5 ms·

I think it largely comes from a lack of empathy that has been cultivated for a while now through the loss of social cohesion. It seems like across the board (fa

by ayngg 5y ago

I think it largely comes from a lack of empathy that has been cultivated for a while now through the loss of social cohesion. It seems like across the board (families, friends, local communities, spouses etc), people are suffering socially and turn to insular groups on social media to cope.

dools 5y ago
I don't think empathy has anything to do with it, and I think that both-sidesing is one of the biggest challenges we face. The trend that I see as most damaging is denialism as a mainstream philosophy. Denialism leads to distrust and fuels libertarinism, which, by it's very design, is a philosophy of decohesion. The beginnings of my education on denial came from people fighting one of the largest denialist projects in history, but the strategies across all forms of denial are very similar. It's worth studying in-depth: https://www.nizkor.org https://www.nizkor.org
- Nemrod67 5y ago
Robotbeat 5y ago
Yeah, I think the only way out of this is empathy. You don't have to think both sides are morally or rationally the same to have empathy for both sides. The alternative is either mass slaughter or mass displacement, at the extremes. You can't eliminate your "enemy" without either murdering/displacing them or somehow coming to terms with them (ideally, being friends with them). MLK got this right, and he was able to say this without compromising in one iota his stances on social justice, class justice, etc.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  Why should one have empathy with people who deny other peoples' basic human rights simply because of their gender, sexual orientation or religion? Back in 1939 the world decided they had enough of my ancestors (I'm German) and put a stop to bigotry by using force. These days, such views can get you elected to US Presidency. What a goddamn shame.
  - account42 5y ago
    > Why should one have empathy with people who deny other peoples' basic human rights simply because of their gender, sexual orientation or religion? Because if you don't, why should they have empathy for you?
    - MagnumOpus 5y ago
      Trick question, they will not have empathy for you either way. The paradox of tolerance is not a novel idea, and people from Plato to Popper have chewed through it, and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      - naasking 5y ago
        > and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. That is literally NOT what Popper says. Your own link refutes that point in Popper's own words.
        Robotbeat 5y ago
        Plus, like, empathy does not mean you tolerate bad behavior. Just means you don’t kill or expel them.
  - exceptione 5y ago
    Hate the bad, not the people. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering"
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      Hateful ideology without followers is just that: ideology to be forgotten in the dustbin of history. It is one's own choice to believe in hateful ideology like racism, sexism or transphobia. No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology - therefore the focus and the blame should be on the people who willingly decide to believe hateful ideology (and, obviously, the spreaders of such ideology). The US has been willing to go to war to fight the Nazi regime. For me, it is inconceivable how wide swaths of the US could have ended up with welcoming the successors of the Nazi ideology, not even a century later.
puffoflogic 5y ago
On the contrary, studies have shown that this comes from an excess of empathy. Studies have shown that when empathy is controlled chemically, increased empathy correlates positively to increased tribalism.
- ayngg 5y ago
  Interesting, what sort of studies should I look into if I wanted to look into this?

by ayngg 5y ago

dools 5y ago

I don't think empathy has anything to do with it, and I think that both-sidesing is one of the biggest challenges we face. The trend that I see as most damaging is denialism as a mainstream philosophy. Denialism leads to distrust and fuels libertarinism, which, by it's very design, is a philosophy of decohesion. The beginnings of my education on denial came from people fighting one of the largest denialist projects in history, but the strategies across all forms of denial are very similar. It's worth studying in-depth: https://www.nizkor.org https://www.nizkor.org

Nemrod67 5y ago

Robotbeat 5y ago

Yeah, I think the only way out of this is empathy. You don't have to think both sides are morally or rationally the same to have empathy for both sides. The alternative is either mass slaughter or mass displacement, at the extremes. You can't eliminate your "enemy" without either murdering/displacing them or somehow coming to terms with them (ideally, being friends with them). MLK got this right, and he was able to say this without compromising in one iota his stances on social justice, class justice, etc.

mschuster91 5y ago
Why should one have empathy with people who deny other peoples' basic human rights simply because of their gender, sexual orientation or religion? Back in 1939 the world decided they had enough of my ancestors (I'm German) and put a stop to bigotry by using force. These days, such views can get you elected to US Presidency. What a goddamn shame.
- account42 5y ago
  > Why should one have empathy with people who deny other peoples' basic human rights simply because of their gender, sexual orientation or religion? Because if you don't, why should they have empathy for you?
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    Trick question, they will not have empathy for you either way. The paradox of tolerance is not a novel idea, and people from Plato to Popper have chewed through it, and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - naasking 5y ago
      > and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. That is literally NOT what Popper says. Your own link refutes that point in Popper's own words.
      - Robotbeat 5y ago
        Plus, like, empathy does not mean you tolerate bad behavior. Just means you don’t kill or expel them.
- exceptione 5y ago
  Hate the bad, not the people. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering"
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    Hateful ideology without followers is just that: ideology to be forgotten in the dustbin of history. It is one's own choice to believe in hateful ideology like racism, sexism or transphobia. No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology - therefore the focus and the blame should be on the people who willingly decide to believe hateful ideology (and, obviously, the spreaders of such ideology). The US has been willing to go to war to fight the Nazi regime. For me, it is inconceivable how wide swaths of the US could have ended up with welcoming the successors of the Nazi ideology, not even a century later.

puffoflogic 5y ago

On the contrary, studies have shown that this comes from an excess of empathy. Studies have shown that when empathy is controlled chemically, increased empathy correlates positively to increased tribalism.

ayngg 5y ago
Interesting, what sort of studies should I look into if I wanted to look into this?