I didn’t realize how quickly the term “Weaponized Empathy” would spread. But I’ve been seeing it pop up all over the Conservative Right the last few days. So in that light, here are a few other examples:
Oh, Okay: Man Who Claimed Mother Died In Iraq Due To Travel Ban Lied
Here we have a sob story about a man who claimed his mother died due to Trump’s travel ban. Turns out, she was dead five days prior to the ban.
Ace of Spades points out that the Left was remarkably silent on the matter of Elian Gonzalez, back during Bill Clinton’s reign. When empathy will not serve Progressive interests, it is ignored.
That’s Elian Gonzalez being ripped from his extended family here in America at gunpoint at the direction of Clinton Attorney General, Janet Reno, after Gonzalez’s mother died helping him escape from the horrors of a Castro-controlled Cuba.
Today, progressives are crying big crocodile tears over a few immigrants getting held up over security checks. Back then? Crickets. Bill Clinton was their boy. So what if some 5 year old got shipped back to a Communist hellhole instead of being allowed to live with loving relatives?
Remember the fake columns of smoke in a Reuters photo of the then-latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Classic Weaponized Empathy.
Of course, we have the black church torched after painting “Vote Trump” on the walls, burned by one of the congregation members in a fake hate crime.
A black man has been arrested and charged with burning an African-American church in Greenville, Miss. last month and defacing its outer walls with “Vote Trump” graffiti.
The Mississippi state police arrested Andrew McClinton, 45, on Wednesday and charged him with first-degree arson of a place of worship, Warren Strain, a spokesman with the Mississippi Department of Public Safety told The Daily Caller.
McClinton allegedly set fire to Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church, where he is a member, on Nov. 1, a week before the election.
The demand for hate crimes far outstrips the available supply, so hoaxes are trotted out before the media in an effort to gain more Weaponized Empathy. Don’t support Trump, or else you like seeing black churches burned.
Milo goes to speak at Berkeley, of course, and out come the riots, beatings, and vandalism in the streets. Yet the narrative from people like Sarah Silverman and other celebs and media talking heads, is how good this really is. Because wouldn’t it be great if we could start a military coup now.
You’re delusional, Sarah.
So where’s your empathy now? Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t serve a Progressive cause.
Here’s another grand hate crime hoax, wherein it was implied Trump supporters were harassing a woman with homophobic slurs. The campus investigation proved this to be absolutely false.
Here’s a piece where conservative gay man, Peter Thiel, is denounced as being no longer gay because he’s conservative. You can, apparently, have gay sex without being gay. Why did they do this? Well, they wanted to keep their monopoly on Weaponized Empathy. Nobody on the right is to be allowed empathy. The Progressives don’t want to share their toy.
Here’s a further list of recent hate crime hoaxes. Cashing in on Weaponized Empathy is a great game, these days. To the person seeming the most victimized go the spoils.
But given all the hoaxes such folks have perpetrated, we have Cenk Ugyhur telling us that the Milo riots couldn’t possibly be good Leftists. It must be 4chan who did it. This, despite the calls to #TheResistance all over social media, these days, and people like Sarah Silverman calling for military coups that will never happen. No, the recent history of violence and vandalism at Progressive protests is pretty well documented. After all, the inauguration was filled with idiot journalists trying to take Pulitzer prize-winning photographs of burning trashcans.
A commenter named “Skywalker” posted a comment noting the following:
This is a variation on the presidential election and some of the more vocal opponents. Remember the Tess Rafferty Aftermath 2016 video? . She as much said, If you voted for Trump, you’re a racist/sexist. If you voted for Bernie/Jill/Gary, unfriend me. What she DIDN’T say was, The only acceptable vote was for my candidate, Hillary; but through a process of elimination, it’s basically the same thing. This is form of political and sociological bullying.
Vote for my candidate, or you’re a bad person. It’s guilt-tripping Weaponized Empathy deployed as a form of peer pressure. I’ll hate you, unless you do what I say.
Here was a great example of Weaponized Empathy posted by Jason Mart:
http://dailysignal.com//2008/06/29/the-truth-about-anwr/
Here is an article about the same idea used to weaponize empathy toward the AWNR.
Deceptive, No?
This example is great because it illustrates how Weaponized Empathy can be used on non-human targets. It’s one of the chief weapons in the environmentalist movement’s arsenal. They post pictures that have nothing to do with the place where the drilling will occur. Pristine wilderness, frolicking deer, and bountiful forests… when the proposed site is an ice-filled tundra where pretty much nothing grows.
Here you can see The Atlantic explaining how to deploy Weaponized Empathy as a persuasion technique. Amusingly enough, the Tweet that was the basis of the article appears to have been deleted. Another hoax, perhaps? I don’t know. But it certainly wouldn’t surprise me, at this point.
Here is the New York Times blaming future trans suicides on a nebulous group of supposed haters (implied to be Conservatives). So you don’t even need anything concrete in order to to use the weapon. At least the picture of the child in Syria was legitimately about a dead kid, even if it was used to cynically manipulate people into accepting a political position. Now we are talking about theoretical deaths, not actual deaths. Theoretically, says the Progressive, somebody might kill themselves because you don’t like what they are doing.
What a crock.
And let us not forget the photo of Michael Brown most often circulated by the media, showing a proverbial teddy bear.
He was a good boy. Just listening to some tunes, ya know? Don’t shoot!
Meanwhile, explicit instruction was given out to not show the video of Michael Brown, a big, burly man, robbing a convenience store earlier on the same day. We’re only permitted to show the nice pictures of such folks, right?
Send me more examples, and I’ll post them here. This tactic must be called out whenever we see it.
Do you find it curious that all of the examples of weaponized empathy you can find are only being used to support political positions that you already disagree with?
Do you find it curious that you only come to my site to comment on Weaponized Empathy?
I’ll take that as a “no”. Thanks for the confirmation.
If you want to say something, then say it, and stop hiding behind pithy snark.
Otherwise, you can peddle your falsehoods somewhere else.
I think you suffer terribly from confirmation bias and hasty generalization. One of the reasons why I read sites like yours is to have my own confirmation bias tested. I don’t get the sense that you engage in similar meta-analysis of your own reasoning.
And I don’t “peddle falsehoods”.
Well, that’s a little better.
I think you suffer from an inability to see the forest from the trees. Also, you possess a fascinating willingness to rationalize away the obvious in the service of your pet cause.
You don’t get the sense that I engage in similar meta-analysis? Well, that’s a fascinating bit of rhetoric, isn’t it? If you’re trying to play the Alinsky game, do it elsewhere. My standards don’t require that I play fair if the other side is cheating.
If Progressives want to play the Weaponized Empathy game, I’m going to point it out. If they don’t like it, they can stop fucking doing it.
This is a common ploy with mass media today: criticize Right-wing media outlets for not being fair and balanced, while being deliberately and obviously in the tank for the Left themselves.
Maybe go clean up your house before complaining that I’m not paying adequate attention a speck of dirt in the corner.
As far as I’m concerned, anybody who says 2 million people isn’t a lot is either an idiot or a liar. You can choose which one best applies to you.
Son, you might want to look in the mirror when you say that. Just sayin’.
Please provide a few examples of it from the right if you’re so convinced it not only exists but is rampant.
If you think his examples are one sided, why don’t you provide some counter examples? I think the reason is because THERE AREN’T ANY!!!!!
I promise I’ll come back and comment on a post that isn’t about weaponized empathy.
Oh, goody! More opportunities to point out your own confirmation biases! 🙂
Feel free to point out my biases. It’s the only way I can improve my thinking.
merkur, your posts demonstrate significant psychological projection and intellectual insecurity. Please work on them before venturing into the big leagues again.
hi Dystopic
I have a google alert set to the word empathy for my curated magazine on the topic.
http://scoop.it/t/empathy-and-compassion
So I see when you post on Weaponized Empathy.
As mentioned in another post, I’m the director of the Center for Building a Culture of Empathy and am advocating for building a more empathic world.
http://cultureofempathy.com
I’ve interviewed hundreds of people about the nature of empathy and would like to interview/dialogue with you on a recorded google hangouts call about your perspective of Weaponized Empathy. I do try to hear all perspectives on the topic of empathy and would be glad to hear yours.
As I understand it, you are saying the word or concept of empathy is
1. Being used to judge people?
2. Is a way to try and instill guilt in people ?
3. Is a way to make people feel sorry for or support one group over another?
Wondering if I’m getting it correctly?
If you would be interested in doing this interview/dialogue, you can email me
and we can schedule a time and date for a dialogue.
Warmly,
EdwinRutsch@gmail.com
http://cultureofempathy.com
merkur, just give him an example of weaponized empathy that doesn’t fit his side and you’ll have proved your point
Think we should hold our breaths? 😉
Tyrell – that wasn’t the point that I was making, although it’s an interesting point in itself.
Actually, it’s directly related to the point you thought you were trying to make.
SO: your example?
We’re waiting with baited breath. 😉
The point I was making was about confirmation bias. If you only look for data that proves your point, and never for data that could disprove your point, then you’ll be trapped in a loop.
My example of confirmation bias would be the first example that Dystopic gives: “Here we have a sob story about a man who claimed his mother died due to Trump’s travel ban. Turns out, she was dead five days prior to the ban.”
Turns out no such thing. Of course it might be true, but the story that he links to offers no substantial evidence. The only reason given to doubt the story is one sentence from somebody who isn’t a relative of the family and wasn’t in Iraq.
Yet this is presented here as slam-dunk proof. Dystopic isn’t stupid, he understands the way the media frames things – yet while he questions the original story that the media presented, he totally accepts this new story that fits his narrative. This is cognitive bias at work.
Fallacious. A casual Google search results in many more sources. That I only linked to one source does not mean more sources do not exist.
If it were only one or two outlets reporting it (like the recent Buzzfeed/CNN fiasco), I wouldn’t mention it in here — because of the media framing you mention.
But that’s neither here nor there. If the story was proven to be fake, I would immediately retract it.
Now, consider the cognitive bias you demonstrate. Each thing you comment on is directly related to Islam. You spin, primarily with rhetoric, anything that may cast negative light upon Islam. 2 million refugees are not a lot, you say. Islamic terrorism is not that bad, you have said in the past. You excuse the Saudis for failing to take refugees by saying Riyadh is too far away (yet America is, apparently, perfectly fine).
Everything you do here is in the service of Islam, yet you have the gall to nitpick my own bias, blatantly ignore your own, then declare your own superiority on the matter of cognitive bias. Clean your own house before nitpicking mine.
There is one primary source of the original story: an interview with Mike Hagar. There is one secondary source for the revision of the story: an interview with Imam Husham Al-Hussainy.
What you seem to think are multiple sources for the claim against Hagar, are just sites repeating the article carried by WJBK-Fox2 in which Al-Hussainy makes his claim.
That Town Hall article, for example, contains no original journalism. It just says “Fox2 was able to confirm the date of death as well.”
This is untrue. WJBK-Fox2 simply printed a comment from somebody who was not in Iraq, and is not a member of the family.
I’m not an idiot. I did a google search for the story. I did a google search for Mike Hagar. I did a google search for Imam Husham Al-Hussainy.
If you’ve got additional sources apart from the WJBK-Fox2 interview with Imam Husham Al-Hussainy, please feel free to share them. I could find nothing else.
As I’ve said before, I know you’re not stupid. You must understand that multiple articles isn’t the same thing as multiple sources.
What you seem to think are multiple sources for the claim against Hagar, are just sites repeating the article carried by WJBK-Fox2 in which Al-Hussainy makes his claim.
Except that this was deemed strong enough by other outlets to issue a retraction of the original claim. If Fox was the only one retracting it, I’d probably ignore it, since Fox tends to have a known right-wing bias.
That Town Hall article, for example, contains no original journalism. It just says “Fox2 was able to confirm the date of death as well.”
True. That link is just a summary and a repeat. I expect that if my readers want to know more, they are capable of using Google.
You must understand that multiple articles isn’t the same thing as multiple sources.
True. That was lazy language on my part. However, that should have been cleared up for you by the statement that followed: “If it were only one or two outlets reporting it (like the recent Buzzfeed/CNN fiasco), I wouldn’t mention it in here — because of the media framing you mention.” Usually, when only one or two outlets are reporting on it, it’s a pretty good sign it’s a weak story. Remember when they claimed Trump paid Russian hookers for piss play? Buzzfeed + CNN. Everyone else was adamant that this was completely unverified, and likely to be bullshit. But I’m seeing even the Left wing outlets retracting the original story, which is usually a good sign that they’re convinced. But again, if it turns out the second story is full of shit, I’ll retract and even issue an apology to you. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, though.
I’m happy to consider my own cognitive bias here. I didn’t “excuse the Saudis for failing to take refugees” – I was only pointing out that you may under-estimate the distance (both geographical and cultural) between Syria and Saudi Arabia. Personally I think the Saudi government could and should do more to support the refugees, but this seems unlikely given that their economy is tanking and they’re involved in a ground war in Yemen. A colleague of mine working in Saudi also tells me that the government is worried that bringing in large numbers of refugees will destabilise the country more. That’s not an excuse, of course, but it is understandable. Meanwhile Saudi claims that it has indefinitely extended the working visas of all Syrian national and their families who are already in the country, although nobody knows how many that covers. There are also legal and practical questions about resettling refugees against their will – since apparently few wish to go to Saudi – and it’s usually a bad idea to resettle refugees from a conflict in a country that is party to that conflict.
So no: I don’t excuse the Saudis. They should be doing more.
A colleague of mine working in Saudi also tells me that the government is worried that bringing in large numbers of refugees will destabilise the country more. That’s not an excuse, of course, but it is understandable.
Good! This is exactly what I wanted you to admit. See, if the Saudis are worried about the Syrians destabilizing their country, how much more should the West worry, when the West is more culturally, religiously, and ethnically distant from the Syrians? And let’s be real honest here… you say that it’s usually a bad idea to resettle refugees into a country that is party to the conflict. Well, the West is party to the conflict. America is party to the conflict. In fact, one of my biggest beefs about this whole affair is that so many countries are knee deep in this war. Consider me something of an old American isolationist. To me, it’s none of our business. I don’t want the refugees coming here, but neither do I want to be dropping bombs on them. I want our involvement to be limited to in-situ humanitarian aid (although, I am prepared to be gracious with that).
Either way, though, the other gulf states ought to be stepping up to the plate. Certainly, they’ve no leg to stand on trying to guilt-trip the West on it.
Regarding my comments about the numbers of refugees and the impact of Islamic terrorism, let me clarify for you. Any number of refugees is too much, and any number of deaths from Islamic terrorism is too many. I don’t comment here because you’re talking about Islam, but because you’re talking about people.
“Everything you do here is in the service of Islam” is bullshit. If you were sounding off against Congolese IDPs, I’d be making similar points. If you were sounding off about Rohingya refugees, I’d be making similar points. It seems clear from your posts that you find it hard to understand why people care about these things.
I post here because I want to understand the way that you think. It’s almost completely alien to me, and that worries me. So I keep on trying.
Any number of refugees is too much, and any number of deaths from Islamic terrorism is too many.
No. You say you want to understand my thinking, well okay. Understand this: war, terrorism, refugees… these things will always be with us. It is human nature. It will happen. While, per capita, Islamic terror occurs at a much greater rate in my country (7 times the norm, IIRC), Muslims represent only a small fraction (2% or so when last I looked) of the population. Therefore Muslim terror is not yet as great a threat in my country as it may appear. We’ve more homegrown nuts than Muslim terrorists. This is a point frequently raised by the Left when excusing or downplaying Islamic terror.
However, the per capita rate nonetheless remains very high compared to other demographic groups. So each influx of Muslim migrants into my country results in an objectively higher risk of terror (and a higher risk of criminal activity, welfare use, and other metrics), compared to the baseline. This is unacceptable. Nations have the ability to choose (or ought to) who comes into the country, when, why, and in what numbers. Ann Coulter explained it well in her book Adios America: we ought to be selecting the best of the best. That is objectively better for America. So we want people who have a lower risk of terror compared to our baseline, a lower risk of crime, and a greater chance for success and contribution to the country. We want the immigrants we approve to be a net benefit for America, not a net cost or increase in assumed risk.
Refugees, supposing they stay (which, as I’ve explained to you, is quite likely given excessive moralizing), come with a cost to the host country. Now, if the cost were borne solely by myself, just me, then I could decide if I wanted to assume the risk in exchange for moral feel-good. But the cost will be borne by future generations, by my son, by my wife, by the rest of my family, friends, and fellow citizens. Indeed, the cost may be paid by my entire civilization, assuming the numbers reach a certain size.
Next to that, my priority is clear. My family comes first. My friends come first. My fellow citizens come behind them, but ahead of random people I don’t know from another part of the world. If I were to prioritize a random foreigner over the prosperity of my own son, that is a violation of my own moral code. That, incidentally, is partly why I hold the Saudis and other Muslim countries more responsible for the care of the Syrians than the West. They are *closer* to the Syrians. Not just geographically (though that too), but religiously, culturally, and ethnically. They are more akin. The position would be reversed if it were, say, Canada that had the great civil war going on right now. America would be more akin and closer geographically than, say, China, or Saudi Arabia. It’s more your problem if it’s next door, than if it’s far away, both in a literal perspective, and in a cultural kinship perspective.
Now, lastly you say: “Everything you do here is in the service of Islam” is bullshit.
Except that here, this is 100% factually true. Even in this very post, I provided many examples of Weaponized Empathy, and yet the one you focused on — the only one — is the one involving a Muslim. You only come for posts relating to Islam. The examples you choose from those posts are ones only relating to Islam. Everything is centered around Islam. Perhaps you don’t do this elsewhere, but I don’t know you from Adam. Here, in my place, this is all you do. Your strongest resistance is to anything regarding Islam, anything that might cast it in a negative light. The cognitive bias you display here is tremendous, and obvious for all of my readers. That isn’t to say my own bias isn’t reflected here — I wrote a post on this very subject a few weeks ago, wherein I described the biases each human will carry with them, inevitably, as a consequence of being human. But the hypocrisy of harping on mine constantly without any self awareness of your own is too much, man. But maybe there’s some hope for you. Your last reply wasn’t quite so obnoxious.
“If Fox2 was the only one retracting it, I’d probably ignore it, since Fox tends to have a known right-wing bias.”
The reason that they other outlets have updated their stories – not retracted them AFAIK– is because Fox2 is the sole source. They don’t have any other source for this.
“Usually, when only one or two outlets are reporting on it, it’s a pretty good sign it’s a weak story.”
There’s only one outlet reporting on it; other outlets are cutting and pasting for clicks. If you can find other outlets reporting on it, please share them. Google has nothing apart from repeats of the Fox2 story. And I agree it’s a weak story, but that’s not my point.
My point is that you think the version of the weak story that you agree with is the capital-T Truth, but the version you disagree with is part of a conspiracy. I’m not looking for an apology. I only want you to question your own bias as much as you question other peoples.
There’s only one outlet reporting on it; other outlets are cutting and pasting for clicks. If you can find other outlets reporting on it, please share them. Google has nothing apart from repeats of the Fox2 story. And I agree it’s a weak story, but that’s not my point.
That’s still reporting on it. See, if a news outlet carries a story, they are putting their stamp of approval on it. That’s why when Buzzfeed released their bullshit, and then CNN picked up on it from them, CNN caught a lot of flak for being “fake news” when it came to light the whole thing was bullshit. CNN had the choice of reporting on it — of trusting Buzzfeed on the thing — or not. They chose poorly. Now, Fox is the originator of the story, but the other outlets were reporting on the Fox story (technically, yes, for clicks — but that’s always the case with the media). They put their stamp of approval, and now retracted, updated, or remove the story because they got the sense that this thing has a high probability of being bullshit now.
You say I think it is “capital-T Truth” but I’ve said no such thing. That’s your assumption. If I post it on here, it’s because I think it’s true (If I thought it false, I wouldn’t do it). That doesn’t mean I’m 100% certain a story could never, under any circumstances, be wrong. I trust *nothing* at that level, sir. And on occasion, it does come up later that I was wrong on something, or that the original story was wrong on something, and when discovered, I say so.
Remember, this is a blog. An editorial. This is neither my job, nor much more than a hobby. I’ve neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend all day tracking down every possible problem with a story (in theory, reporters ought to do that themselves, but I’ve lost faith in them at this point). In fact, I trust my readers to help me out with this. Here at The Declination, my readers are very astute at finding errors and omissions. Bias does not mean you cannot, or should not, comment on a thing. If you’re trying to make me aware of bias, this is a fool’s errand. I already know. And obviously you agree, given how often you comment here yourself.
“Even in this very post, I provided many examples of Weaponized Empathy, and yet the one you focused on — the only one — is the one involving a Muslim”
There is a simpler explanation: I picked the first one you gave.
And I’d buy that… if every single item/post you commented on, wasn’t relating to Islam somehow. You do realize I talk about a host of other topics here much more frequently than Islam, right?
As they say, “I’ll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.”
So now you result to outright lying and slurs to support your own confirmation bias.
Got it.
Saul Alinsky is alive and well, it seems.
Who do you think you’re fooling, other than yourself? ROFL!
He doesn’t operate this way. I’ve realized now that his method is to commit to very little, if anything at all, and just wait for his opponent to make a mistake – any mistake – then lecture him on how bias is bad.
I had to go see the doctor today. He was all like “There’s nothing wrong with you.”
“You only come for posts relating to Islam.”
Apart from those times when I commented on women’s prisons (Feminism: Women Shouldn’t be Punished for Anything), the relation between female education and fertility (The Future is Stupid), and bias against white men (The Religion of Social Justice).
Well I’ll be damned. I had forgotten that was you. Very well, I will retract and concede that point and grant you the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Availability heuristic.
Sure. Now, where do you want to go with that?
I think I’ve already said that I think you would benefit from learning more about how cognitive bias affects us all.
For example, you used the term “cognitive bias” incorrectly when you accused me by saying “Each thing you comment on is directly related to Islam”. Cognitive bias isn’t a fixation on a topic. Cognitive bias is a range of habits that the human mind has inherited.
Recommend “You are not so smart” by David McRaney, if you haven’t read it. The chapter on affect heuristics is relevant to our discussion, particularly when you link it to via prospect theory to how bad humans are at assessing abstract risks.
And I would like to emphasis: I don’t mean this to be patronising. I am as subject to cognitive bias as everybody else. The only way we can overcome these biases is through awareness of what they are and how they work. I think that’s a good thing for everybody, and for society.
And I’m happy to discuss this question around refugee resettlement and its impact, but not in this threat, where it will derail the discussion!
[Removed]
You know, I’ll just go ahead and delete my previous rant.
You won this debate with me, though you won nothing by doing so. You cast some doubt on one picture. And that is the extent of your achievement. I don’t know why I let you rope me in with this bias fetish of yours, but it won’t be happening again. It’s a very peculiar form of Ad Hominem (you’re biased, therefore I can dismiss your opinion unless you prove to me you’re not biased, which is impossible because everybody is biased ha ha), and really shouldn’t have permitted you to do that.
So chin up, my friend. You did teach me something very important. And that’s to ignore a solid 75-85% of what you say.
Hey Merkur,
1. Stop pretending that you’re reasonable – you’re not. You are a deceiver and a sophist.
2. Stop pretending that you’re trying to ‘help’ – you’re not.
3. Stop pretending that you’re introspective – you’re not. You have a subversive and ultimately evil agenda – harming and undermining people who don’t agree with your sanctimoniously narcissistic ideology/theology.
The funniest thing you’ve written is the thing about SA being ‘too far’ and somehow ‘inhospitable’ for syrian refugees. Both are sunni islam majority nations. For the very few Syrian refugees who are Alawite, they would find the NE corner of the Kingdom more to their liking, as it is 40% Shia.
At least you admit SA is primarily responsible for the refugee crisis – kudos to you for that. In that case, and given both the cultural affinity and geographic proximity, it should be Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil wealth, free HC and subsidized housing, which should be taking care of the refugees, rather than sending them off to culturally alienating and physically remote locations in the West.
Of course, you may not actually care about the Syrian refugees much except as their usefulness as a prop in the Progressive Theater of Victimhood and Shaming. If I’m wrong about that, you can easily correct me – go to Syria and work with the other relief organizations in the refugee camps. That will prove without question that you are indeed morally superior to all of us.
Yes. The sophistry is strong with him. His tactic is subversion and deconstruction. It’s straight out of the Alinsky rulebook. But I give him credit for being much more clever and creative with it than most.
Oddly enough, he appears to be from Serbia, unless he’s using Tor or a proxy. Not a place you’d think would be rife with Islam supporters. Perhaps Albanian?
Yo,
As severe and unfair as this will sound, I have come to the conclusion that those with Progressive leanings tend to be chronically unrealistic to varying degrees. There are certain positions they simply cannot abandon lest it mortally undermine the fabric of beliefs to which they adhere and, thus, their own self-image.
This willful disconnect from Reality can reach levels of clinical psychosis that remind one of cultists. As an example: here is someone who has defined themselves by the precepts of extreme progressive identity politics and seems to suffer nervous breakdowns because of it (warning: reading this is quite disturbing):
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30968/
I note this only because I noticed Merkur slyly comes back to the same talking points and ridiculously magnified critiques while pretending to be extremely mild and reasonable. This can’t just be an Alinsky tactic; it suggests some of the same avoidance of self-reflection that is evident in the above link (though not at the same level of pathology.)
Suggestion: Stop letting this thread be hijacked by a paid ass. Thanks. Will try reading comments when they are on topic in the future.
Yeah, I’m done with him at this point.
Dystopia: Great contributution to helping the rest of us to more completely understand progressives and their tactics. I concluded long ago that a person becomes a progressive when they decide that reality is inside their thoughts and feelings. External reality, including facts and principles, is something from which bits and pieces can be selected or rejected with which to maintain the internal reality.
Thus two consequences. First, every aspect of a progressive’s reality is intertwined with their self identity. They react to a contrary option as if their self identity was under attack. Second, their reality is indeed malleable and plastic. Something that was true in the morning can be false in the afternoon. Honestly.
That was beautifully written. 🙂
To be a pejorative classification weaponized empathy must be a false or insincere empathy, not actually concerned about the thing supposedly empathized with, but promoted for ulterior motives. With the examples given here the falsity of the empathy is revealed when they turn out to be hoaxes, but there is a much broader tool for proving the falsity of an empathetic attack: selective outrage.
One recent example is the ludicrous PussyHat brigade, who feign total outrage at Trump joking about how easily women give up first and even third base if you are the rich and famous, but these same women positively adored the serial violent rapist Bill Clinton and are all-in for his fixer-enabler wife, who spent decades destroying the reputations and lives of the women who her husband sexually assaulted because they threatened her psychotic lust for power. As for personal history in their treatment of women the Clinton’s are a thousand times worse than Trump, but they are ONLY outraged about trump. That selective outrage is absolute proof that the Pussies don’t actually care about sexual assault AT ALL. They are just leftist liars.
So here is a much broader category of weaponized empathy for you.
Another example of selective outrage proving empathetic claims to be false is the people who are outraged that Trump is trying to stop letting in people from terrorist hellholes without knowing who they are. These same outraged people were completely satisfied with Obama ONLY letting in Muslims from the entire Muslim world for eight years, blocking all Christian immigration from Syria for instance, where they Christians were being systematically exterminated by the Muslim majority. Barring the door against people fleeing murder, A-Okay. Vetting the population that has been committing the murder, OUTRAGE.
Again, in terms of what they claim to care about, the selectivity of their outrage proves beyond all doubt that they don’t actually care at all. They are pretending to care about needy people being barred entry to the country but they did not care at all when much needier and less complicit people were barred, proving their empathetic claim to be a fraud. They just favor Muslims, presumably because they think that Muslims are more likely to vote Democrat.
All true. Selective outrage is a big part of Weaponized Empathy. It stems from the media, ultimately. The media will spin some story as the sob story of the day. The poor Muslims, or what have you. And in many cases, they aren’t entirely wrong. I imagine living in much of the Muslim world sucks… even if you’re a Muslim. So that little bit of truth becomes the basis for the selective outrage.
The media will ignore or downplay the plight of Christians, Jews, Yazidis, etc… While blasting Muslim suffering on the boob tube 24/7.
so you try to attack a single brick rather than the actual overall point, because you can’t make a dent in the actual overall point.
So? Identify alternative cases. If not, don’t waste our time.
While I agree with the premise, including Elian Gonzalez while omitting the fact he was returned to his father is somewhat hypocritical.
Elian was returned to his COMMUNIST father in COMMUNIST Cuba. Elian had the legal right to remain in the USA because of the special status of Cuban refugees, which you can disagree with if you like but that was the law at the time. My father loved me but if he had been stuck in a communist shit hole like Cuba there is no way in hell that he would have wanted me to join him. My father would have preferred that I remain in the USA. So, no, it is not hypocritical in the slightest. It is principled and intelligent. Of course a shit head like you doesn’t know the first thing about “principled.”
Exactly this. It’s worth noting that I often assume people understand this when perhaps I shouldn’t. I’m married to the daughter of a Cuban exile. So my father-in-law has explained his first hand account of just how shitty Communist Cuba really is.
There would be no way he would have behaved as Elian’s father did, if he were placed in that position. The whole incident infuriated him.
Don’t forget “Don’t Gase me bro!”
Florida student who was tased at a Joe Biden speech….oh but THAT was FUNNY!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dont-tase-me-bro-is-top-2007-quote/
Don’t TASE me!
Sorry!
^This is why I’m dubious about the media–even mainstream sources–now. They failed to predict the presidential election and instead shed light on a Trump closet. They now continue to bash Trump and his family, whether it is true or not. I don’t place as much stock in a lot of these things now, wondering how much of it is truly liberally slanted media sources screaming The Sky Is Falling.
“Hey Merkur…….Stop pretending that you’re introspective – you’re not. You have a subversive and ultimately evil agenda – harming and undermining people who don’t agree with your sanctimoniously narcissistic ideology/theology………The funniest thing you’ve written is the thing about SA being ‘too far’ and somehow ‘inhospitable’ for syrian refugees. Both are sunni islam majority nations. For the very few Syrian refugees who are Alawite, they would find the NE corner of the Kingdom more to their liking, as it is 40% Shia.”
Just popping in here, but the distance thing is a weird argument. Quick Google search reveals:
Syria –> Saudi Arabia = 1,346 kilometers
Syria –> United States = 10,764.17 kilometers (plus an ocean)
If Mercur wants to drive home the “we need to be compassionate, we are (partially) responsible for refugee” argument, a better stance would be a proposal to send aid to help them get re-established, referably in a middle eastern region. Mercur should also understand that Americans are growing tired of the:
(a) Strain on an already overloaded social services infrastructure
(b) Increasing competition for jobs and other resources domestically
(c) Lack of vetting that leads to increased terrorist incidents
(d) Lack of assimilation that many refugees bring into Western culture
Many Americans DO NOT want them here. Find another solution.
Do you have some examples in mind? Show us.