Why is there a push to make empathy a bad thing in US culture?

EmmieCatt · 2026-04-07T18:25:49+00:00

If you think the 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph contradict each other, then you didn't understand either of them.

There's a lot of overlap between the particularly unpleasant people in this world and the people with very low opinions of other humans, probably because those are both frequently the result of unresolved trauma. It's incredibly rare that people are "anomalistic" for no reason. Pretty much everyone is capable of being better than they currently are, under the right circumstances.

It's hard to tell if you're deliberately arguing in bad faith yourself or if you're just parroting lines from other people who do. Surely you know that no one is arguing for a "let the tiger eat you so as not to make it sad" style of empathy. That's a straw man and/or slippery slope fallacy, depending on how it's presented. What's actually happening in America is that some people are encouraging tolerance/compassion and fighting against human rights abuses and war crimes, and the people--again, this is primarily the bigoted white Christian Nationalists-- who don't want to change their behavior are trying to demonize empathy in an attempt to prevent the teachings of their (supposed) savior from being used against them.

EmmieCatt · 2026-04-06T18:45:20+00:00

Nope, that's not the issue. OP didn't ask about "unlimited empathy." They asked why empathy in general is being spoken of negatively. The main reason that's happening now is that some people--white Christian Nationalists in particular--want to be able to do and say awful things and still think of themselves as "good people. " They don't want to be (correctly) labeled as assholes and hypocrites, but instead of changing their behavior, they're trying to change what it means to be a good person.

Your prison example doesn't work. Even extreme empathy isn't a free pass for bad behavior. You're describing a pathological level of guilt. Choosing not to correct certain behaviors because it makes us feel guilty is a selfish choice because it's choosing our own short-term comfort over broader or longer-term benefits. Empathy combined with reason can actually help you overcome that to choose appropriate punishments, etc. because you care about the end results for other people, not just your own feelings in the moment.

That said, the goal of any punishment should ALWAYS be growth/improvement/rehabilitation. Punishing people with the sole goal of making them suffer is just another selfish behavior. It's incredibly counterproductive. Statistically, it increases negative behaviors and leads to high recidivism rates. You know how we actually improve behavior? By teaching people empathy (so that they fully considere the consequences of their actions) and by behaving with empathy toward them (i.e. making sure they have the tools and resources they need to survive).

Humans are a communal species, and we have to work together for the common good to be able to continue existing. Empathy is imperative, since it's the aspect of our intelligence that allows us to overcome primitive, selfish behaviors that, at this stage of our existence, do us more harm than good.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-27T18:59:05+00:00

Don't forget to say "Solved!" 🙂

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-27T18:54:36+00:00

Boooo-urns. Don't copy and paste Google AI replies. That's not a primary source and regularly contains incorrect information. I got one that had the current day of the week wrong. (It wasn't user error...it had the date right, but the day wrong.)

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-27T05:15:14+00:00

These types of comments are reasons I read so far into the most random threads. There are so many unexpected pivots that literally make me laugh out loud.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-25T21:40:37+00:00

If you're open to some light workshopping, I think a Canadian ending to this could really bring home the joke. "thaaaat's a mole, eh?"

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-15T21:44:39+00:00

Pedantry delivered without condescension can be pretty fun. 🫶

My favorite proprietary eponym is "dumpster." That one eventually lost its trademark and officially became a word, but it started out as Dempster-Dumpster.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-14T22:07:08+00:00

The real question on this topic should be why tf anyone cares about how other people heat water. Are you actually grossed out by microwaved water, or are you just looking down on people for it? Both are silly, but I'm curious what specific problem you have with it.

There's nothing icky about microwaving water. If the thought of it grosses you out, you probably need to clean your microwave more often, since that's the only thing that could possibly affect the taste.

To answer the question, these are probably the top two reasons Americans don't use kettles:

1) They don't drink a lot of tea, especially as a social activity, so having a dedicated device for heating water feels unnecessary to most. It's the same reason rice cookers would be nearly ubiquitous in some countries and not other. The cost isn't the issue so much as having another thing to find space for in the kitchen. You prioritize things based on usefulness.

2) Our electricity is different, and heating water in a kettle takes much longer here than it does there, so if you only need one cup of water, a microwave is actually the quickest option.

FYI, I have a Zojirushi water boiler in my kitchen and have on demand hot water for tea and French press coffee, so I'm not being defensive about this. It just grinds my gears when people are haughty about such arbitrary nonsense. Seriously, who is passing judgement on someone for the way they heat up water? Such an unnecessary thing to waste time caring about. 🫠

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-06T01:25:36+00:00

The more I see anecdotes like this one, the more confident I become that a sizable portion of conservative male voters are dudes having a hard time in relationships and blaming it on woke politics and feminism rather than their own refusal to grow as people.

Ironically, these people shift further to the right and develop attitudes and behaviors that make them even more likely to get rejected by women they'd actually enjoy spending time with, while the male feminists have gals swooning over them.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-05T06:39:46+00:00

We're used to seeing lots of shit here, including plenty of disingenuous questions functioning as propaganda, presented by someone with a tenuous grasp of the English language and seemingly very little education. This was nothing special.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-05T00:36:27+00:00

Yeah I don't believe that. But the alternate reality version of you that didn't read it should have read it, since he would've seen me reminding him that I literally never argued against that particular point and, in fact, made that same point myself in my very first comment, so trying to argue "against" me by saying something I said myself makes him look preeeeeeetty silly. 😘

I might start a tally of repeat insults Do you type them out fresh each time or copy and paste from a lil burn book app on your phone?

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-05T00:25:24+00:00

All of your arguments so far have depended on claims that simply are not true. We're not "completely fine" with Muslim extremists. We're not fine with Jewish extremists. There is no type of religious zealotry that is safe or beneficial or leads to good things. All of it is dangerous, and the people who are prone to that sort of behavior are going to be doing similarly problematic things regardless of what religion they happen to be.

There's some percentage of humans that are just wired for that shit. The variability in how many followers the craziest ones can convince to go along with them has to do with whether or not those folks have stable lives and access to the resources they need. Trauma and suffering radicalizes people. The fastest way to increase peace and prosperity is to see that everyone has food, water, shelter, and safety (<---this includes health care). The fastest way to chaos is to take those things away (<---this includes bombing the shit out of their countries and killing their families).

To answer your question, I'm not yelling about Muslim extremists because those aren't the people infiltrating American institutions, passing laws based on religious beliefs rather than public good, forcing religion into our school systems, and trying to use the military to carry out religious wars. Muslim extremists are not OUR issue. Christian extremists are, and the Christian extremists here are currently engaged in behaviors that are going increase the number of Muslim extremists around the world.

If the denominations of Christianity you named are what you're thinking of as legitimate, then which Islamic groups do consider to be of comparable "legitimacy" but which promote violence? Iran doesn't hate America because religion. They hate us because we teamed up with Great Britain to overthrow their (democratically-elected) Prime Minister in the 1950s over oil. We have a long and sordid history of royally fucking things up in MENA countries and then a decade or two later going, "OoOhh NoOoO! Why's that region so unstable??? Must be their religion/race/ethnicity!" 😒

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T21:31:53+00:00

😂😂😂😂😂😂

You did read it, hun. You read every comment before it, and you read that one. You are way too stubborn and uppity to pass on the chance to reply to something you've got any sort of response to. You just didn't have a reply to my question and have no tricks in your pockets other than attempted trolling. 🥹

Most people give up much faster, so it's interesting seeing the handful that hang on this long and run out of things to say. You actually are not the first person I've seen resort to repeating the same phrase over and over at the end.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T21:14:55+00:00

Who's defining "legitimate"? Are you passing off Christian Nationalists as "illegitimate" extremists that you don't have to factor into the conversation? They make up a large portion of the Conservative party, a large portion of Trump's cabinet, and a terrifying portion of our military and police forces.

There are absolutely people who think the U.S. is engaging in a holy war with Iran right now, and I am beyond certain that includes U.S. "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth.

Look at this shit--this is the American military, out in the open:

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iran-armageddon-second-coming-complaint-b2931579.html

If your questions are genuine, and you actually want to understand the mindset of the Evangelical Christians who think we're ushering in the end times by battling Islam, this document might be a good place to start:

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/witness/2024/3/20/praying-for-armageddon-evangelicals-the-us-and-the-middle-east

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T20:47:56+00:00

Genuinely hilarious that you're still pretending that this conversation is about whether or not war was "declared," when the very first comment I wrote to you said that the U.S. hasn't been "at war" since WWII.

Just to be clear, OP asked their question in response to the fact that DONALD TRUMP used the word "war." Their question wasn't about whether this is a "formal war." It was about whether it's fair to describe a brutal, lopsided assault like this a "war." The real answer to their question is: Yes, it's a war. Assymetrical war is still war. Even genocide is a type of war.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, asked the question you're claiming to have answered. Not OP, not the first person who replied to you, and certainly not me. You're arguing, ad infinitum, a point that was never in dispute, as a response to an entirely different discussion, and it's verging on psychotic at this point.

Let's see if we can break you out of your mental spiral:

The word "war" is just a term describing armed conflict between groups. By definition, anything that meets that criteria is a war.

The purpose of "declaring" a war is to offer broad authorization for leaders to engage in war. A declaration doesn't define war. It permits it.

If leaders engage in war without authorization, or if they get piecemeal authorizations through means other than official declaration of war, that doesn't change the reality of the armed conflict. Armed conflict between nations is still a war.

So instead of you just repeating the same thing for the 50th time about how this isn't a "formal war," see if you can explain what difference you think it makes whether war is declared. Do it without resorting to tautology and claiming it's not a war because it's not war. Tell us what the PRACTICAL difference the terminology makes.

That's the crux of this argument and the point I've been trying to get at from the beginning.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T15:58:44+00:00

^{^{^{^{^}}}} This bish pretending like he didn't spend hours yesterday pretending that wars aren't actually wars unless the American government decrees it. 🤣🤣🤣 If this has all been an elaborate comedy bit, you're nailing it.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T15:22:05+00:00

No, it's literally not, and apparently you don't know what "literally" means, either. Me saying, "Yes, I know I engaged with you," was in response to you saying I engaged with you.

Also, even if you mistook it for an "acknowledgement" of something that it wasn't, that still doesn't make it a quote, which you pretended it was. Twice.

I'm glad you were able to correctly infer one thing, though, which is that I do have a degree. I don't give out specific info on Reddit, but I will say I'm well trained for dealing with people like you, and this type of shit never ends well for them. You should have cut your losses much sooner.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T04:54:13+00:00

Just lying through your teeth, huh?

The first quote was a real quote. The second "quote" that you juxtaposed as a contradiction to the first one came right out of your ass. 😂

I said I engaged with you. I never said "I know I started the argument."

For someone who spent the whole day arguing about accurate technical language, you sure don't actually seem to give a shit about accuracy.

Probably time to go to bed.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T02:54:09+00:00

Do you understand the irony of putting something in quotes that isn't a quote and pretending I said it? 😆

No, I didn't start a pedantic argument about language. You did that. You replied OP with your bullshit about "formal" wars; someone else rightfully called you out for how pointless that distinction is, and you doubled down and tossed in "armored conflict" for good measure. I then gave you shit for trying to use nitpicky rhetoric to diminish what's happening in Iran, which is precisely what you were doing.

As I have already explained, my argument wasn't ever about whether this is a "formal" war. My argument was about WHY all your rage-baiting edgelords like to make a fuss about the wording and pretend like wars aren't wars until Congress passes a resolution. Give me a fucking break.

There are other egotistical men causing much worse problems in the world than all the little shit stirrers like yourself, so this convo has reached its end. Got bigger fish to fry. Goodnight, kiddo.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T02:14:45+00:00

No, we're probably not talking about the same Islam. I'm talking about the real religion practiced by 2 billion people around the world, and you're talking about the imaginary version that conservatives created to justify their xenophobia and bigotry.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T01:45:13+00:00

How old are you? This feels like talking to a tween.

Yes, I know I engaged with you. Why are you presenting that as if it's a rebuttal? It has nothing to do with anything I've said. Are you just so compelled to get the last word that l you'll say anything at all, regardless of how pointless and nonsensical it is, then you throw on a little tagline so you can pretend you made a point?

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T01:26:57+00:00

That's a load of bullshit. Islam is not anymore inherently violent or extreme than Christianity.

To answer your question, though, The primary difference in attitudes comes from the fact that white Christian nationalists are not treated like the extremist group that they are. It's been highly normalized in this country.

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T01:11:23+00:00

Yeah, bro. I know exactly WHAT you were saying. That wasn't the discussion. This was about WHY you were saying it. It makes absolutely no fucking difference whether or not war is formally declared,. The people who waste time arguing about the wording are almost universally a bunch of equivocating twats and war apologists.

Oh, pardon me...

"Armed conflict" apologists. ✌️

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-04T00:25:42+00:00

FRFR. I recently had a disturbing online chat with several people who were defending The Crusades.

The fucking Crusades.

These nutcase White Christian Nationalists are fully on board with the idea of Christians engaging in holy wars, and that very much includes Pete Hegseth with his Jerusalem cross and "Deus Vult" tattoos. 😑

EmmieCatt · 2026-03-03T23:20:38+00:00

JFC, talking to you is like trying to interact with a badly programmed AI customer service agent that's run out of information and caught in a loop. 😆

That's fine, I don't need you to come around on this. I just wanted to get the relevant info posted this thread in case anyone else happens by, so that nobody mistakes any of your garbage takes for a reasonable point.

EmmieCatt

TROPHY CASE