We often equate having empathy to being a good person. I don’t think so, but I think one is more likely to be a good person using it. Being someone who just doesn’t ignore cruelty or laugh along.
Some background that might help. When I was 11 years old I sort of gained empathetic knowledge when I was bullied by realising how horrible it is. I also learned that I probably lacked empathy and I felt like a bad person because till that point it hadn’t really crossed my mind that it could hurt so much to be bullied. This realisation made me hate myself a lot. It didn’t help either that I had depression and anxiety.
It might be due to autism or being too sensitive or something that I hadn’t understood until that point. These days I don’t accept bullying in many forms and I try to empathise with people. I am just hyper aware of a lot, it’s exhausting but I feel it’s important because I don’t want to repeat what happened to me when I was young.
My empathy works sometimes to people’s surprise and mine. But I score really badly in online tests with empathy and I worry a lot about being accidentally cruel. I have to make an effort to go back to memories with feelings I have in order to “feel” empathy. Or I just don’t act or just listen to people when they need it.
So I want to be more empathetic but when I search “empathy” on the internet I get like for example “10 signs you are an empath”, and that’s nice but feels like ego-stroking and that it borders on pseudo-science. Because I know when people who say they have empathy don't necessarily always do and they can hurt people with their “understanding”.
I know there’s like three different kinds of empathy that Dr. K has mentioned before. Also that you can be less empathic and more empathic depending on the situation. However I have read somewhere that there are some people with a lot of empathy that can truly feel what the other person is feeling. Wouldn’t it be overwhelming at some point?
I thought I was empathic once but maybe it's more like I have some sort of learned empathy. Empathy feels like magic to me and I prefer, like, facts.
I am just sort of lost. I would love if anyone could clarify to me what empathy is all about and how I can become more empathetic?
Slightly concerned?
What are some of your favorite methods for keeping ingredients fresh? Mint and other herbs, citrus and other tree fruits, berries, syrups, etc.
Bryce Harper has never won a World Series.
They have been saying this for a while now, and I'm not sure of the validity of the claim, my parents are not known to be good at finding unbiased things about something they already believe is bad.
They also believe the information is somehow biased. True? Bunk?
Also does your race determine your success ? Or your families economic status?
And if it isn't true, is college a good choice? And does going to high school help with college? Been cheaply homeschooled since I was 10, meaning no curriculum just khanacademy and the occasional printed paper.
Trees are noisy. That's the main thing. Just a never-ending whine of needy, irritating life. "Feed me! Water me! Tend to my life force!" Meanwhile every other creature in the forest is clamoring too. Some of them want to eat the trees, their leaves, their bark. The damn beavers want to gnaw them down so they can build their stupid extravagant homes and make the other beavers jealous with the high-grade sticks they've used to furnish their dens. Flowers whine about how they never get the proper attention from the bees.
It goes on, and on, and on. Circle of life, my ass. It's just a never-ending treadmill.
It's gotten better, I'll give you that. The cities are receding pretty much everywhere as the Earth takes over with its sprouting towers and ribbons of rock. Slowly ridding itself of the noisy unnatural life clinging to its surface all over the place. Sure, forests are necessary so we don't starve to death. Have to cultivate all that life energy, and the auras shield you from getting Void-burnt.
But every now and then it's nice to head out with an umbrella and a few bottles of Vitalis and just rough it. I smiled as I lay on the top of the gorgeous mineral tower and looked up at the stars, hearing nothing but the faint physical sounds of the stone-runner creatures far below. Nothing clamored to be fed or have its demands balanced with a thousand other annoying species, nothing but a few insects and rodents I could easily ignore. Almost no dirt, and what there was got regularly washed away by the pipe-creatures and and flatsoak crawlers. Nature taking care of her own, no intervention required.
Bliss.
Subscribe to r/Magleby and I'll throw more words at you sometimes
Stop with the Curry shots, slap that floor, tippy toe and arms wide and up all 24 secs, back straight like a squat, help from 2 pass away hands up when you are back to the ball, and more.
I can dream but it would be funny if teams started winning again with 85 points.
I wish that Delpo was not as much injured as he has been through out his career
I don’t know if this has been done before but thought it would be fun.
If I’ve learned one thing from true crime it is to do whatever I can to not be taken to a second location.
I’ve also learned that I’m a lot more paranoid about doing things alone now. And I’m a lady so that doesn’t help.
Sorry if the title is weirdly worded. Also, some might say this post belongs in a different sub, but I think it’s about the logic of statements I have heard from religious leaders and would be helpful to hear the perspective from people who are somewhat well versed in philosophy.
I have heard fundamentalist Christian leaders say that if one part of the Bible is false, then it discredits the entire thing.
I have always thought the logic here seemed a little weird, but I can’t put my finger on it. Why couldn’t some parts be true and some parts be false? It sounds to me like, if you have a justifiable reason for believing a part to be false then you can still believe the other parts are true.
Am I wrong here?
Don’t take it for granted that you have already seen everything there is to see. If you do, you are conceptualizing the process. You are not observing its living reality. When you are clearly mindful of breath or indeed anything else, it is never boring. Mindfulness looks at everything with the eyes of a child, with the sense of wonder. Mindfulness sees every second as if it were the first and the only second in the universe. So look again."
-- Henepola Gunaratana,From Mindfulness in Plain English
Goes for Christianity too and any other religions, but I hear this from Muslims more. 'ISIS isn't true Islam'. Cool, I ask them, then is the fact that almost all Muslims believe that adulterers should be stoned is peaceful?
Besides like Russia and Albania, the majority believe stoning adulterers is ok. So while I acknowledge not all Muslims are these blood thirsty twats, you claiming that 'Islam is not like that' puts you in the minority. If I were to judge what 'Islam is' it would be based on the majority. Just like any movement.
I am glad some people don't believe people should be stoned, however, it is incredibly dishonest or at the very least, ignorant. Can you look me in the eye and denounce all the 13 countries that kill homosexuals?
Most often, at this point, they just start avoiding it and blabbering stuff. like this buffoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCazztehbI
Somehow yes or no questions become this weird mental gymnastics. But I always ask 'do you think your god thinks it's ok to kill someone, simply on the only basis of the guy insulting your prophet'.
But then you get shit like 'but that's context, incitement of violence' like how in the bloody hell is calling mohammed a pedo 'incitement of violence'. mohammed is dead. allah is gay. who gives a shit.
I remember being ten years old and download a shit ton of mods for 1.6, like super heroes abilities like super man, wolverine and shit, or one that changed the game completely into dragon ball z where you could do tons of things.
And always said things like wow this games needs a sequel with powers and other type of things.
But condition zero and source were more like a remaster than an actual sequel, and csgo, even though it has tons good additions it still feels like the only thing separating it from 1.6 is their qol changes instead of a sequel.
I don't know, maybe that's what they aimed for and I can't blame them, why bother fixing something that is not broken.
What this game seems to be, at least for me, a true sequel of 1.6 in all its glory and I can't wait to play it.
All the news about this game are interesting, good tickrate, anti cheat system day one, the gameplay looks fun and some places reminds me of dust2 and inferno my potato pc is able to run it.
As I say and I can't stop repeating it, the game looks interesting and a sequel to 1.6 in every good way.
My real boss is the old ladies in the water aerobics class. They have nothing better to do than complain until they get whatever they want. The only thing that I can do is wait for them to die.
