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 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.

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.

Yes, since as long as I can remember. Welcome to the alien hive mind comrade! /s

I’m not hindering what you wished for or adding extra conditions. I’m not taking it upon myself to do extra work.

Me prolonging what you wished for beyond the first year would be adding extra conditions. Same with choosing to interpret it so you would also be affected. Not to mention it seemed you weren’t referring to yourself, since you went out of your way to specify whoever granted the wish.

If you had some deterministic thing you wanted to happen after the first year, you should have said so. I granted the wish as written, I also noted my interpretation. If you didn’t think through the consequences of your actions, that’s not on me. Statistically it’s unlikely, but maybe everyone will really love your wish. I wouldn’t count on it though. edit: typo

The magic effect is on the triggering of the process to start to develop empathy. Forcefully. The empathy itself is yours, even after the event. And the magic being. Lets see if they like having a conscience. Does not get cancelled. The event does.

I did not state a temporary duration for the effect of the outcome of the process. There is no temporary clause on that. The time frame is established for the duration of the process.

The event lasts one year. And it is gradual. It is not a snap of a finger and people become highly empathic. Everyone else will have a more accelerated growth, granted, but I’ll be forced to grow in tandem.

Anything that was specified for a duration can be interpreted to end once that duration is up. You never specified what happens after the year. Since nothing is enforcing that empathy after the first year, maintaining it would come down to individual people. And maintaining one state of mind indefinitely is not normal for the vast majority of people.

And what is the down side on the first part of your remark?

You’re going to have to empathize with other people to figure that one out. The most people can do during the year is give you a stern talking to. After the year, people are going to feel all sorts of things. Some of which will inevitably be about you. edit: typo

Thanks for illustrating the point. I wish that didn’t happen, so that all life was not eradicated.

If things improve around you, you’re benefitted yourself. Pay attention.

Yeah, but you’re going to have to put in the work to empathize with us to understand what you’ve put us through. So it will be pretty obvious to everyone you made the wish because you’ll be having to think through answers to questions about empathy that will be trivial to everyone else. You have a few months to practice, you should get started. I think this will be a good exercise in empathy for you as you wont have a crutch.

And there is no temporary clause in what I stated.

You never said for how long.

People undergo the process during the lenght of a year. The outcome permanence is not dependent of that window of time.

Yes, so the wish can end as soon as the minimum duration you specified ends.

Granted.

Ok, but only for a year and not for you.

On the internet, no one will know you’ve been turned into spaghetti.

You’ve been filed under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

How about we avoid things that target all people without any conditions about how the goal is achieved.

That seal is going in the stew. 👩 👊🦭

Do people not enjoy ripping the paper off of plastic water bottles? This looks like the same kind of fun to me.

The alternative is called socialism.

Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.

I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.

Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.

“Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”

Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.

It’s sushi. The carbs form four sides of the cube.

Invention of shotgun ~1500s

<---------->

Pay to win power creep