politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're link doesn't support your point at all. In fact it seems to contradict it because it says the problem won't be solved by good corporate leadership.
It doesn't seem to offer up any cause, discusses how hard it is to address, and then gives some things individuals can do to increase their own empathy.
This is surprising that it's getting up votes because my experience on lemmy is that things like these are the fault of companies and capitalists, and any suggestion that individuals are part of the problem and can do something to improve the situation is met with anger and denial.
Companies and capitalists are all individuals. Perhaps I’m wrong, or, perhaps Adorno was correct when he said, “wrong life cannot be lived rightly”..
What does this have to do with your original citation not supporting your claim at all? Without a specific explanation as to why this explains it, it just reeks of moving the goal-posts.
How can I move the goalposts, when I’m not playing the game. I stated, “perhaps, I’m wrong.” 😑
Edit: There’s a reason newspapers, magazines and cable news networks don’t mention that capitalism is the cause of homelessness, wealth inequality, healthcare debt, etc. That’s a big no-no, and can cause funding to be removed and flak from management. The system censors and filters criticism of itself.
Also: I’m definitely wrong.
You find the statement " capitalism does not incentivize empathy" to be in contradiction with "the problem will not be solved by good corporate leadership"?
Dude. What are you smoking??? I need some, like, for real...
Maybe not, but the more important thing is that the link doesn't support the claim at all. Not surprising that you are nit-picking my point, but not calling out the top level comment for deceptively using a citation that doesn't support their claim.
Nah, I'm not nitpicking so much as outright rejecting.
Whatever
Avoiding the actual point. Well done.