If you are MAGA, do you have contempt for empathy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people show hatred and contempt for targets they don't like, liberals show empathy.
Killers of Jews, business CEOs, etc.

I think liberals have empathy across the board.
Doesn’t mean people get a pass.
Do have empathy for people so enraged that they commit egregious acts based on systemic issues? Yes.
Do they deserve prison? Yes.
Do we as smart humans take a beat to be thoughtful about what is driving people to do life ending acts? Yes.
Is that empathy? Yes. Does it make me weaker? No. They get the consequence as determined by law either way. I just actually learn something which might benefit my decision making.
But sure. Snowflake or whatever

[Anonymous]

Wether or not you believe in empathy, one big problem right now is that people are already at a breaking point. People are struggling and suffering, because their cost of living is too high, food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs - especially healthcare. And we saw that with Luigi, who snapped. And now another - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/28/man-arrested-molotov-cocktail-trump-treasury-scott-bessent.html

But what is Trump doing to help them? Trump RAN on fixing inflation and bringing down the cost of groceries and housing and promised "phenomenal" healthcare. But what is he ACTUALLY doing? He's on some deranged rampage over things demonizing federal employees and weaponizing the government against his political opponents and all kinds of other things that don't help the average American.

But now it's getting far worse than that. He's shut down grants and funding for a whole range of programs. He's shut down Medicaid, he's cut hungry people off from SNAP, he's terminated housing subsidies, and on and on and on.

That will break people. It will make people homeless, hungry and desperate.

This is YOUR guy Trump. He did this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.

NP. I’m a Democrat and it feels to me that the Democrats have a lot invested in appearing to have empathy, but not actually having any empathy.

The Republican lack of empathy feels more honest in many respects.

VS?

Versus actually having empathy. I simply do not believe Democrats as a group have empathy and compassion. I used to believe that, but no longer.

I find the Republicans somewhat refreshing in that respect. They don’t pretend they have empathy and compassion.

So your world view is that no one has empathy?

I believe people have empathy, but I do not think people grouped by political affiliation have empathy based on that affiliation.

In other words, I believe the average Republican is as likely to have empathy as the average Democrat. As political groups, I believe neither have empathy. And I certainly do not believe whatsoever that Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

I feel like a lot of my world view is based on the idea that it is not pleasant or desirable for anyone to suffer unless strictly necessary.

I think the reason this question is resonating is that republicans and maga seem to really relish others suffering. It doesn’t just seem like pragmatism. It seems core to the belief system and the culture.

It’s not that Dems want to avoid all suffering. But it doesn’t bring them any joy. Watch MTG, desantis, Elon or any of the Trump brothers and it’s clear that others misery brings real joy and that’s the culture they are fostering. They’re not just cutting taxes they’re taking great pains to ensure people feel miserable and humiliated.

That’s the crux of the q

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

DP. I’m a Democrat and a millennial, for reference. I agree with you that using someone’s preferred pronouns, to the extent that they are not obvious and/or the person makes it known that they prefer certain pronouns, is a kind, empathetic thing to do. It’s really just basic respect I’d show anyone.

What I have a problem with is the cultural shift among certain parts (mostly progressive UMC spaces) of society and institutions that require or strongly encourage or create a social expectation/norm for everyone to participate in pronoun-sharing. The basis for this is apparently to show empathy and solidarity with people who use non-obvious pronouns and normalize sharing pronouns so they don’t stick out. At my law firm, at least 50% of the staff and attorneys include pronouns in their signatures. I think this whole concept is dumb and is a good example of “empathy” taken too far. I find it to be performative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

DP. I’m a Democrat and a millennial, for reference. I agree with you that using someone’s preferred pronouns, to the extent that they are not obvious and/or the person makes it known that they prefer certain pronouns, is a kind, empathetic thing to do. It’s really just basic respect I’d show anyone.

What I have a problem with is the cultural shift among certain parts (mostly progressive UMC spaces) of society and institutions that require or strongly encourage or create a social expectation/norm for everyone to participate in pronoun-sharing. The basis for this is apparently to show empathy and solidarity with people who use non-obvious pronouns and normalize sharing pronouns so they don’t stick out. At my law firm, at least 50% of the staff and attorneys include pronouns in their signatures. I think this whole concept is dumb and is a good example of “empathy” taken too far. I find it to be performative.

Sure but in the grand scheme unless someone is making you do it it impacts your day very minimally that someone else might. I mean - people do lame stuff all the time. But it doesn’t actually inconvenience you in any real way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

DP. I’m a Democrat and a millennial, for reference. I agree with you that using someone’s preferred pronouns, to the extent that they are not obvious and/or the person makes it known that they prefer certain pronouns, is a kind, empathetic thing to do. It’s really just basic respect I’d show anyone.

What I have a problem with is the cultural shift among certain parts (mostly progressive UMC spaces) of society and institutions that require or strongly encourage or create a social expectation/norm for everyone to participate in pronoun-sharing. The basis for this is apparently to show empathy and solidarity with people who use non-obvious pronouns and normalize sharing pronouns so they don’t stick out. At my law firm, at least 50% of the staff and attorneys include pronouns in their signatures. I think this whole concept is dumb and is a good example of “empathy” taken too far. I find it to be performative.

Aaand this right here is why medicaid is shut down, why we are being pelted with a flurry of unhinged, poorly written EOs, why Trump is trying to find ways to mass fire government employees who have nothing to do with pronouns and install his political loyalists so that he can turn the country into a dictator, and so on, rather than us caring about things that actually matter like putting food on the table and a roof over our heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people show hatred and contempt for targets they don't like, liberals show empathy.
Killers of Jews, business CEOs, etc.

I think liberals have empathy across the board.
Doesn’t mean people get a pass.
Do have empathy for people so enraged that they commit egregious acts based on systemic issues? Yes.
Do they deserve prison? Yes.
Do we as smart humans take a beat to be thoughtful about what is driving people to do life ending acts? Yes.
Is that empathy? Yes. Does it make me weaker? No. They get the consequence as determined by law either way. I just actually learn something which might benefit my decision making.
But sure. Snowflake or whatever

As someone who lived in the Tenderloin at one point and who still goes back there periodically, only rich white liberals insulated in their wealthy neighborhoods would ever, in a million years, write the bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

In the context of the deeply misogynistic gender ideology belief system, compelled pronouns are not about making all people feel happy, safe, and accepted. It is certainly about making biological men feel happy, safe, and accepted, which is the goal of the male supremacy movement you espouse. It certainly not about making marginalized biological women feel happy, safe, and accepted.

Answer me this: Do you believe it is empathetic to force rape victims in court to use female pronouns to describe their rapists? This has and is happening; there are court orders sanctioning rape victims for referring to their alleged attacker as “he.” By what you say, your empathies in these situation lie entirely with the rapists. Why?

I cannot view people who want to compel the use of pronouns as remotely empathetic. I see them as male supremacists.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

In the context of the deeply misogynistic gender ideology belief system, compelled pronouns are not about making all people feel happy, safe, and accepted. It is certainly about making biological men feel happy, safe, and accepted, which is the goal of the male supremacy movement you espouse. It certainly not about making marginalized biological women feel happy, safe, and accepted.

Answer me this: Do you believe it is empathetic to force rape victims in court to use female pronouns to describe their rapists? This has and is happening; there are court orders sanctioning rape victims for referring to their alleged attacker as “he.” By what you say, your empathies in these situation lie entirely with the rapists. Why?

I cannot view people who want to compel the use of pronouns as remotely empathetic. I see them as male supremacists.

Huh?

Bigots are irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.

NP. I’m a Democrat and it feels to me that the Democrats have a lot invested in appearing to have empathy, but not actually having any empathy.

The Republican lack of empathy feels more honest in many respects.

VS?

Versus actually having empathy. I simply do not believe Democrats as a group have empathy and compassion. I used to believe that, but no longer.

I find the Republicans somewhat refreshing in that respect. They don’t pretend they have empathy and compassion.

So your world view is that no one has empathy?

I believe people have empathy, but I do not think people grouped by political affiliation have empathy based on that affiliation.

In other words, I believe the average Republican is as likely to have empathy as the average Democrat. As political groups, I believe neither have empathy. And I certainly do not believe whatsoever that Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

I feel like a lot of my world view is based on the idea that it is not pleasant or desirable for anyone to suffer unless strictly necessary.

I think the reason this question is resonating is that republicans and maga seem to really relish others suffering. It doesn’t just seem like pragmatism. It seems core to the belief system and the culture.

It’s not that Dems want to avoid all suffering. But it doesn’t bring them any joy. Watch MTG, desantis, Elon or any of the Trump brothers and it’s clear that others misery brings real joy and that’s the culture they are fostering. They’re not just cutting taxes they’re taking great pains to ensure people feel miserable and humiliated.

That’s the crux of the q

Serious question: how old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

DP. I’m a Democrat and a millennial, for reference. I agree with you that using someone’s preferred pronouns, to the extent that they are not obvious and/or the person makes it known that they prefer certain pronouns, is a kind, empathetic thing to do. It’s really just basic respect I’d show anyone.

What I have a problem with is the cultural shift among certain parts (mostly progressive UMC spaces) of society and institutions that require or strongly encourage or create a social expectation/norm for everyone to participate in pronoun-sharing. The basis for this is apparently to show empathy and solidarity with people who use non-obvious pronouns and normalize sharing pronouns so they don’t stick out. At my law firm, at least 50% of the staff and attorneys include pronouns in their signatures. I think this whole concept is dumb and is a good example of “empathy” taken too far. I find it to be performative.

Sure but in the grand scheme unless someone is making you do it it impacts your day very minimally that someone else might. I mean - people do lame stuff all the time. But it doesn’t actually inconvenience you in any real way.

+1000

People voted for Trump over pronouns. Yet pronouns never got anyone killed, ruined someone's life, made them go hungry or go without medicine and so on. But now we have the top priority of the government going after pronouns while completely ignoring gun violence, meth and fentanyl epidemic, lack of access to healthcare and losing medicaid, skyrocketing cost of groceries and SNAP not being funded, unaffordable housing, and so on. Seems to me priorities are totally out of whack.

This country is a complete mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.

NP. I’m a Democrat and it feels to me that the Democrats have a lot invested in appearing to have empathy, but not actually having any empathy.

The Republican lack of empathy feels more honest in many respects.

VS?

Versus actually having empathy. I simply do not believe Democrats as a group have empathy and compassion. I used to believe that, but no longer.

I find the Republicans somewhat refreshing in that respect. They don’t pretend they have empathy and compassion.

So your world view is that no one has empathy?

I believe people have empathy, but I do not think people grouped by political affiliation have empathy based on that affiliation.

In other words, I believe the average Republican is as likely to have empathy as the average Democrat. As political groups, I believe neither have empathy. And I certainly do not believe whatsoever that Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

I feel like a lot of my world view is based on the idea that it is not pleasant or desirable for anyone to suffer unless strictly necessary.

I think the reason this question is resonating is that republicans and maga seem to really relish others suffering. It doesn’t just seem like pragmatism. It seems core to the belief system and the culture.

It’s not that Dems want to avoid all suffering. But it doesn’t bring them any joy. Watch MTG, desantis, Elon or any of the Trump brothers and it’s clear that others misery brings real joy and that’s the culture they are fostering. They’re not just cutting taxes they’re taking great pains to ensure people feel miserable and humiliated.

That’s the crux of the q

Thank you for good faith engagement. I think you sincerely believe what you are saying. I just don’t believe it is true. The left is just as capable of being vicious and showing no empathy or mercy to out groups as the right. The most recent high profile example being the J6 prosecutions.

I’ll grant that there were some people who committed very serious crimes that day and deserved serious punishment, but there was also a significant number of people who were over prosecuted and prosecutorial tactics were shocking and vicious. I have not heard anybody from the left speak for the over prosecuted group.

I also lived through 2020 when medical establishment and politicians were calling anti-lockdown protests super spreader events but a few weeks later BLM protests were literally labeled necessary health events by those same people.

The immigration debate is also illustrative: the same party that would claims to care for the working class has no qualms about mass undocumented labor undercutting the working class…

Research shows that all people are empathetic to in groups and hostile to out groups. The only thing that changes is who is the in group and out group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s contempt as much as it is people think that your idea of empathy is overrated.

Some people prioritize sane and logical decision making to empathy.

This. Liberals use “empathy” as a cudgel to manipulate people and get their way.

Examples are like not wanting to use pronouns- “Why are you so transphobic? You know you could be more emphatic and just do it!!!”

Taking note of the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are putting a huge strain on housing, hospitals and schools “If only you could walk in their shoes and acted like a Christian”

ok this is super interesting.
as a liberal it feels like it just isn't really an inconvenience to use someone's pronouns BUT i do agree it kind of went to like a weird place. but i think the tension is that the need to do it felt like - quite small, vs the performance of doing it.
but i do think if someone wants you to use whatever pronoun you should just suck it up and do it no? just dont make it into a whole song and dance.

Why do you believe compelled speech is empathetic? I am genuinely asking; I honestly do not understand why liberals believe forcing speech of others is empathetic.

Because it costs you nothing to call someone by the name or pronouns they want to be called. It makes them feel happy and accepted and safe and it's easy to do. Not doing so makes them feel not accepted and not safe and makes it into a much bigger issue than necessary. Refusing to adopt someone's chosen pronouns feels like a lot of effort, where the entire point is to be a jerk and make another person feel bad.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to not give someone such a small thing that is so important to them? Do you care about making people feel happy safe and accepted? Do you specifically want to send the message that they should not feel happy safe and accepted?

In the context of the deeply misogynistic gender ideology belief system, compelled pronouns are not about making all people feel happy, safe, and accepted. It is certainly about making biological men feel happy, safe, and accepted, which is the goal of the male supremacy movement you espouse. It certainly not about making marginalized biological women feel happy, safe, and accepted.

Answer me this: Do you believe it is empathetic to force rape victims in court to use female pronouns to describe their rapists? This has and is happening; there are court orders sanctioning rape victims for referring to their alleged attacker as “he.” By what you say, your empathies in these situation lie entirely with the rapists. Why?

I cannot view people who want to compel the use of pronouns as remotely empathetic. I see them as male supremacists.

Huh?

Bigots are irrational.

Male supremacists often pretend ignorance, as they know their desire to oppress women is socially unacceptable these days. As for bigotry, you need to take a hard look in the mirror before you start labeling others with that word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To us liberals, this is optically very much the vibe. Is this the case IRL? Would love to understand the thinking.

NP. I’m a Democrat and it feels to me that the Democrats have a lot invested in appearing to have empathy, but not actually having any empathy.

The Republican lack of empathy feels more honest in many respects.

VS?

Versus actually having empathy. I simply do not believe Democrats as a group have empathy and compassion. I used to believe that, but no longer.

I find the Republicans somewhat refreshing in that respect. They don’t pretend they have empathy and compassion.

So your world view is that no one has empathy?

I believe people have empathy, but I do not think people grouped by political affiliation have empathy based on that affiliation.

In other words, I believe the average Republican is as likely to have empathy as the average Democrat. As political groups, I believe neither have empathy. And I certainly do not believe whatsoever that Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

I feel like a lot of my world view is based on the idea that it is not pleasant or desirable for anyone to suffer unless strictly necessary.

I think the reason this question is resonating is that republicans and maga seem to really relish others suffering. It doesn’t just seem like pragmatism. It seems core to the belief system and the culture.

It’s not that Dems want to avoid all suffering. But it doesn’t bring them any joy. Watch MTG, desantis, Elon or any of the Trump brothers and it’s clear that others misery brings real joy and that’s the culture they are fostering. They’re not just cutting taxes they’re taking great pains to ensure people feel miserable and humiliated.

That’s the crux of the q

Thank you for good faith engagement. I think you sincerely believe what you are saying. I just don’t believe it is true. The left is just as capable of being vicious and showing no empathy or mercy to out groups as the right. The most recent high profile example being the J6 prosecutions.

I’ll grant that there were some people who committed very serious crimes that day and deserved serious punishment, but there was also a significant number of people who were over prosecuted and prosecutorial tactics were shocking and vicious. I have not heard anybody from the left speak for the over prosecuted group.

I also lived through 2020 when medical establishment and politicians were calling anti-lockdown protests super spreader events but a few weeks later BLM protests were literally labeled necessary health events by those same people.

The immigration debate is also illustrative: the same party that would claims to care for the working class has no qualms about mass undocumented labor undercutting the working class…

Research shows that all people are empathetic to in groups and hostile to out groups. The only thing that changes is who is the in group and out group.

I agree with this and think it is very well-written.

I voted for Harris, but the (presumably) Democratic voters in this thread feel very alien to me, even if they are fellow Democrats, because of their weird unwillingness to see how lacking in compassion and empathy Democrats are and have been. Candidly, I find it a little scary. That level of moral certainty and lack of introspection is very much like the MAGA level of moral certainty and lack of introspection, and it is alarming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wether or not you believe in empathy, one big problem right now is that people are already at a breaking point. People are struggling and suffering, because their cost of living is too high, food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs - especially healthcare. And we saw that with Luigi, who snapped. And now another - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/28/man-arrested-molotov-cocktail-trump-treasury-scott-bessent.html

But what is Trump doing to help them? Trump RAN on fixing inflation and bringing down the cost of groceries and housing and promised "phenomenal" healthcare. But what is he ACTUALLY doing? He's on some deranged rampage over things demonizing federal employees and weaponizing the government against his political opponents and all kinds of other things that don't help the average American.

But now it's getting far worse than that. He's shut down grants and funding for a whole range of programs. He's shut down Medicaid, he's cut hungry people off from SNAP, he's terminated housing subsidies, and on and on and on.

That will break people. It will make people homeless, hungry and desperate.

This is YOUR guy Trump. He did this.

No. Your bureaucracy is NOT there to help people. It is there to protect itself.

The first and foremost rule of any bureaucracy is to protect the inefficiency of itself.


"He's on some deranged rampage over things demonizing federal employees and weaponizing the government against his political opponents and all kinds of other things that don't help the average American. "

Hilarious statement based on just what you democrats did the last four years. You must be self-identifying.

You have so much hatred that it blinds you. Bureaucracies are not perfect but they serve a valid purpose. You speak in simplistic slogans that don’t show any real world understanding of the issue. You are just parroting the words of other people who have a personal motive to manipulate you. You are serving the interests of bad people who want to pillage our government.