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”.
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?
In doing so, you’re spreading vile evil ideals that lead to pain and suffering of others.
The message that it’s fair game to murder and hurt people, as long as you view them as “other”.
Imagine a scene where 2 new people come to your house for a party made up of people from many backgrounds, one is kind and the other is hateful and verbally abuses and bullies the one who is kind for something they have no choice over such that they leave your house. Then seeing this one of the other party members kicks the bully out of the house for them being massively rude. Now being massively rude and dehumanizing to others is an active choice one makes, that’s not a outgroup that one is in through any choice but their own. The party itself is still widely diverse accepting all who preserve the welcoming spirit of the party.
You’re arguing that the rest of the party should feel bad for the asshole that was kicked out.
Now being massively rude and dehumanizing to others is an active choice one makes, that’s not a outgroup that one is in through any choice but their own.
Unfortunately, this perspective misses a crucial truth. Most abusers have a history of being abused themselves (1). They are trapped in a relentless cycle of anger, rejection, and pain, struggling to escape a reality where kindness feels foreign and unrecognizable. Breaking this cycle is profoundly challenging, as it demands consistent empathy and kindness from others—qualities they initially perceive as weaknesses. This is the very lesson they absorbed in their formative years.
They see their worldview validated as angry mobs of self-proclaimed “good guys” cause and celebrate intentional agitation, hurt, and violence.
If those are “good guys”, then there’s no good in the world, only power, winners and losers - a logical conclusion, were the premise valid, isn’t it?
You’re arguing that the rest of the party should feel bad for the asshole that was kicked out.
Exactly! Vilify behaviour instead of people. Try to protect your friend that’s being bullied by supporting his behaviour. Recognize that everyone can be hurt or wronged, as well as can hurt and do wrong.
They’re not being bullied for their behavior, they are being bullied for their existence (unless you’re suggesting one support the bulling behavior). In our current environment there is no shortage of people reinforcing and welcoming the bullying behavior and decrying the existence of the bullied. If it was an issue of unfamiliarity you would have a point but that’s not the environment that exists and I’d prefer to make the bullied feel welcomed than the oppressor with what limited time and resources I have.
We all have choices to make, you seem to have chosen to make the oppressors and bullies feel more welcome with your time.
(Also, your link says that people who are ostracized by others tend to continue that cycle not that people who ostracized others were themselves victims of ostracization in the past. That’s swapping cause-and-effect, and doesn’t support your contention)
I’d prefer to make the bullied feel welcomed than the oppressor with what limited time and resources I have
Nobody is solely the bully or bullied. That’s what seperates empathy from parochial empathy: understanding not only people who are like, but also those who are unlike.
It truely is the only way to heal.
your link says that people who are ostracized by others tend to continue that cycle not that people who ostracized others were themselves victims of ostracization
You might misunderstand the meaning of the word cycle?
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
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”.
In doing so, you’re spreading vile evil ideals that lead to pain and suffering of others.
The message that it’s fair game to murder and hurt people, as long as you view them as “other”.
Exactly!
Pot, meet kettle
Imagine a scene where 2 new people come to your house for a party made up of people from many backgrounds, one is kind and the other is hateful and verbally abuses and bullies the one who is kind for something they have no choice over such that they leave your house. Then seeing this one of the other party members kicks the bully out of the house for them being massively rude. Now being massively rude and dehumanizing to others is an active choice one makes, that’s not a outgroup that one is in through any choice but their own. The party itself is still widely diverse accepting all who preserve the welcoming spirit of the party.
You’re arguing that the rest of the party should feel bad for the asshole that was kicked out.
Unfortunately, this perspective misses a crucial truth. Most abusers have a history of being abused themselves (1). They are trapped in a relentless cycle of anger, rejection, and pain, struggling to escape a reality where kindness feels foreign and unrecognizable. Breaking this cycle is profoundly challenging, as it demands consistent empathy and kindness from others—qualities they initially perceive as weaknesses. This is the very lesson they absorbed in their formative years.
They see their worldview validated as angry mobs of self-proclaimed “good guys” cause and celebrate intentional agitation, hurt, and violence.
If those are “good guys”, then there’s no good in the world, only power, winners and losers - a logical conclusion, were the premise valid, isn’t it?
Exactly! Vilify behaviour instead of people. Try to protect your friend that’s being bullied by supporting his behaviour. Recognize that everyone can be hurt or wronged, as well as can hurt and do wrong.
In other words: be empathic.
They’re not being bullied for their behavior, they are being bullied for their existence (unless you’re suggesting one support the bulling behavior). In our current environment there is no shortage of people reinforcing and welcoming the bullying behavior and decrying the existence of the bullied. If it was an issue of unfamiliarity you would have a point but that’s not the environment that exists and I’d prefer to make the bullied feel welcomed than the oppressor with what limited time and resources I have.
We all have choices to make, you seem to have chosen to make the oppressors and bullies feel more welcome with your time.
(Also, your link says that people who are ostracized by others tend to continue that cycle not that people who ostracized others were themselves victims of ostracization in the past. That’s swapping cause-and-effect, and doesn’t support your contention)
Nobody is solely the bully or bullied. That’s what seperates empathy from parochial empathy: understanding not only people who are like, but also those who are unlike.
It truely is the only way to heal.
You might misunderstand the meaning of the word cycle?
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