If you can’t tell the difference between someone who says “empathy is bad and no one should have it” and someone who says “I don’t have empathy for this specific person due to their specific actions” then you should not be trying to argue nuance of definitions with anyone.
There’s clearly a difference - nowhere did I claim otherwise - and neither of those statements are good!
In fact, the list of things I did not claim is endless. Hopefully that does not mean you think I’m not allowed to state arguments I do want to state:
Empathy for the people who are alike is easy, there’s even a specific word for it, parochial empathy. It’s empathy for people who are unlike that’s hard, but necessary!
He made it very clear he excluded himself from that collective.
In words and actions he did so incredibly clearly.
As are you, right now.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone who says “empathy is bad and no one should have it” and someone who says “I don’t have empathy for this specific person due to their specific actions” then you should not be trying to argue nuance of definitions with anyone.
There’s clearly a difference - nowhere did I claim otherwise - and neither of those statements are good!
In fact, the list of things I did not claim is endless. Hopefully that does not mean you think I’m not allowed to state arguments I do want to state:
Empathy for the people who are alike is easy, there’s even a specific word for it, parochial empathy. It’s empathy for people who are unlike that’s hard, but necessary!
I’m being like Charlie Kirk with my empathy for Charlie Kirk.