you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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.

  • 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".

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • source
  • parent