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.
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
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.
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
Hoes mad