Here is my empathic take: Luciom has shown to be a very smart person in various threads, but he is in Italy and may not communicate in English as often as others on these forums. In his shoes, it is an easy mistake to use "empathy" and "sympathy" interchangeably.

To be simpatico in Italian means to be funny, likeable.

We have the original Greek root for neurology (sympathetic nervous system is sistema nervoso simpatico) but for topics like caring about others, donating and so on we only use empathy

Perhaps, but the veil of ignorance and my mentioning the word sociopath (as a synonym of libertarian) seem to have prompted his posts regarding the subject, and empathy, not sympathy, was clearly the intended topic.

la simpatia
sympathy, liking, pleasantness, shine
la compassione
compassion, pity, sympathy
la comprensione
understanding, comprehension, grasp, sympathy, realization, apprehension
la partecipazione
participation, attendance, interest, sharing, presence, sympathy
la commiserazione
commiseration, sympathy
le condoglianza
condolence, sympathy

This was my understanding as well but he talks about USA as it is his country and he knows everything about it.
He also uses *we* when talking about USA local matters.
Scratching heads

An even better explanation! In English, simpatico means to be on the same wavelength with another person. To be of one mind, having shared interests, being compatible, that kind of thing.

I wasn't singling you out in a negative way, btw. I can understand why somebody that primarily speaks Italian may misuse a word in English, when the word has a different meaning in their first language. On the other hand, seeing a dozen or so posts from American posters, some of whom take great pride in pointing out other's grammatical mistakes, is less understandable to me at the moment. Maybe everybody was doing what d2 was doing and just going with the flow.

[CITATION NEEDED]

What I understood his meaning to be was that right wingers donate more to charity, and therefore are more sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged than left wingers.

Empathic and empathetic are the same and can be used interchangeably. I myself thought I made that mistake after I hit "submit", but apparently I was accidentally correct

This is the argument as I understood it, and the argument I was seeking to debunk, at least as it relates to donations to religious causes.

Since DJT started trading S&P up 3% and DJT down 60%

Grats guys, you sure owned the libz there

I said previously that I tended to tip generously because I have empathy for drivers, waiters, etc. I might have been one of the people who you believe conflated empathy and sympathy, but I don't think I did. I meant that I understood what a grind it is to work a job that depends on tips, having worked similar jobs in the past in my younger days.

I think if you say "empathy with" rather than "empathy for", that's enough of a shibboleth to implicitly get you in to the "cool kids who know how to use 'empathy' correctly" club.

i distinctly remember when i learned that the tithe is not the donation jar that gets passed around but specifically giving 10% of your income and that many people actually pay it - just amazing you never hear people complaining about that

but... i can't speak for the rest, but as far as environmental charities go, they are overwhelmingly supported by conservatives because those are the people who fish and hunt and can viscerally key in on certain things like "there used to be more ducks before that factory was built" and "i'd like if my grandson was able to catch fish as well" so they're far more likely to not only donate but donate in much larger quantities than someone from brooklyn who thinks they've done their part by having 5 tweets about the environment each month

That's great, but I doubt their donations get them enough carbon credits to offset constantly voting in climate change deniers and coal mine lovers though.

And yeah, the Mormions get it sweet. They get to run a mutli-billion investment fund tax free, coz jesus or something.

probably not

I wasn't thinking about your post, but the ones that were made after Luciom's right wingers are more generous post. I hate to nit up a thread, but there were so many posts back to back that were describing empathy in a weird way that it caught my attention, when it normally wouldn't.

Empathy and sympathy can sometimes seem similar, as the situation you are describing. In your case, it looks like a case of having both empathy ("I know how you feel, as I have been here before as well") and sympathy ("Because I know how you feel, I feel for your situation and want to help you out.")

ducks unlimited an environmental charity that conservatives fund

they have a clear and concise message about what their specific mission is and what they'll do with the money





greenpeace, an organization which exists from people asking for $10 at a time on busy shopping districts and college campuses

they no message, just virtue signaling and kumbayah - conservatives ignore this one because they care about results and not whatever it is that this is

also, while everyone here has heard of greenpeace and i don't think many of you have heard of ducks unlimited - that's not because of size, it's again because greenpeace spends money on promoting greenpeace because they think that the culture wars is half the battle whereas ducks unlimited spends it directly on their mission


ducks unlimited brings in 200-300 million a year in donations



and here's greenpeace 25-35 million a year in donations

Regarding which side donates to charity more or is more caring regarding the underprivileged: this is a far more complicated and nuanced issue than we are giving credit for here.

Rickroll mentions that right wingers are more likely to donate to environmental causes, which is surprising to me but makes sense within the context that he gives. One can argue that they are only donating to such causes because it is in their self-interests to do so. Same thing with church donations: one can argue that people feel like they are forced to tithe to the church, rather than something that people willingly do out of the goodness of their hearts. If it is purely out of self-interest that these people make these donations, is it really evidence of being "charitable" as we understand the word?

The same arguments can be made for the left. A 22 year old kid with $150K in student debt is majorly in favor of student loan forgiveness. Is that because they are just really charitable, or is it because they stand to gain a lot from such a policy? Somebody pays extra for an electric vehicle. Perhaps it is due to an altruistic notion of helping the environment, or alternatively, maybe it is just an example of conspicuous consumption.

I really don't think you are going to find definitive proof of altruism being more common on one side of the political spectrum than the other.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, my argument was with the volume religious donations being a barometer of, well, anything, except religiosity I suppose. I wasn't commenting on left wing charities or right wing charities or motivations for donating to them in general.

Ok so the research didn’t say that conservatives donate more money

It says the research suggested they did. A suggestion doesn’t mean one way or the other

Why you quoted this and argued about it is beyond me

What's wrong with you?

Welcome back!

Also, I agree with d2's response to your post. A suggestion doesn't mean one way or the other? wat???

This is why Luciom's point kind of falls apart. Right wingers are more religious than left wingers, and therefore more likely to tithe. A tithe is seen as an obligation to the church, and probably not the kind of thing that one should be pointing to when talking about charity.

On the other hand, if the church was taking special donations to fund a soup kitchen or something along those lines, that would be more analogous to the charity that we are talking about. Churches do sometimes organize such charity, but then again, so do secular organizations.

"The last final collapse of Trump's mental state." - George Conway