I am so thrilled to be having this conversation. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply — not only were you gracious, but you also added a lot to the discussion and gave me much to think about.
I find myself straddling two worlds (or many); basically, my jeans are splitting LOL.
I agree with you that it has been totally illuminating t…
I am so thrilled to be having this conversation. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply — not only were you gracious, but you also added a lot to the discussion and gave me much to think about.
I find myself straddling two worlds (or many); basically, my jeans are splitting LOL.
I agree with you that it has been totally illuminating to listen to people like the Weinsteins and others on that circuit (I haven't really paid close attention to Tulsi; maybe I should?). It's hard to listen to those in-depth interviews and not come away with some new insights that are glaringly absent from the broader conversation (I just looked at my list of 1,322 uncatalogued "notes" from such interviews — the day I get around to sorting those will feel like a national holiday — and saw the comment, from Weinstein (oh wait, it was Eric - I don't really know them that well, but have listened to both) that I found compelling enough to take down: "We are mistaking a redistribution of empathy for an expansion of empathy."
Things like that. You just don't get stuff like that in the broader conversation, and it just feels obviously true. I have written about this a bit: empathy, in my view, is like the feeling a parent (or I'll speak for myself) has when they have only one child and wonders how it's possible that there could possibly be enough love for the second child when you're pretty much exploding with love for the first. And then the second child comes, and you're like - oh, wait! it wasn't that the love had to be shared, it was that the quantity of available love simply doubled." Meaning that the way we view resources like empathy - withholding it from some in the name of showering it upon others - makes no sense.
Anyway, that's totally beside the point of our discussion. It's late and I am procrastinating dinner cleanup. I won't get into the weeds of the policy stuff you brought up at the moment, because I still have plenty of questions and can't quite muster the cognitive fortitude, but I didn't want to delay replying and expressing my appreciation for the dialogue. :)
I am so thrilled to be having this conversation. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply — not only were you gracious, but you also added a lot to the discussion and gave me much to think about.
I find myself straddling two worlds (or many); basically, my jeans are splitting LOL.
I agree with you that it has been totally illuminating to listen to people like the Weinsteins and others on that circuit (I haven't really paid close attention to Tulsi; maybe I should?). It's hard to listen to those in-depth interviews and not come away with some new insights that are glaringly absent from the broader conversation (I just looked at my list of 1,322 uncatalogued "notes" from such interviews — the day I get around to sorting those will feel like a national holiday — and saw the comment, from Weinstein (oh wait, it was Eric - I don't really know them that well, but have listened to both) that I found compelling enough to take down: "We are mistaking a redistribution of empathy for an expansion of empathy."
Things like that. You just don't get stuff like that in the broader conversation, and it just feels obviously true. I have written about this a bit: empathy, in my view, is like the feeling a parent (or I'll speak for myself) has when they have only one child and wonders how it's possible that there could possibly be enough love for the second child when you're pretty much exploding with love for the first. And then the second child comes, and you're like - oh, wait! it wasn't that the love had to be shared, it was that the quantity of available love simply doubled." Meaning that the way we view resources like empathy - withholding it from some in the name of showering it upon others - makes no sense.
Anyway, that's totally beside the point of our discussion. It's late and I am procrastinating dinner cleanup. I won't get into the weeds of the policy stuff you brought up at the moment, because I still have plenty of questions and can't quite muster the cognitive fortitude, but I didn't want to delay replying and expressing my appreciation for the dialogue. :)