Excellent response, JaneyVee! Just perfect!

Compassion is equated with weakness.

And yet she calls herself a christian nation.

example of their bizarre upside down philosophy of life.

...Herr Hitler. Mussolini. Jefferson Davis. The Japanese warlords. Stalin. They were all wrong, and were shown by liberal democracy very definitely to be wrong. Somehow, some way, the GOP--which today does not believe in liberal democracy--will be shown this, as well. But the price might just be as terrible as it was in 1861 and 1941...

And many of those posts in that thread just show that I was on the right side in the discussion that story generated all along.

That is an argument made by republicans since forever.

Whaddaya gonna do, right?

All I can do is keep caring about my fellow human beings and ignore the assholes.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with progressivism.

Republicans don't recognize compassion, so the desire to rectify wrongs through the empathetic reaction of compassion is identify compassion as guilt.

that my ideology is based on false guilt spawned by the liberal media.

I love this guy dearly, but we're growing farther and farther apart.

return anything like "compassion = gullibility"

There is this post --

try http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025851952

Both words are there, and there's a 'compassion is not equal to gullibility' posts title expressed as "Compassionate /=/ Gullible n/t" . No-one looks like they exactly say "compassion = gullibility" , but the message could be there.

Include a link if you don't mind, so we have some context, or maybe comment in that thread. Guessing games aren't great.

There certainly nothing wrong with showing compassion, however sometimes it is entirely possible in a person's desire to be compassionate toward someone less fortunate that they might not see that the less fortunate person will not use the contribution in the intended manner.

Meaning that being compassionate is not the same thing as being gullible.

If you're going to call someone out do it right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5853294

It was compassionate =/ gullible, apparently people don't understand what the slash next to the equal sign means means.

Generally, in my observation, "not equal" is indicated by =/= (as in an equal sign with a slash through it).

So, you were saying "Compassionate =/= gullible"

This call-out OP should be deleted, IMO...

I think either way is technically correct. The unicode symbol is clearer, but ain't nobody got time for that.

are irrelevant here...

As a programmer, I'd use '!=', or '<>'. On DU, I'd write 'is not equal to'.

I'm just gonna leave it as is and add an edit in the post itself.

is allowed.

Perhaps the fact that it was so flawed ensured its survival lol.

but I doubt it.

I would not know you meant not equal to using that symbol. The correct symbol is: ?

This used to be against the rules.

Don't worry, I have never alerted on a post ever.

But dayum, this place is getting ugly.

Now it bleeds into GD

#bringbackmeta2014

I do miss the DU thunderdome.

In fact, compassion often has a rather practical and sensible side to it.....just look at the Civil Rights Movement, for example.

(Edit: On the other hand, it appears the DUer you thought argued that, actually meant the complete opposite. A simple typo, it seems.)

it's clear that's not what the poster was saying.

call out thread of that call out thread of this call out thread.

And a case of poor reading comprehension to boot.

The original commenter used what appears to be a very odd way to say 'not equals' that very few people would actually recognize. If you don't want to simply use the words, several other folks pointed out more commonly understood symbology for that phrase. You can hardly blame people for 'poor reading comprehension' when someone writes something in a very offbeat way that isn't common usage.

One of the tendencies that's been hardest for me to break myself of in life is that of wanting to simply defend something I said or wrote, even if someone points out a flaw in it. I've gotten to the point where I'm willing to immediately re-evaluate in a work setting, but I still sometimes 'dig deeper' on forum posts So I'm always given more faith in humanity when I see someone else showing they don't want to fall into that same trap. I think I've seen it written before as 'We always hate most in others, the flaws we see in ourselves', which, I suppose, suggests that we like to see in others the things we're striving to fix in ourselves.

Plenty of other people seemed to understand it perfectly, as evidenced by posts in this thread. Given the entire thing was already explained in a subthread of the original post they referenced before they made this thread (which they didn't bother to read, they just rushed to call out), I would say reading comprehension (or the desire to read at all) would have been helpful.

I think I can totally blame them for a rush to call out, it makes DU suck. I remember when that was against TOS. There was a reason for that that got lost in transition to the jury system.

there were additional comments that made it plain what was meant originally. It may be common among statisticians, but I've never seen it used anywhere before this, despite being in all sorts of classes requiring math over the span of something like 18 or so years of college and six science degrees. Or maybe it's a regional thing, dunno.

not whatever it is you're quoting.

Sid

If someone describes compassion in a derogatory way (as in, gullible), they probably don't care about other people very much. Democratic values? Uh NO.

That said, calliing out another DUer isn't cool.

but the gist of the OP referenced - and of a few subsequent posts on that thread - was that compassion does = gullibility, and that DUers were particularly gullible.

Our confessed enemies ( those poor lost souls who couldn't make the cut so they devote entire websites to us ) claim that we are the classic idiots who throw money at lost causes.

It's a simplistic mindset, one that you will see in authoritarian types and people with poor social skills. ( I am not talking about shy or awkward people here, as I can be muy shy and awkward, but about narcissists and sadists who do, unfortunately, live among us. ) When I see some idiot claiming that he or she never shares a penny with anyone but their financial adviser, I know they either 1) have no true friends or loved ones who care about them, 2) they are broke and bitter (perhaps for reason #1) or 3) they are lying through their teeth.

Nobody makes it through this life without having been shown at least the compassion of being kept alive as a mewling infant and a suicidal toddler. But compassion goes further than that. We are each reliant on compassion every day of our lives.

People on DU have helped many here - including myself - with issues, and I don't consider DU to have been duped nor do I think any single person aided was a "lost cause."

The conservatives who mock such efforts are the very ones who decry public assistance, claiming that private charity can handle human need. So when private individuals on DU step up to meet human needs, why would any conservative mock that?

I have to conclude that conservatives are either duplicitous or so fucked up in the head, they forget their own platforms.

And I wanted to know, in that particular thread we're discussing, what was it about the woman that made the OP absolutely certain she was a "lost cause" and that we were idiots to defend her.

Looking at her picture, I could not determine one way or another. I had no pre-conceived notions. But I live all around people who automatically assume person of color=lost cause. To their credit, when I call them on it, most will admit that their prejudice was home taught, that they don't really think that way and that, yes, people of all colors can sometimes be saints and sometimes seem like lost causes.

But I ask, sometimes, if that is the reason a person is particularly riled up by another human's wrongdoing.

I know people who hate Obama because he is black. They admit it.

If you're going to instantly mistrust someone due to color, you should just come out and admit it. I admit I instantly mistrust pasty white older guys, but some of the most awesome liberals are pasty white older guys.




Ching ching $.02

Lack of compassion = a form of psychopathy.