Some people say empathy, tolerance, & inclusion are strictly moral values. However this misses that they are also a social contract lest we end up in the paradox of tolerance.
Kirk had none for those outside his in-group. Those outside his in-group owe him none in return.
How, exactly, does having empathy lead to toleration of unempathetic ideologies like fascism? It logically would make us even more averse to those kinds of ideas. Dare I say, a dearth of empathy on a societal level leads directly to those places.
What a reductive and unnuanced view of the world. I sure hope you are not representative of the rest of the population or we are even more fucked than I thought.
When one group proclaims the sadness of tragedy of a great harm upon a member of an intolerant group and the intolerant group refuses or even celebrates that same sort of great harm against the other that normalizes the one sidedness of that for that society. Calls for reciprocity become decried as politicization
It might be surprising, but it’s not a limited resource that needs to be spend sparcely. You do not need to make the world worse for those in an other tribe in order to make it better for your own tribe. That false dichotomy - which you and him probably share - is the root of a lot of evil in this world.
Exactly the opposite. We should have empathy, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all, unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective. I’m saying those who only have parochial empathy shouldn’t expect to receive empathy from others they’ve already cut themselves off from, and it’s not something those they shut out to be shamed for that they experienced the repercussions of their actions.
You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.
No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.
The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.
Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.
Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.
This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.
That’s what most here are doing. Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal? You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?
You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?
Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.
Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.
That’s what most here are doing.
Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.
Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?
Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.
The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.
are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups
Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here, and the dislike for those arguing against violence. They feel empathy for the intolerant only, and dislike the emphatic.
The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.
Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?
Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups
Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group - the self-proclaimed tolerant are the intolerant just of a different tribe.
They’re them, we’re we, we’re better is what you’re describing and is parochial empathy.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t empathetic himself. Literally look at the posted quote by OP. He was not a tolerant person, but intolerant of others.
Neither are the people celebrating here
The people on social media reacting to Charlie Kirk’s demise are not calling for violence towards each other. They are acting in unison, setting aside the MSM, and celebrating the death of a political influencer with destructive ideals. We The People are consistent in our peace treaty, for we all know Charlie violated it well before now.
What they’re doing instead is using violence
I’m sorry, are social media posts violence now? Are social media posts the same as a bullet to the neck? Are celebrations of death the same as calling for it? Can we not take pleasure in knowing vile, evil people have perished and can no longer spread their destructive ideals that will lead to pain and suffering of others?
They’re them, we’re we, we’re better is what you’re describing and is parochial empathy.
The test is empathy, man. Empathy is the gateway into breaking down racist and sexist walls and realizing that we all have more in common that in difference. Charlie actively advocated against that, reinforcing stereotypes and charging up the fascist belief of “the other”.
Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.
The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.
Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?
Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.
Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.
Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.
They feel empathy for the intolerant
The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.
, and dislike the emphatic.
Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo
Some people say empathy, tolerance, & inclusion are strictly moral values. However this misses that they are also a social contract lest we end up in the paradox of tolerance.
Kirk had none for those outside his in-group. Those outside his in-group owe him none in return.
How, exactly, does having empathy lead to toleration of unempathetic ideologies like fascism? It logically would make us even more averse to those kinds of ideas. Dare I say, a dearth of empathy on a societal level leads directly to those places.
What a reductive and unnuanced view of the world. I sure hope you are not representative of the rest of the population or we are even more fucked than I thought.
When one group proclaims the sadness of tragedy of a great harm upon a member of an intolerant group and the intolerant group refuses or even celebrates that same sort of great harm against the other that normalizes the one sidedness of that for that society. Calls for reciprocity become decried as politicization
You’re arguing for parochial empathy over real empathy.
He was a force for evil in this world.
Have empathy instead for the victims of the policies he advocated.
It might be surprising, but it’s not a limited resource that needs to be spend sparcely. You do not need to make the world worse for those in an other tribe in order to make it better for your own tribe. That false dichotomy - which you and him probably share - is the root of a lot of evil in this world.
It’s not surprising at all to see the people who spent an entire year advocating for genocide also having empathy for a dead nazi.
Exactly the opposite. We should have empathy, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all, unless people choose to exclude themselves from that collective. I’m saying those who only have parochial empathy shouldn’t expect to receive empathy from others they’ve already cut themselves off from, and it’s not something those they shut out to be shamed for that they experienced the repercussions of their actions.
You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.
No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.
The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.
Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.
Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.
This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.
That’s what most here are doing. Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal? You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?
Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.
Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.
Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.
Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.
The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.
Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here, and the dislike for those arguing against violence. They feel empathy for the intolerant only, and dislike the emphatic.
Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?
Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group - the self-proclaimed tolerant are the intolerant just of a different tribe.
They’re them, we’re we, we’re better is what you’re describing and is parochial empathy.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t empathetic himself. Literally look at the posted quote by OP. He was not a tolerant person, but intolerant of others.
The people on social media reacting to Charlie Kirk’s demise are not calling for violence towards each other. They are acting in unison, setting aside the MSM, and celebrating the death of a political influencer with destructive ideals. We The People are consistent in our peace treaty, for we all know Charlie violated it well before now.
I’m sorry, are social media posts violence now? Are social media posts the same as a bullet to the neck? Are celebrations of death the same as calling for it? Can we not take pleasure in knowing vile, evil people have perished and can no longer spread their destructive ideals that will lead to pain and suffering of others?
The test is empathy, man. Empathy is the gateway into breaking down racist and sexist walls and realizing that we all have more in common that in difference. Charlie actively advocated against that, reinforcing stereotypes and charging up the fascist belief of “the other”.
The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.
Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.
Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.
The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.
Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo