DOJ Quietly Deletes Study After Charlie Kirk's Death That Says Right-Wing Extremists Engage in 'Far More' Political Violence

[JosephZ]

They didn't appear isolated though. It appeared to be across the board in celebrating, derogatory remarks, attempting to portray the shooter as a right-winger, saying the assassination was staged etc etc.

The website that was set up to dox those who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder had a total of 63,000 submissions. The list included high-profile individuals as well as regular everyday individuals. To put that into perspective, there are around 44 million registered Democrats in the US. That means less than 0.15% would have been included on that doxing website. Even if that number were ten times higher, you would be looking at just over 1%. Many of those names submitted would not have been Democrats, so the percentage would be even less than my illustration. So to say Democrats or even the left celebrated Charlie Kirk's death would be wrong since it's likely that only a fraction of 1% that would identify as either Democrat or left are known to have actually done this.

 

[probinson]

The website that was set up to dox those who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder had a total of 63,000 submissions. The list included high-profile individuals as well as regular everyday individuals. To put that into perspective, there are around 44 million registered Democrats in the US. That means less than 0.15% would have been included on that doxing website. Even if that number were ten times higher, you would be looking at just over 1%. Many of those names submitted would not have been Democrats, so the percentage would be even less than my illustration. So to say Democrats or even the left celebrated Charlie Kirk's death would be wrong since it's likely that only a fraction of 1% are known to have actually done this.

Unfortunately, people become known by the bad behavior of the few. Anyone who ever missed recess in elementary school because one jerk in their class wouldn't shut up understands this well.

The actions of the few often affect the many, and for better or worse, they become associated with it.

I'm sure you are correct that the majority of Democrats would condemn the murder of Kirk. But unfortunately, there was a sizable, VOCAL contingent that celebrated it. It should distress all of us that there were >60k people who celebrated the assassination of an innocent man.

 

[Servus]

It did not appear to be across the board from my point of view. From where I sat most people were truly horrified that it happened and immediately expressed such. Would you not expect those who feel they have been unjustly accused of claiming to be victims?

The website that was set up to dox those who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder had a total of 63,000 submissions. The list included high-profile individuals as well as regular everyday individuals. To put that into perspective, there are around 44 million registered Democrats in the US. That means less than 0.15% would have been included on that doxing website. Even if that number were ten times higher, you would be looking at just over 1%. Many of those names submitted would not have been Democrats, so the percentage would be even less than my illustration. So to say Democrats or even the left celebrated Charlie Kirk's death would be wrong since it's likely that only a fraction of 1% that would identify as either Democrat or left are known to have actually done this.

The perception of the general public is what matters.

 

[NxNW]

They didn't appear isolated though. It appeared to be across the board in celebrating, derogatory remarks, attempting to portray the shooter as a right-winger, saying the assassination was staged etc etc.

The left is showing more empathy for Kirk's family than he did for George Floyd.

 

[A2SG]

The perception of the general public is what matters.

Even when that perception is demonstrably wrong?

-- A2SG, kind of like the same wrong perception of the outcome of the 2020 election.....

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Correct. But sharing someone's pain and suffering is not empathy. Compassion is sharing someone's pain and wishing to alleviate it. Empathy is the ability to understand how one is feeling.



I have. And I bet you have too. I'm sure you've heard someone say, "You don't understand how I feel!" Those people are correct. Attempting to "empathize" with someone when you have no ability to understand how they're feeling can indeed be damaging. Why? Because you CAN'T understand how someone is feeling, and attempting to can cause you to minimize their pain and how they're feeling. You can share in the hurt and their suffering and grieve with them, but you cannot UNDERSTAND how they feel.

When I said share I meant feeling the pain myself as they experience it, my mistake. Compassion does not require one to share the others pain as they experience it, it requires that you understand that the other is suffering and that you feel sorry or pity for them and want alleviate it.

No I have never claimed to understand and feel someone elses feeling vicariously and got the response "You don't understand how I feel". I have expressed confusion about someone mental state and gotten that response, but that's indicative of a lack of empathy not too much.

If one is not convinced that one have a good enough (I don't believe it must be perfect) understanding of someone's elses feelings, one can always simply not express it. But in my experience people respond favorably if one are empathetic towards them.

 

[Belk]

The perception of the general public is what matters.

While this is true from a holistic perspective it does not alleviate the need to move beyond public perception when we have data showing it to not be aligned with reality. People of good conscience should endever to pursue the truth, no?

 

[Servus]

While this is true from a holistic perspective it does not alleviate the need to move beyond public perception when we have data showing it to not be aligned with reality. People of good conscience should endever to pursue the truth, no?

Is that why the Democrat party failing and being on the left is becoming less appealing?

 

[Belk]

Is that why the Democrat party failing and being on the left is becoming less appealing?

Is that more of the "perception of the general public"? Never-mind. If you can't agree that we should endeavor to find the truth it would seem there is little point in discussing with you.

 

[Servus]

Is that more of the "perception of the general public"? Never-mind. If you can't agree that we should endeavor to find the truth it would seem there is little point in discussing with you.

Endeavor to find the truth about what?

 

[Servus]

Even when that perception is demonstrably wrong?

-- A2SG, kind of like the same wrong perception of the outcome of the 2020 election.....

Demonstrate what's demonstrably wrong.

 

[probinson]

When I said share I meant feeling the pain myself as they experience it, my mistake.

You're missing the point. How can you experience the pain as they experience it if you don't know know they feel?

Compassion does not require one to share the others pain as they experience it, it requires that you understand that the other is suffering and that you feel sorry or pity for them and want alleviate it.

Right. You experience pain for them, not as they experience it, which is all but impossible to do.

No I have never claimed to understand and feel someone elses feeling vicariously and got the response "You don't understand how I feel". I have expressed confusion about someone mental state and gotten that response, but that's indicative of a lack of empathy not too much.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. My position is that if you try to understand how someone else is feeling, you will almost certainly be wrong. Each person is affected differently by the various tragedies in their lives. You might have some shared experiences in which it may be comforting for another to know what you've gone through, but you'll. never truly understand how another person feels or grieves.

If one is not convinced that one have a good enough (I don't believe it must be perfect) understanding of someone's elses feelings, one can always simply not express it. But in my experience people respond favorably if one are empathetic towards them.

In my experience, compassion, sympathy and shared experiences have been very beneficial to support someone who is grieving and suffering.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

You're missing the point. How can you experience the pain as they experience it if you don't know know they feel?



Right. You experience pain for them, not as they experience it, which is all but impossible to do.



We'll have to agree to disagree here. My position is that if you try to understand how someone else is feeling, you will almost certainly be wrong. Each person is affected differently by the various tragedies in their lives. You might have some shared experiences in which it may be comforting for another to know what you've gone through, but you'll. never truly understand how another person feels or grieves.



In my experience, compassion, sympathy and shared experiences have been very beneficial to support someone who is grieving and suffering.

You find empathy impossible because you have defined it out of existence by saying that it entails a perfect understanding of someones mental states. We have the ability to recognize the emotions of others just by observing them. Is it a perfect process? No. Can I guarantee that we recognize them correctly at every instance? No, but it works very well for many of us most if the time. Do we get better at it if we have more information? Yes. Other people obivously find it useful to talk about empathy, there are research into the brain structure of empathy, into the genetics of empathy etc.

 

[A2SG]

Demonstrate what's demonstrably wrong.

JosephZ already did.

-- A2SG, and do I really need to point out the lack of evidence for massive voter fraud in 2020?

 

[Servus]

JosephZ already did.

-- A2SG, and do I really need to point out the lack of evidence for massive voter fraud in 2020?

Nice deflection.

 

[A2SG]

Nice deflection.

No deflection. You've already been provided with the information you asked for, you only need to read it.

-- A2SG, I can only lead you to water, the rest is up to you....

 

[Servus]

No deflection. You've already been provided with the information you asked for, you only need to read it.

-- A2SG, I can only lead you to water, the rest is up to you....

So instead of asking you to back up what you yourself said, I should read someone else's post instead. lol.

 

[A2SG]

So instead of asking you to back up what you yourself said, I should read someone else's post instead. lol.

I was referring to that prior post, which already demonstrated what you asked me to demonstrate quite well.

-- A2SG, did you bother to read it?

 

[Servus]

I was referring to that prior post, which already demonstrated what you asked me to demonstrate quite well.

-- A2SG, did you bother to read it?

Good grief, seriously? You replied to my reply to it. Thus you picked up the ball. And when I asked you to play it, you waffled. We're done here.

 

[probinson]

You find empathy impossible because you have defined it out of existence by saying that it entails a perfect understanding of someones mental states. We have the ability to recognize the emotions of others just by observing them. Is it a perfect process? No. Can I guarantee that we recognize them correctly at every instance? No, but it works very well for many of us most if the time. Do we get better at it if we have more information? Yes. Other people obivously find it useful to talk about empathy, there are research into the brain structure of empathy, into the genetics of empathy etc.

This line of conversation started because someone took a quote from Charlie Kirk out of context where he said that he didn't like the word empathy. The purpose of me posting all of this was to explain why he might have said that. Regardless, the reason people post that quote from Kirk removed from its proper context is to make it seem like he was advocating being uncaring towards others. But as the full quote demonstrates, he said he preferred the words sympathy and compassion. I generally agree with that position for the reasons I've stated.