself, and that is by no means the way to solve our problems as a country
Honestly? I said it above and I’ll say it again, I can absolutely understand why. People are afraid, and people like Charlie and our current president are saying and doing things to make them feel as such. That doesn’t mean I agree with it. The same could be said about a significant portion of republicans. Like the one who shot Charlie, or those who participated in Jan 6. It’s not okay on either side
Hitler personally killed millions on millions of people. If trump goes that far (which many are concerned he will, that’s why they say things of that nature) I’d agree that the world would be better off without him in it. I’m personally of the belief that that particular avenue should be a very last case scenario
I’m saying there are some, and their views are understandable in my opinion, but I’d argue that they are the loud minority, and most people would rather avoid a violent revolt if possible. Look, at the end of the day, we’re different people with different opinions and perspectives. Agree to disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to have a civil conversation with me, but I’ve gotta go catch a flight