It depends on what those opposing viewpoints are. If they involve actively targeting and harming vulnerable people, I have no space at all for those viewpoints or the people that hold them.

For the other stuff, maybe a 7.

Really depends if the viewpoints involve the oppression of other beings than near zero if not maybe 6.5.

By that criteria, 10. Like, if a Nazi wanted to seriously talk with me, I'd be fine with that. Glad, even. The thing is, they don't usually do a whole lot of thinking or analysing, or they would have stopped being a Nazi pretty quickly.

It's usually more about psychoanalysis - trying to figure out how their irrationality works. I spend a shit ton of time trying to get inside the head of the people who maintain the world's problems. So, still 10.

"opposing viewpoints" is too broad a term for the question to be meaningful.

It could mean everything from "Discovery is the best Star Trek series" to "Women aren't real people", and the details of the viewpoint in question are EXTREMELY relevant to your ability to empathize with it.

I straight up told my father to drop politics or I'll go home.

He wasnt thrilled about the ultimatum but he stopped. I got the cold shoulder for the remaining evening. :p

7.5/10. I find that most people I encounter, even if they support causes against those which I support, would agree with my viewpoints, as long as I don't say "socialism". That is an unfortunate consequence of being raised in an environment of capitalist realism.

Where's the other 2.5 points? I'll happily listen to my opponents recount the life experiences and thought processes that make them oppose my viewpoints. But for my own sanity, I refuse to engage with those who merely throw attacks at me.

I back off from arguing on the internet in general, also for my own sanity.

The notion of a marketplace of ideas selecting the best ideas and rejecting the worse ones is interesting. It suggests that marketplaces always select for quality, especially the more unregulated they are, which is not something I’ve noticed to be true about how any actual marketplaces operate.

The idea that Nazi “ideas” need to be defeated in open debate, which will cause them to lose power, is also interesting. It presupposes that debates are always won by the most correct idea, which I’ve noticed is often the opposite of how debate works.

It also suggest that the Nazis’ plan is to participate in bloodless debate over their ideas, and accept the outcome if their ideas are rejected, which is not a plan I think Nazis have ever pursued, or the sort of arena in which they have ever admitted—much less accepted—defeat.

It also suggests that what Nazis have are “ideas,” when we know that what they actually have are intentions, and those intentions always create real-life violence toward marginalized communities along racial, ethnic, religious, and other lines of bigotry—and they do so the more effectively Nazis are able to gather and organize and promote their “ideas” into the mainstream.

Source: https://www.the-reframe.com/questions-for-substack/

Also, I find the very definition of your "zero point" as a self-contained bad faith argument. It is quite close to notions of "snowflakes needing safe spaces" or sth, but real life anti-nazi tactics are, and should be, more militant. To this bad-faith zero point my position is either a -10, or on another axis entirely lmao.

This depends on whether the other person is willing to do the same. I have a few basic premises which I base my political opinions on, starting with "All humans are of equal value." If they come to different conclusions from first principles we can agree on, there is an interesting conversation to be had.
If someone has an entirely different set of basic principles, I will have a hard time understanding them, but if they are willing to try to understand mine, I will listen to them as well. I will give no time to someone whose mind is already made up.
EDIT: To more directly answer the question, I don't think talking to a hardcore, true believer-type nazi will go anywhere, but if someone who had a right-leaning viewpoint handed to them by their upbringing and surroundings is willing to listen, I would at least want to know how they got where they are so I know how to best make them understand my own point of view. Is this the same as empathising? I couldn't help myself but try to convince them of my point of view.

If I don’t have a choice to leave or feel irrationally compelled to actually try to debate them 10.

It’s not a choice it’s a fucking curse. I don’t have to think, my mind will eventually start predicting what they say and eventually I want to gut myself because I can think of a hundred things to say and know that it won’t change their fucking minds.

Worse, mind reading is a fallacy. Sure predictions can be pretty accurate, but there’s no way to know for sure if those arguments will play out exactly as I think. But there’s real curse is that just because all the things I can think to say won’t change their mind, that doesn’t mean there isn’t something that will. I might just be too dumb to think of a good argument. So I rot as the conversation happens to me trying to think of anything that could make a difference.

Oh also yeah when they say horrible shit and your mind decides to go “here this is how their victims feel” that’s pretty fucking horrible too.

But if I get up or get upset or react strongly it’ll likely ruin any chance of me changing this person’s mind. Not that that chance existed in the first place.

Anyway, it isn’t difficult to see things from other people’s perspective but let me tell you I much prefer talking to psychopaths than delusional idiots.

I had a roommate who was full blown psychopath (and business major to boot lol) who, once he found out I could see things from his perspective, would debate politics with me in a completely candid manner. I once brought up “so you’d support slavery then?” And he deadass said “if it benefitted me then yes”

Fucked up, but the thing is, he’d listen to my arguments when they were logical. And he wasn’t sadistic, slightly narcissistic, but like he didn’t derive pleasure from other’s pain. Anyway the point is that when you talk to someone who is sane it doesn’t hurt even if they feel no empathy because you can start to understand why they think the way they do and it always feels like you can change their mind, and they don’t feel an active desire to hurt people.

Nazis typically aren’t that. Nazis are typically idiots who can’t face the real sources of pain in their life, so they direct their hatred of their lives and themselves to others. Same with manosphere incels, same with bigots of almost every kind. They want to hurt others, they want to break things, to be mad, because they’re hurt. But you can’t get them to see what they don’t want to see in the first place.

So you just feel bad for them, feel bad for others harmed by people like them, and hate yourself for feeling hatred for them because you get why they are doing it.

It isn’t fun and it’s not even fucking useful because it’s not like you being emotionally stressed out is helping anyone ever and you aren’t changing their minds.

Its a curse to feel irrationally compelled to talk to those who won’t listen because “maybe this time it’ll work” it doesn’t.

---

Edit: okay clearly I’m not in a very good place mentally right now, but I’m leaving this here. If anyone can relate, here’s some external reinforcement since you’ve likely said it to yourself and it doesn’t work: you do not need to feel compelled to feel bad for others constantly especially if it isn’t galvanizing you to take solid action to help. If your suffering stops you from functioning well enough to help anyone then it’s actually a bad thing to feel that empathy. So let yourself relax.

Unrelated to the specific question you asked but you would probably enjoy reading They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer. The author befriended ten nazis after the war and writes about what he learned from that.

It depends on what you mean by viewpoint.

If they're disagreeing about objective reality, 0/10. If we can't agree on an objective level, there's no point.

If they're disagreeing about following the social contract of tolerance, -10/10. They break the contract, they aren't covered by it, they should be removed with prejudice.

If they're disagreeing about the value of certain concepts, solutions or programs, 3/10? I'd talk to someone about something for a little while, I might give them a reference, but it's not my job to educate them.

Of course just talking to people, I'm like a 5/10 in general...

One problem with empathizing with others' viewpoints, truly, is realizing a lot of them have downright evil motivations. So, empathizing should make you despise them.

Nazis are a lost cause

Depends on the viewpoint.

My brother is a conspiracy theorist, it's absolutely impossible to talk to him about anything. No matter what evidence you produce, he'll just ignore it.

The closest I got was when he mentioned the moon landings were faked and filmed on a sound stage. He pointed to the flag flapping "in the wind".

I asked him why, if NASA had gone to all the trouble and expense of faking the moon landings, would they have installed a giant fan to make the flag flap.....

I also won't have anything to do with anyone who supports the likes of Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson.

Depends who they are. The effort I put into empathising depends on how much of an arsehole they are.

0 because we dont have to coexist. People should be free to live how they want. Unfortunately we all know that auths cant handle people being free and will always come a knocking.

If only I could leave this planet and leave humanity to the silly little games they play with each other's lives.

I will not listen to or hear out any conservative views. That ship has long sailed.

I won't go out of my way to defend what I believe, but that doesn't mean I have to hear your opposing views because I don't care of what you think.

Depends on the topic. Entertainment 10; social issues not much 4 all. Politics.. if your MAGA I have zero tolerance.

Well there is the intolerance paradox. So you have to be mindful of that.

Empathize as in understand motivations and perspectives: 8

With some effort to communicate, I can usually understand how someone got where they are. It's important to me to understand as many ways of being as possible. It's my job to understand people, but the bigger motivation is that it bugs me if I don't understand the root of a disagreement. Of course, this doesn't mean I condone their perspective, believe it's healthy/logical, or would recommend it wholesale to others.

Depends on a few things, including the viewpoint in question.

And my patience at a particular time because I'm not 18 and just discovering the world anymore and a lot of shit is the same old shit, even if it's had a ribbon tied around it.

Some things that I'm more or less out of patience with are bigotry, right wing conservative conformists and supremacists, and monotheism. But I'm open to discussing most other things.

I'd be more inclined to 'meet in the middle' politically if 'politics' were about say how taxes should be spent, and not about who should have more or less human rights than who.

I think the premise is missing a few key points. Namely, do we mean in the context of a one on one debate where I'm trying to either convince someone or others involved, or a dialectic where both parties are attempting to come to an agreed upon truth? How serious is my ideological opponent taking MY point of view, or are we just talking in the abstract, like can you imagine in your head tolerating the fact that others have differing opinions with you and living with that reality.

Basically, I'm a materialist, so for the majority of everyday folks especially including those in my life, I don't attribute someones political opinions to moral failings or rectitude on their part. 9 out of 10 times it's due to their upbringing, the material conditions surrounding their childhood and early development, as well as the things that happen to them throughout their life that form someones worldview. Morality might have something to do with it, but ultimately morality is subjective, so who am I to say that someones idea of right and wrong is better than mine. Everyone is justified and righteous in their own mind.

That said, if I'm actively engaged with someone who isn't taking what I say seriously (as fascists often do, whom I consider by definition non serious actors in a debate), or is simply using ad hominem attacks on my character, I pretty much am done talking at that point. I feel like I come off as very patient and try and empathize with most people, usually because if I'm actually having this conversation in real life, they're in my family or in my day to day life, and I try to present my opinion as something that's naturally compatible with their worldview, because I'm confident that my opinions are correct and I don't need to insult or demean someone to get my point across.

TL;DR, 8

Like a 3 or 4 LMAO. I'm pretty set in my ways, I'm willing to hear most people out but only in an effort to change someone else's mind, not really to change my own. That said, if you are on the left (i.e. identify as anti-capitalist, at minimum), then I will legitimately take your perspective and stances into consideration.

This doesn't mean that I'm not empathetic or that I shut people down, I'm very conflict averse as well. I just take in what people say, push back maybe a little, and try to understand their perspective while mine still remains unchanged.

10

Me? Id like to think I'm a 6, I don't cut family ties over their political opinions but I'm very likely to shut that down with a "I don't want to speak politics with you".

I'd say that's 3 or low 4. I think you need to define the middle stages of this scale more clearly.

10 I guess, but just because I can doesn't mean it's fun to do all the time. Requires deliberate effort.

Not even sure hateful bigots are the hardest to empathize with. Everyone has hated someone or felt disgust before. That's sort of an 'in' to the mindset.

I have a harder time with people like the Paul brothers or Mr. Beast. People who seem to have desires without beliefs.

I mean I used to have opposite views because I grew up where a lot of that stuff is normalized and I didn't question it until it was challenged, so I can understand being misinformed, hell I'm still misinformed sometimes. But if they're not open to having their mind changed, and just want to hurt people, I have very little empathy for that.

I'll say it's a 6-9 depending on my mood.

Sure this may sound ridiculous but it’s basic knowledge that studying your opponents viewpoints is the best way to counter them and get new insight yourself.

I don't think this is necessarily empathy. I've read Hitler, Ilyin and Dugin, understood their arguments and point of view. If anything it made me less empathetic to them, seeing their vile hatred spilled on paper like that; but I agree that it is useful in practice to understand people who hate your guts.

To me, empathy means not only understanding the individual's viewpoint, but moreso understanding how they got to it. This is how I can still slightly emphasize with any awful individuals, from nazis to billionaires: I understand that their viewpoint was formed by their position in the capitalist hellscape we fine ourselves in, and by incessant capitalist propaganda. If I was born in their stead and lived through their experiences, I would likely share similar ideas. This makes me more hopeful in the possibility of reform even for the worst of the worst; if a person was convinced of something, they can be convinced that it is wrong too; noone is born a nazi, and so noone is beyond hope in my opinion.

As for my family, they can be incessantly racist and homophobic, not to mention all the various small things like climate change conspiracies etc. I politely disagree with them and try to nudge them towards more inclusivity and empathy for others; we've never had a screaming argument despite holding very different opinions about things so dear to my heart. But yeah at times, especially when I'm in a bad mood, I also just shut down political conversations with them.

10 and 1 simultaneously. I'll sit down. I'll talk politics with damn near nazis. But I'll also understand they're disgusting, their viewpoints are formed through pure idiocy. It can be simultaneously very informing and infuriating to get an understanding of how they come about their viewpoints. Same applies to much less extreme examples as well

I am perfectly happy to discuss opposing viewpoints and potentially even be persuaded. Unless the opposing viewpoint can only be achieved with a complete lack of empathy and by not seeing other groups of people as people. Nothing either of us would say or do would change the other person’s opinion then. I can’t argue someone into believing that other people deserve basic human rights and dignity. They won’t convince me otherwise either.

Anything that involves neither killing people nor economically exploiting them?

Anything that involves killing people? 0, unless if it's killing Nazis and fascists, then 8.

Anything that's just economically exploitative? 7.

Depends on the conversation. If I find I'm speaking with a disingenuous bigot who is speaking in bad faith or being hipocritical, then 0. If it's an honest disagreement with well reasoned arguments made in good faith, then a 8ish plus or minus how polite they are.

9.5 However, just because I can doesn't mean I have to. I had discussions with a traditional Nazi, with an antisemite, with Corona deniers, ... I've studied philosophy which teaches you to take other viewpoints to understand the inconsistencies.

But doing it for a long time is extremely exhausting which is why I refuse to discuss renewable energy with my father; who's not categorically wrong on that topic but narrow minded and only educates himself as much as needed to believe some convenient half-truths.

If I've had enough time to wake up and I'm not upset about something else (and I think the only thing that really upsets me by now is a random argument with my wife or my mom), and if I determine you're not arguing in bad faith but actually being entirely frank, probably a 9 or 10?

IME, evil people are rare, and what you'll find more often than not is that they're either slow or just straight up insane, so I can't just go around being THE antisocial prick when people are simply sharing their mind without consciously trying to be hurtful, misleading or disruptive.

10 - I can feel empathy for every human being. That doesn't mean that I'll accept their views, and if they are someone who would hurt others, I will certainly stop them - even with force. That's empathy too...

Do you know what empathy is? How you practice it? How you train it?

8, or thereabouts. I want to understand why they think the way they do, but I'm not willing to give platform to hate or harmful ideologies, especially ones I already understand well. You gotta meet people where they're at, but at the same time, if you step into the pigpen the stink stays on you.

If I'm physically safe, I think between 8 and 10 depending on my energy level. If I'm threatened or hurt in a fight, still up to 8 at least. We can love our enemies and still fight them with all the force necessary (but no more).

0

I have some family members I haven't spoken to in probably 6 years cause I can't stand their beliefs. Life is too short to spend it with people that you don't like.

One time I had a conversation with a friend who said they would vote for Trump. We don't even live in America, I asked him why and he said "well he seems more honest and real." Other times I try and talk to Zionists, and the genuine hatred for Palestinian people is insane, and intolerable, and they got loud and angry when I made reasonable, good points.

Out of 10, if they don't get angry and loud, like a 6 on average, if they are just uneducated, like an 8?

I mean, the nazis weren't all bad....