56
Definitely not related to half the internet yelling at me today for having cognitive empathy. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 1 month ago (15 children)

I understand his reasoning. He didn't want to lose out on a paycheck. I just think it's shitty reasoning considering he'll still have a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars if he gets a couple tour dates cancelled over speaking out against injustice in the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Exactly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    Yeah but you're claiming choosing money over human lives is an attempt at "staying neutral"... And that's how YOU understand things, when it's clearly not neutral or even parsable as an attempt at neutrality.

    So your understanding of "trying to stay neutral" is fucked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I'm claiming no such thing. We agree Sheeran made the decision to try to stay neutral to protect his brand, right? Then we understand his decision. It doesn't mean we agree with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    We agree Sheeran made the decision to try to stay neutral to protect his brand, right?

    No. We don't, that's my point. It's not at all an attempt at staying neutral. It's an attempt at getting rich by being paid to deny a genocide and suppress discussion.

    Which is not a neutral act at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Well you seem to have information that no one else has.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    I don't see how, I'm going on the external facts (eg. The suppression of mentioning the 73,000 dead Palestinians), where as you've assumed Ed Sheeran is making a good faith attempt at neutrality (even though he's being paid by a billionaire).

    The pro-Israel funder who asked Ed to kick out Macklemore is named Robert Kraft. According to sources:

    Ed Sheeran performed at Robert Kraft's wedding in 2022 and called the Epstein files billionaire "super sweet"

    He's also super funding Ed Sheeran, and a super rich client Ed wants to keep performing for.

    You're saying to deny a genocide, in exchange for retaining the opportunity for future money... Is Ed attempting to stay neutral.

    THAT'S YOUR ASSUMPTION ABOUT ED...

    ...and it goes against known facts, which you can research yourself. Facts like, the funding sources and relationships and the death tolls of Israel (less than 2,000) compared to Palestine (73,000+).

    You can go do this research, as can Ed. But maybe you prefer neutrality denial. Denial of empathy.

    Or are you saying you empathize with his lack of empathy? Or love of money over humanity? Still pretty fucked things to empathize with.

    That was your term in the title right? Cognitive Empathy? You have Cognitive Empathy for Ed's decision making process to "stay neutral"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You're assuming AngryishHumanoid is assuming Ed Sheeran is making a good faith attempt at neutrality, but I read it more that they are observing that Ed Sheeran is making a decision on his business that he claims is a good faith attempt at neutrality, but then they are saying that the decision they have observed is shit.

    You two are using different definitions of the word "undertanding". AngryishHumanoid is saying they comprehend the decision, you're saying they agree with it. Both definitions are definitions of the word but the interpretation of the statement using those definitions is different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    I don't control their poor word choices. They introduced the claim that Ed is "attempting neutrality" and that they (OP) have "Cognitive Empathy".

    I don't see it as an attempt at neutrality.

    These are not my chosen terms, I'm merely responding to the posters chosen terms and assumptions.

    I don't see Ed's decisions as "attempting neutrality"... And I don't understand having empathy for a lack of empathy (aka taking money to deny the genocide). I don't have empathy for that kind of "neutrality".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It's not a poor choice of words unless you are going out of your way to interpret it. The post literally talks about understanding and not agreeing. You have to bend over pretty backwards to claim that's me endorsing his position at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    Let's nail down the facts:

    1. Your post is claiming Ed is making a good faith attempt at "staying neutral".

    2. Your post title says you have "Cognitive Empathy" for this.

    Now is just 1 true, 1 & 2 true, or is just 2 true?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    I think you've introduced the concept of a "bad faith attempt at staying neutral"...

    ....but obviously "bad faith neutrality", is a contradiction in terms (because bad faith is by definition not neutral).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    But why say you understand? Everyone already understands. So instead of saying:

    I understand why he chose to blah blah blah he’s a greedy piece of shit who rather support a genocide than risk losing money.

    You can just say:

    He’s a greedy piece of shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent