You're viewing a single thread.
This may get downdooted to oblivion, but I think some of this is human nature. It is abhorrent, and something we need to strive to fix, but it is rather natural for people to think that their own situation is typical -- because for them, it is. Every exemplar that a privileged person will have is also a privileged exemplar -- until, of course, something like this happens.
And as a further consequence, it is extremely difficult to convince someone that their personal situation is not the norm. Everyone wants to be the main character and ultimately believes that they are.
Not sure what the solution is.
I don't think it's more human mature than the opposite is.
Most of us are capable of reasoning and of empathy. We can hear a doctor say "there's cases where it's necessary" and think "yeah, makes sense" or "I trust their expertise".
Not being able to see past oneself seems like a very limited view. There's reasons for that of course. but it's a failure of education and social surroundings. And it's not inherent.
This is an explanation of human perception and behaviour, there is nothing controversial about it and easily understood. It is also true that if you stick someone in a creepy haunted house they will naturally feel scared even though it's Halloween and it's perfectly safe. The issue is not that humans have these natural tendencies that lead to logical fallacies, the issue is that humans have the capacity to be meta aware of them, process them, and situate them appropriately--skills developed through education and practice/experience--yet we have sociopolitocal movements that encourage the opposite for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
I get your point, but i think people are not consistent with this. Who gets or doesnt get sympathy is entirely emotional.
Ive had people say that refugees are at fault for not getting their papers in order in time and shut be deportet over it and then go on to talk about how for them as citizens it is impossible with the low staffed and inefficient government offices these days.
They willfully ignore that their problems with the bureaucracy could exist for other people too. And we are not even talking about acknowledgong it to be worse. Just simply transferring their life experience onto other people like you describe.
Reading.
We need everyone to read more books. A wide variety of stories on a wide variety of topics by a wide variety of authors, all with different backgrounds and ideas. We must read stories that let us temporarily step into the mind and experiences of other people, who aren't us, to train our brains the ability to understand the plights of others. Books of human stories, as opposed to movies, doom-scrolling TikTok, etc., seems uniquely suited for this kind of training of empathy, because the stories are executed inside our own brains.
I'm willing to bet that these why-are-the-leopards-suddenly-eating-my-face? the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion type people have read distinctly less, or at least far less varied, stories than us who look at them and wonder how it is possible to be so unable to put themselves in the shoes of anyone but themselves.
Just for your info: There is no "downdooted to oblivion" on Lemmy. Up- and downvotes for comments have almost no effect.
Yes thanks, and I know that. I'm not going for updoots, but I do like to see them.
Gotta get that dopamine where you can.
Provide testing for logic, critical thinking, and empathy in order to vote?
Stop making excuses for stupid people that hold back the progress of mankind?
I guess instead of reading a few books, we'll all just have to make the same mistakes that we've already made, again, in order to learn anything... Yeah sure, dude, let's start making people take tests before they can vote. What could go wrong?
Oh, I'm not trying to make excuses. Though I can appreciate that it looks like that.
But how do we restrict the stupid people? If we agree that every human gets to take part, then it follows that the stupid will be voting.
I don't think a litmus test is the answer, since they are extremely easy to misuse. Why not say only landowners should vote? How about only veterans? It's a dangerous path.
It's a dangerous path, but does that mean we shouldn't consider it? Like when you vote you have to correctly identify your candidate's policies. Or you have to answer some moral question like "rich people are rich because they are in some way inherently better". Or if you vote anti choice you're informed "selecting this candidate waives all natal care that may end your fetus' life including termination of an unviable fetus to save your life, sign your name if you waive your medical rights" if they refuse to sign - your vote don't count. But a lot of folks are too dumb to get a say in this shit right now. I think the dumbing down of America is 100% orchestrated and intentional, but we need to fix our dumbness for a few generations and get a good level set of "not being a fucking dipshit" before we can trust the random person on the street has more common sense than a bag of mismatched socks.
Or if you vote anti choice you're informed "selecting this candidate waives all natal care that may end your fetus' life including termination of an unviable fetus to save your life, sign your name if you waive your medical rights" if they refuse to sign - your vote don't count.
Even then, that may not work, since people are inclined to think "that's basically an impossibility, or would only happen if you're under the influence, or old, it could never happen to me".
I should be surprised if Farmer expected that she would need abortion care when she voted against it. She likely only realised she would when she found out her pregnancy was non-viable, and tried to get abortion care
then who determines what is logical or empathetic ? i hope ur joking...
Yes, but we can all, even the stupid, agree on a few things, surely?