4 ms·

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 al

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.
    - exceptione 5y ago
      I am not saying responsibility does not exist. But no one lives in a vacuum. Everyone grows up in *an environment* they cannot choose for themselves, where one gets their beliefs and morality primed. Some are brainwashed one could say. Still, they are people that should have compassion, that you can call onto. > No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology I think you don't understand the common working of religious societies very well, or people in general that would not allow their beliefs to be questioned or think in absolutes.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >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. The people who spent their early adulthood shooting at literal nazis generally held beliefs that would have the group you endorse in your profile calling them nazis today. I'm not sure how you can call the current quibbling about race ethnicity "the successors of the Nazi ideology". Ignoring the "believes in literal superiority of one race" types who are a rounding error, most of the people getting called racist today say things that 1990s sociologists would have published without thinking twice.
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  [dead]
- dukeyukey 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 it's easier to stop them believing that, if you understand why they're doing that in the first place. And understanding why they might believe that, is empathy.
- naasking 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 people disagree about factual matters all the time, and if you're just going to fight people who disagree with you, you'll be fighting literally everyone for the rest of your life, and a stable society might well become untenable. > Back in 1939 the world decided they had enough of my ancestors (I'm German) and put a stop to bigotry by using force. That's a pretty weird take. You think countries fought Germany because of its bigotry, and not because it was an aggressive expansionist regime that invaded them?

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.
  - exceptione 5y ago
    I am not saying responsibility does not exist. But no one lives in a vacuum. Everyone grows up in *an environment* they cannot choose for themselves, where one gets their beliefs and morality primed. Some are brainwashed one could say. Still, they are people that should have compassion, that you can call onto. > No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology I think you don't understand the common working of religious societies very well, or people in general that would not allow their beliefs to be questioned or think in absolutes.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >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. The people who spent their early adulthood shooting at literal nazis generally held beliefs that would have the group you endorse in your profile calling them nazis today. I'm not sure how you can call the current quibbling about race ethnicity "the successors of the Nazi ideology". Ignoring the "believes in literal superiority of one race" types who are a rounding error, most of the people getting called racist today say things that 1990s sociologists would have published without thinking twice.
bopbeepboop 5y ago
[dead]
dukeyukey 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 it's easier to stop them believing that, if you understand why they're doing that in the first place. And understanding why they might believe that, is empathy.
naasking 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 people disagree about factual matters all the time, and if you're just going to fight people who disagree with you, you'll be fighting literally everyone for the rest of your life, and a stable society might well become untenable. > Back in 1939 the world decided they had enough of my ancestors (I'm German) and put a stop to bigotry by using force. That's a pretty weird take. You think countries fought Germany because of its bigotry, and not because it was an aggressive expansionist regime that invaded them?