I used the word relate as in the definition of the word: "to have or establish a relationship", "to have relationship or connection" and "to respond especially favorably". I say this because I have friends who became homeless, and I care for them deeply and feel terrible I can't help.

I didn't grow up in an English speaking country. I guess more appropriate would be to empathize. I'll use that one next time. Thanks. :)

Colloquially, to say you completely relate to someone typically means you share an experience in common with them that grants you a deeper understanding of what they’re experiencing by virtue of having experienced it yourself. For example, as a white male, I’d never say I completely relate to the lived experiences of minority populations in the US. I can be sympathetic, empathetic, compassionate, etc. But I cannot relate to their experience in any sort of equal form.

By the way, I don’t doubt your sincerity in any way—I’ve never met anyone who volunteered their time to the homeless who didn’t deeply care for them and their struggles.

However, I still think it’s worth pointing out to ourselves the many small ways in which we avoid the homeless—and I’m equally guilty of it. I’ve found that helping the homeless is something it feels far easier to do in volunteer settings—when it’s in a specific place set aside for the homeless, at a specific time, and we can just leave the homeless behind when we’re done. Those of us who are not homeless feel good about helping, but feel annoyed when they come into “our space”—spaces like Starbucks. This is where we have the privilege and luxury to pay for our presence, and find our metaphorical feathers ruffled when someone inconveniences us—which we somewhat loudly underscore when we complain about the greater inconvenience we are willing to endure just so we can avoid the inconvenience of encountering the homeless.

First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. Second, I've had non-immigrants tell me they can relate to immigrant issues because of X in their family. I'd agree such language is probably sub-optimal.

As an immigrant I'd never jump on them for it, regardless of race, religion or background. Language is about connection and understanding. Generally such situations involve someone trying to tell me 'you know what, I'm on your side', and I interpret it as such since I'm aiming to connect with them, not judge them.

There's a certain trend in people that take language very seriously. In this trend there's a lot of talk about empathy while using it as a whip to virtue signal. It's quite ironic.

We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background.

You've edited out some of the more substantial parts of your comment now, but I'll reply to everything you originally wrote.

> First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time.

I apologize that explaining the colloquial meaning of the "I completely relate to X" has bothered you. You said you weren't a native English speaker, and I was only trying to further explain what that particular phrase means. Again, I'm sorry I bothered you by trying to explain the phrase.

> There's a certain type of person who uses takes language very seriously and they seem to not really care what the underlying feelings are. Ironically they talk about empathy while using it as a whip. These judgmental types will point holes at other peoples actions under the guise of empathy in an effort to virtue signal. It's quite ironic.

In your original comment, I found it quite ironic that someone would say they completely relate to the struggles of the homeless as an employed and housed person, and then complain about minor inconveniences they experience from the homeless (you occasionally can't use a bathroom when drinking coffee), and the extra inconvenience they willingly endure with the specific goal of avoiding the homeless (you specifically find a place the homeless cannot easily get to so you don't have to encounter them).

Sorry, but that isn't virtue-signaling. That is making an observation based on taking your words seriously as a true communication of your underlying feelings—and I found it worth pointing out there was a clear and strong dichotomy of feelings and actions when you claim to completely relate to a given struggle, while following it up with actions you take to avoid being face-to-face with people who are living that struggle. I wasn't passing judgment on the dichotomy itself, or on you—I was only pointing out the clear conflict.

> Though I don't agree I'm 'guilty'. What on earth do you suggest I do? Take them home? Be with them on the street? Of course it is safer to deal with the small % homeless individuals who are unstable in a controlled environment and of course I care for my own safety. I refuse to be guilt tripped over it though.

I think this is where wires seem to have been crossed.

I didn't suggest you're guilty of anything in the sense you've done something bad or wrong. Perhaps this is a result of using another English idiom, but when someone says "I'm guilty of it, too", they are simply saying, "I do the same thing!". I wasn't guilt-tripping you.

I also wasn't suggesting there was anything you should do differently. I was simply observing and talking aloud, recognizing more of that complexity you said existed in dealing with the homeless. I was attempting to engage you and relate to the struggle I thought we both shared as two self-employed people, with a house, who care about the homeless, think the problem is complex, and recognize that we both do things that help us avoid the homeless when we don't want to be inconvenienced by their presence and/or the challenges we're faced with. I wasn't making a moral judgment against you. I wasn't making any sort of judgment at all. I was merely observing and communicating there was something we had in common.

I'm a very introspective person, and I find it both valuable and personally beneficial to look at my own actions, and interrogate them for the underlying feelings behind them. I also find it beneficial to recognize when my actions are at odds with the things I say or believe I believe—not to pass any sort of moral judgment or guilt-trip on myself, but to better understand myself.

For me, there is value in reminding myself that going to Starbucks and paying for a coffee is a luxury I enjoy. It's a privilege and luxury to have money that enables me to pay for goods and services, and I recognize there are plenty of people who do not have that privilege or enjoy that luxury. Reminding myself of that is something I believe helps me keep myself in check so I do not take such privileges/luxuries for granted, or think poorly of someone who is in a different socioeconomic state. When I walk into a public space, nobody ever thinks twice about my presence as a clean, employed white man—there are no groans, I am not watched, nobody worries when I go to the bathroom, nobody makes an effort to avoid sitting by me or interacting with me. Similarly, I don't worry that a Starbucks employee will call the cops if I'm just sitting in the Starbucks. That's a very clear privilege I enjoy as a white person who has a home and earns enough money to at least go to a Starbucks whenever I want.

Anyway, that's a whole lot of words to write to ultimately try to accomplish a couple simultaneous goals:

1. I apologize for offending you by taking your words too seriously and engaging them as written.

2. I think there is value in interrogating our own actions to check how they align with our values and our conception of ourselves. Recognizing when our actions oppose our values is an important part of the feedback loop that helps us better align our actions with our values—especially when being true to our values requires we accept some level of personal inconvenience. Recognizing when we avoid that personal inconvenience isn't a moral judgment on failing—it's just another data point in the feedback loop.

> We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background.

Absolutely, we can disagree and not take it to heart. Someone who can stand the heat of an argument and coherently communicate, even if they have completely contrary view points, is someone I'd enjoy having a beer with.

Now, on the post: I think I fundamentally disagree with you, not on the language though, there's a difference in perspectives.

You say: > I found it quite ironic that someone would say they completely relate to the struggles of the homeless as an employed and housed person, and then complain about minor inconveniences they experience from the homeless (you occasionally can't use a bathroom when drinking coffee), and the extra inconvenience they willingly endure with the specific goal of avoiding the homeless (you specifically find a place the homeless cannot easily get to so you don't have to encounter them).

The implication of your use of 'irony' is that, if I had been homeless, I wouldn't avoid them or talk about avoiding them. But you treat this opinion as fact. I don't agree with your opinion and find passing off an opinion as fact is sub-optimal communication. Which seems ironic to me in a post that is seeking others to communicate more optimally.

I grew up poor in a tough neighborhood; I watched people die from gunshots, had guns pulled on me, got beat and stomped on and dealt with the gritty reality of my environment at the time. And I wasn't even in a slum, just a hard place. By all possible meanings of the word, I can say I completely relate to people growing up in a poor, tough neighborhood. I wish the people in such places the best. I avoid such places like the frigging plague. Is that ironic? I don't think so nor do any of the people I know who also managed to escape.

From my perspective, you have to be pretty disconnected from reality to think it's unreasonable, bad, or negative in any way to avoid such places. So I completely disagree with the underlying opinion and premise you have.

> that isn't virtue-signaling. That is making an observation based on taking your words seriously as a true communication of your underlying feelings ... I was only pointing out the clear conflict.

People normally have feelings that are conflictive. Life is fundamentally filled with conflicting forces, where both sides are needed and can be correct at the same time. This is perfectly normal and healthy. You pointed it out like it's something wrong. To me it seems you are taking your opinion and 'begging the question' in an 'observation' where to answer you I must first accept your premise. But I don't.

> Recognizing when our actions oppose our values is an important part of the feedback loop that helps us better align our actions with our values—especially when being true to our values requires we accept some level of personal inconvenience. Recognizing when we avoid that personal inconvenience isn't a moral judgment on failing—it's just another data point in the feedback loop.

Again, we fundamentally disagree. I mean, yes, accepting of inconvenience is something I do (surely you don't think it's convenient to volunteer?) but avoidance of inconvenience is also something I do. I mean, it would be best for the homeless if I accepted all inconvenience and I brought them into my home. But then I'd probably be stressed out and unable to cope with my current reality and might end up homeless myself. So limits need to be drawn and balances need to be made at the value level. It's to me what makes someone mature, understanding these nuances. When you have a nuanced value system, nuanced actions aren't contradictory to simplistic values. This is because simplistic values simply seem immature and incompatible with how the world works.

Life isn't an all or nothing. I don't think my actions were at odds with what I said or believe in any way that's unreasonable. I think you should apply your own advice and maybe see how your posts in this thread which to me seem judgmental and opinionated are at odds with your message of empathy. And I'm not saying you are judging me personally. As someone who is a perfectionist and introspective myself, I know we tend to be the toughest when judging ourselves. I say avoid the 'judgmental attitude' and try to connect with people more, even yourself. Introspection can be used as an ego weapon to prop our little egos up, instead of something that can be humbly and quietly used to seek connection, generally in fighting our own ego.

> I apologize for offending you by taking your words too seriously and engaging them as written.

You haven't offended me at all, no need to apologize. You were telling your truth. That can be a rough and tumble game, as our truth when put out in the world will bump into its limitations. And it's always painful when our truth collides, especially when we are forced to adapt our truth to better fit with other peoples truth and The Truth. And I truly believe it is only the brave who risk putting their truth out there. :)

It's pretty unclear to me exactly what you fundamentally disagree with me about. I'm going to pick out a couple of your comments to try to clear this up.

> The implication of your use of 'irony' is that, if I had been homeless, I wouldn't avoid them or talk about avoiding them. But you treat this opinion as fact. I don't agree with your opinion and find passing off an opinion as fact is sub-optimal communication. Which seems ironic to me in a post that is seeking others to communicate more optimally.

No, that is not the implication of describing the irony in your comment.

The implication is there is a mismatch between how deeply you believe you relate to the struggles of homelessness, and the degree to which you willingly take on _extra_ inconvenience to avoid encountering the homeless. I provided no opinion on that mismatch, I simply pointed it out.

The only thing approaching an opinion I shared was expressing incredulity at how well a housed, employed person can completely relate to the struggles of homelessness. My opinion was that they could not unless they had previously been homeless—but we cleared that up as just unfortunate phrasing.

> From my perspective, you have to be pretty disconnected from reality to think it's unreasonable, bad, or negative in any way to avoid such places. So I completely disagree with the underlying opinion and premise you have.

This "underlying opinion and premise" you think I have is something you are projecting onto me and my state of mind. I have in no way in any of my comments suggested it is unreasonable, bad, or negative to avoid something dangerous. You've invented that claim.

> People normally have feelings that are conflictive. Life is fundamentally filled with conflicting forces, where both sides are needed and can be correct at the same time. This is perfectly normal and healthy.

Exactly. The conflict between what we believe we believe and what we do is the only thing I've been trying to point out here.

> You pointed it out like it's something wrong.

No. You're misconstruing me observing it into me judging you for it. This is why you are reacting the way you are to my comments.

I did not point out that people normally have conflicting feelings like it's something wrong. I simply pointed it out to make a note of its presence in your original comment. More accurately, I pointed out that there was a conflict between what you believe about your understanding of the homeless struggle and the way you behave when confronted with the homeless in certain situations. I made no judgment that this conflict was either "good" or "bad"—I only observed it was present.

> Again, we fundamentally disagree ... accepting of inconvenience is something I do ... but avoidance of inconvenience is also something I do ... When you have a nuanced value system, nuanced actions aren't contradictory to simplistic values. This is because simplistic values simply seem immature and incompatible with how the world works.

I'm pretty sure we do not fundamentally disagree. However, you keep reading a lot more into my comments than I have said and/or presented. You then keep reacting to what you are incorrectly attributing to me, instead of reacting to what I am actually saying.

Simplistic values are the starting point for the feedback loop through which we develop nuance—they're the priors. Our actions and encounters in "the real world" are data points that allow us to reflect on these priors, iterating on aligning our beliefs and actions over time. I don't think it's possible to develop any nuance without this feedback loop.

For example, we might start with a simplistic value of "do no harm", and as we go through life, we have experiences that provide a series of exceptions to that rule. This doesn't invalidate the value of "do no harm", but it provides opportunities to refine the value into something more nuanced that better reflects the real world. If I believe I believe in doing no harm to others, and I then find myself in a situation where I am physically assaulted and fight back—doing harm to my assailant in the process—my actions are now in conflict with my beliefs, and I engage the feedback loop to update to something like "do no harm unless you are forced to defend yourself".

Not sure what you fundamentally disagree with here.

> Life isn't an all or nothing. I don't think my actions were at odds with what I said or believe in any way that's unreasonable.

I never suggested life was all or nothing. Nor did I suggest your actions were unreasonably at odds with what you said you believe. I only pointed out they appeared to be at odds. I made no further judgment.

Here are a couple more examples of actions and beliefs being at odds—offered as things I might observe, without passing judgment:

- Alice, a young lady walking alone, believes a particular neighborhood is dangerous as a result of recent sexual assaults—and then she walks into that neighborhood.

- John, a white man, believes he understands the struggle of minorities as a result of centuries of systemic racism—and then he refers to some person in a moment of anger with a racial slur.

- Pete, a straight man, believes he has no problem with LGBTQ+ persons, and supports their right to be who they are—and then he punches a gay man who hits on him at a bar.

- Jane, a single mother, believes it would be better to live in a society that offered universal healthcare and free, high-quality childcare to all its citizens—and then votes for a political candidate who opposes such programs.

Yes, life is full of instances where our actions are in conflict with what we believe we believe. And that is what I am pointing out. Based on everything you've written here, it doesn't sound like you actually disagree—it seems you're maybe just reacting negatively to it being pointed out in one of your comments, and you're inventing, projecting, and attributing judgment where there was none.