Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials:
“In my work with the defendants, I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Did he conclude whether those people started without empathy or just lost it due to the things they did?
He did not. But it’s most likely both.
I think a good number of them have it educated out of them, by growing up in an environment where empathy is actively discouraged and portrayed as a negative trait.
There’s also conditional empathy, where you’re taught that there are certain groups to whom empathy doesn’t apply (or that empathy only applies to your group), or applies to a lesser extent (e.g., your pet dog deserves empathy — unlike the neighbours’ —, but that empathy only extends to taking it behind the shed and shooting it, not to paying for a veterinarian to take care of the minor problem it’s suffering from).
Christ: Please be kind.
Christians: Empathy is toxic.
Christ: Please love thy neighbour.
Christians: Go back to Mexico!
Kindness and empathy are very different things. It is easy to have either and not the other. Empathy is insight. Kindness is behavior and disposition. I have met many people who prioritize kindness but do not have the insight to do perform it in a meaningful way. I have known people who are emotionally insightful and even experience the feelings of others, but for whom kindness is not a priority.
Why do people associate the two inherently. It’s like some sort of rationalization fallacy that insight leads to benevolence. There are people who use empathy with malice.
I see people saying bigots just don’t understand others enough so that’s why they hate. So if they just understand then the hate will go away. Some of them know very well. They use that knowledge to be more hateful.
There’s a dark side to social media and the internet in general. People have been using it to get insight into different facets of humanity. Some have been using it to study how to be more effective bigots. I noticed this after lurking subreddits for so many years.
This is sort of tangential but I’ve found these types of sociopathic people on mental health subreddits. They prey on the vulnerable. Those individuals will dump on anyone who will listen. Quite frankly there are malicious who are stalking around subs like that. They prey on and nudge those individuals further down into darkness.
Those predators have evoked empathy on an individual which is mistaken for kindness. So they think that person is on their side. How can you tell an individual they might want to reconsider the things this person or people have been whispering in their ear.
I suspect this happens on other places too like LGBT+ and racial minority subreddits. Though it’s more difficult to understand from the outside. The subreddits for mental health / personal issues is more universally relatable.
there are plenty of kind Christians who are absolute pieces of shit
Exactly, their kindness only extends the people they know who look like them.
Christ: didn’t exist
Christians: This is what Jesus said and meant I know for a fact!!!
Also jesus: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword”
People like this are eating the same glue that Elon does.
Anyone thinking that empathy is a liability rather than an advantage are fucking stupid.
Empathy is a liability. It’s also what makes human connection and love possible.
People who lack empathy are the broken ones.
And human connection is what gives humans their advantage, so we come full circle.
I consider empathy to be one of our greatest strengths, helping eachother creates a strong society, lack of empathy just fractures society.
I think I found the author.
It’s frustrating to read Christians trying to distinguish themselves from one another based on interpretations of a book while also all believing in a magical creature that lives in the clouds who will both condemn someone to an eternity of torture and provide unconditional love and acceptance.
The idea that anything anyone could ever do warrants an infinite amount of suffering is crazy.
Ehh I mean some people who are irredeemably awful and would do awful things when given the chance 10 times out of 10…
Though that’s more about who they are.
There are acts which deserve severe punishment. Perhaps multiple lifetimes of the most severe punishment one can imagine.
But there is no such act that, in this finite world, by finite humans, merits infinite punishment.
Which is why traditional understandings of Hell are just distance from God in the eternal group hug.
Larry niven and Jerry pournelle did a riff on Dante’s inferno where a science fiction writter wakes up in hell with this theme. Do recommend.
Even that is a product of their upbringing. They can be fixed, it’s a matter of long time, it hey, God has all the time in the world.
But eternal damnation is more fun
Having an explanation does not magically make someone fixable.
Even if that were true, we’re literally talking about magic here. Either through therapy or wiggling his magic digits a deity should be able to fix anyone.
No, it’s literally true. Some people are irredeemable piles of trash.
Interesting how so many are voting me down while the US has a PRESIDENT on a SECOND TERM that openly admits to sexually assaulting women and ignoring many, many basic tenants of human decency…, it’s almost like you morons are completely disconnected from reality. Sad.
No one said it’s easy, and when someone has terrible concepts at the core, it might actually require some time in Hell before any change can be made. But it is possible.
Also, the other commenter rightfully stated that a deity can literally flip the worldview of anyone if they want to.
You just completely ignored a good philosophical take to make a “Trump bad” statement, which already pervades everything here and adds 0 context to the conversation.
deleted by creator
unconditional* love
* terms and conditions apply
Depends on who you ask.
Is there a slur for christians?
christian is sufficient
and the wierd way they are called in some form like XTIANS.
These sorts? Absolutely.
My favorites:
- y’all qaeda
- talibangelicals
Christofascist is arguably both a slur and a precise, factual description
I’ll put that one in my pocket, cheers
Vanilla ISis, meal team sex.
Bible Humper
unbelievable christian
Nevermind that it’s 2000 years old
The parts they stole from older religions are much older.
While the book they put it all in is about 1500 years old.
they stole from greeks alot. oh and thier utter obsession with “the god” being the creator of other religions gods, like in shows and movies about God.(eg sandman and Supernatural(retconned in the last few seasons))
sandman
I’m pretty certain gods in Sandman work like in American Gods or Discworld, i.e., they’re created by people believing in them (and die when people stop believing). See for instance Bast, who’s surviving on a handful of old believers, if I recall correctly.
(That said I haven’t seen season 2 of the adaptation, so maybe they changed it from the books and you’re referencing that…?)
right wing christians, to be exact. They only see things from an evangelical perspective.
Ah “toxic empathy” this is the “I need to protect my mental health— I can’t be bothered with seeing homeless people or caring about genocide. It hurts me to care, so I just won’t.” crowd. And every last one of them is a “magical empath” with more empathy than anyone ever had ever. They’re the mostest empathetic and don’t question it!
Sadly, this is a thing.
(Note: I am not encouraging one to read the link.)
Witnessing to Liberals by Ron Rhodes
God’s primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
The writing spends a lot of time arguing against the “mischaracterizations of evangelicals”, while mischaracterizing “liberal Christians”.
Such a horrible out world view.
(I don’t care to find out what this detestable person has to say about Atheists.)
The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
Hell isn’t a scriptural concept, it was taken and evolved from Hellenism. While I’m deconstructed, I know several “leftist Christians” that reject most modern evangelical dogma as “unscriptural.” I agree with them, but there is no ethical justification for things like “God told the Israelites to genocide an entire people, including babies.” At the end of the day, even if you agree with Jesus’ humanist teaching, the Bible is full to the brim with “God” ostensibly telling people to do horrible, unjust, repugnant things.
The hell everyone thinks of was basically just biblical fan fiction.
Most people’s understanding of Satan and Hell is more from Milton and Dante than from the Bible. With the “Rapture”, it’s all Tim LaHeye, Hal Lindsey and basement church videos regurgitation of John Darby.
There absolutely is support for the existence of hell in scripture. Of course, the bible is constructed in such a way that you can use the contradicting passages to support nearly any viewpoint you want.
A large amount of the early christianity is Hellenistic, hence the influences.
There isn’t. Every single word that gets translated to “hell” in English has a different and specific meaning in the source documents… usually “grave” but sometimes “Gehenna” which was an actual place with bad connotations, and “Hades” in the context of a parable, being literally the Greek/Hellenist underworld.
Jews, including Jesus, did not believe in an afterlife, per se. Instead, there were two schools of thought. First was that you get one life die, that’s it. This was espoused by the ruling, priestly class. Second, and what Jesus literally espoused, was that at the end of time, everyone would be resurrected and judged. Those judged righteous would then be granted a new life in a newly created place and everyone else disposed of, permanently dead.
There is text in the bible referring to unworthy people suffering after their deaths.
That it was not literally called “hell” in the original text is a distraction.
There is not. Not in an afterlife, at least. You may be thinking of the last judgement, which is part of the “resurrection of the dead” that I previously mentioned. That’s the part with the “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Luke 16:24 is absolutely in the afterlife.
That is actually a parable, just as fictitious as the one that comes immediately before it. It utilizes Hellenist terms and imagery for the benefit of an audience familiar with those concepts. The parable is set in Hades, the literal greek underworld. The point of the parable is to drive home the hopelessness for hoarders of wealth, as the more someone has, the more is expected of them.
Against my best judgement, I read the whole thing. (You practically begged me to!) He’s just offering incredibly disingenuous “talking points” for “liberal Christians” that are actually things you might say to an atheist. The whole thing just exists to characterize non-conservative Christians as fake Christians.
100% agree. It is fully repugnant.
I would say that empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy. Anyone who lacks empathy is simply unsuitable, because you have to be able to put yourself in the voters’ shoes in order to fulfill your mandate as an elected representative of the people.
Empathy would also be highly desirable in business leaders, as the purpose of the economy is to serve society and distribute goods at least somewhat fairly.
In our dark times, however, when politics and business mainly serve to maintain the power of those who are already powerful, it is hardly surprising that someone who is interested in doing just that propagates such idiotic ideas as “toxic empathy.”
empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy
Empathy should be a basic requirement for participation in society, period.
The whole concept of a social contract is based (and dependant) on empathy.
You lack empathy, you get put into a mental hospital to get it fixed, and to prevent you from harming others and society in general.
If your case is currently incurable (probably because it’s not acquired but due to some as yet unfixable brain malformation), you get taken care of as well as possible for the rest of your life (or until a cure is developed), but prevented from ever interacting with society.
This alone would fix most of humanity’s problems.
There’s no such thing as toxic empathy. If it’s hurting others, it’s not empathy.
I mean, being empathetic and using for evil… tale as old as the words’ origins.
Empathy, but a lack of conscience allows one to feel for their opponent, assess their weaknesses, and exploit them.
I mean, possessing the capability for understanding harm and doing it anyway is a core characteristic of a “bad person.” We don’t blame a wild animal for attacking someone, at least not if you have two brain cells to rub together. I worked in Yellowstone. We had bears in civilian areas on a few occasions. I was off the clock, but didn’t want to see people hurt, so I helped the park rangers clear the area of tourists, and got the fuck out of the way when they were actually trying to corral the bear (juvenile) and relocate it to a deeper part of the park away from humans.
Black Hat HackersSocial engineers, con men, what have you, all revolve around empathetic traits.Again, people, as an example… A knife is a tool. I carry one every day. Usually, I open boxes, break down boxes, use it as a lever (my “tool” knife EDC is robust and cheap as shit. If it breaks, it breaks, I’ve gotten a couple decades out of it so far) and more. After 20 years or more of service, it has more than paid for itself, we’re looking at like a dollar year here.
Now the knife no one ever sees except my wife (because I disrobe in front of her) is designed for self defense. That one is a weapon. Its only purpose is self defense. It isn’t unsheathed unless I’m checking it for maintenance reasons, or I need to defend myself. Thankfully, the later has not happened since I’ve purchased it. However, in an emergency? Its a sharp blade of good materials. It could be used for other reasons, just at its price point I prefer not to. Awkward grip for a traditional knife usage, but it could be used for an emergency trach if the need arose. Though, that may just be a consideration because of my first aid training.
Both knives serve vastly different purposes for me.
At the end of the day, they’re a tool though. I could bash someone in the head with a claw hammer as easily as I built a house - except I know nothing about building a house, lol.
If you use your empathy to being evil, it’s not the empathy that is the problem, but you being evil.
If you have empathy, but no conscience, it’s not the empathy that is the problem, but the lack of conscience.
Religion. The only mental illness not in the DSM.
Don’t forget to add the fascism subtype.
Literally every religion is in that subtype, so it’s a bit redundant.
Ehhh they’re two circles. Not wholly separate, not wholly the same. If it were a venn diagram, it’d be two circles with a lot of overlap. So… two distinct groups that merely share a lot of similarities in many cases.
All the genocides, wars, slavery, and ordained atrocity from every brand of faith kind of makes me feel otherwise.
The not-shark makes a valid point
Them both being responsible for some of the terrible things from history does not magically make them equivalent in all aspects.
Believing in the Easter Bunny also requires one to ignore reality but that doesn’t make it equivalent to religion, either.
Nobody ever ran a totalitarian regime, started a war, caused a genocide, or justified rape and slavery due to the easter bunny.
Also, religion is tantamount to believing in the easter bunny.
You cite several things that differentiate them, but then say they’re the same… Are you sure you consider yourself self-aware?
You never heard about the sex cults and weed smokers.
When one person believes a delusion, it’s schizophrenia. When millions do, it’s religion
I often wonder if the combination of schizophrenia and heat stroke explains why so many religions started in deserts.
that’s… wow. I had never considered that before!
I’m old enough to remember in 2009 when Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, mentioning empathy as one of the characteristics he valued in her, and the right melted down
You know who I blame? Jesus. Going round teaching people to care about one another regardless of creed and colour. His toxic empathy has really ruined Christianity.
teaching
This
There is the biblical Christ, then there is alt-right Christ. One may, or may not, have existed as some weird combination of avatar/son/whatever of God. Then there is corruption and propaganda on the other side.
I’m not a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination, but I was raised in the south and my grandma taught Sunday school. I had read the bible cover to cover before most other chapter books, though against my will. Grandma also believed in the corrective powers of The Switch. So, yeah.
The biblical Christ would, if he were still entombed, be rolling in his grave over what the current GoP party is espousing as Christianity.
Of course, this post involves suspension of disbelief, so its all in the hypothetical sense.
They’re SO DAMN CLOSE TO ACTUALLY BEING SELF AWARE
And yet so very far
Their understanding is asymptotic
No surprises that MAGA wants to teach that we shouldn’t consider someone elses position. Its their way or the highway.
Toxic empathy can only harm the person who has it. In truth you have to be a little selfish. The trouble with anyone who thinks empathy is really toxic are the ones who are too selfish.
You gotta be “me first.” But you can also realize that other people deserve to be happy and healthy, and sometimes you can sacrifice for them.
I did the volunteer EMT thing for a number of years, but I think I was always selfish. I felt accomplished, I felt connected with my community, I thought I was doing good things. So it was all these good feelings that drove me to keep doing it, and a nice fringe benefit was that I helped people.
Not sure what the article is getting at, but there’s a thing called “weaponized empathy” - or “concern trolling” - which is a bad-faith argumentation tactic where you pretend to be worried about someone, when in reality you’re just using that as a cover for judgment or hostility.
It can also be used more broadly. Think of how often “think of the children” gets trotted out as a justification to invade people’s privacy, when the supposed concern for kids’ wellbeing is really just an excuse.
The line below the title tells you everything you need to know about what the article is getting at.
How Allie Beth Stuckey is holding the line on the right.
This is about not empathizing with the “wrong people” and making sure to see everything through a “Christian” lens. I put Christian in quotes because this isn’t according to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ but the interpretation of the Christian Fundamental movement which sees anyone who doesn’t identify as one of them as an enemy to be either converted or destroyed and anyone not confirming to the “natural” standard (I.E. Trans and Homosexuals) should be condemned as irredeemably immoral. These people are basically the ISIS of Christianity.
Like all the “why would you vote for Genocide Joe?” people who suddenly disappeared when Trump took charge…
That does tend to happen with elections in the past.
