Sharon Presley on authority

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol Jane,

It sounds like this Brit wants to distinguish between artificial snobbery based on new money and "true superiority"--which, of course, is British (and, of course, himself)...

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol Jane,

It sounds like this Brit wants to distinguish between artificial snobbery based on new money and "true superiority"--which, of course, is British (and, of course, himself)...

Michael

The character maybe is musing on that (the character is a Barbara Cartland type) but the author himself explores these themes with great power and artistry in all his books. This particular one is a mystery whose ultimate theme (among others) is the value, monetarily, of love.

I felt some echo of Fitzgerald in the "whose function we have somehow forgotten", but I think Dickinson is better in his way than Fitzgerald was in his.

Edited August 2, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol Jane,

Fitzgerald nailed it with growing up with a diamond-studded silver spoon in your mouth. But, with a few tiny modifications, the following quote could apply to the Brits--just for being Brits.

There is a wonderful quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald that is particularly pertinent here. It is from a short story (and it almost reads like a Roaring 20's male version of Paris Hilton's spoiled rich-kid life. I had known the quote for a long time, but not the story. I just read the story (the full version). I am really glad I did. It is such a marvelous thing to be touched by genuine talent, even in a tale of unhappiness.

Full story: The Rich Boy

Summary with commentary: F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Rich Boy"

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.

Think of a particular tone of voice and smirk when you read the widely used expression, "my dear fellow..."

It doesn't matter what follows. You know with 100% certainty that the Brit isn't going to tell you how awesome you are.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol Jane,

Fitzgerald nailed it with growing up with a diamond-studded silver spoon in your mouth. But, with a few tiny modifications, the following quote could apply to the Brits--just for being Brits.

There is a wonderful quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald that is particularly pertinent here. It is from a short story (and it almost reads like a Roaring 20's male version of Paris Hilton's spoiled rich-kid life. I had known the quote for a long time, but not the story. I just read the story (the full version). I am really glad I did. It is such a marvelous thing to be touched by genuine talent, even in a tale of unhappiness.

Full story: The Rich Boy

Summary with commentary: F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Rich Boy"

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.

Think of a particular tone of voice and smirk when you read the widely used expression, "my dear fellow..."

It doesn't matter what follows. You know with 100% certainty that the Brit isn't going to tell you how awesome you are.

Michael

It is a great quote. I think Hemingway zinged poor F. Scott by saying laconically, "Yes, they're different. They have more money."

Edited August 2, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Xray]

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

Thanks for directing me to Baron-Cohen, Carol.

While I do have quite a bit of practical experience working with the empathy principle since it has always been one of the pillars my pedagocical concept rests on, there's much yet for me to absorb when it comes to the various theories on empathy.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

As I understand it, he suggests that it you just can get people to be empathetic, then they won't be "evil" anymore. Oh jeez, if this is what the says, he is way more than naive, he's an idiot. Can you imagine trying to convince Hitler or Stalin to be empathetic? Or a serial killer? Give me a break. And he's in neuroscience..he should know better. The experts in clinical forensic psych, most notably Robert Hare, think that there is almost certainly a genetic component to psychopathy. If so, then Hitler, Stalin (arguably highly psychopathic by clinical standards; similar to the DSM category "antisocial personality disorder)) and serial killers (not even arguably, definitely) are NOT going to suddenly be nice if you "teach" them empathy. They are broken people and the chances of "fixing" them are basically ZERO.

And just for the record, I've also taught forensic psych as well as critical thinking, so yeah, I can sling these terms around.

I haven't yet read it either and therefore am not sure whether Baron-Cohen, when he speaks about "teaching empathy", had types like Hitler, Stalin and serial killers in mind. Maybe he meant it to be understood that developing the capacity to feel empathy (which most (not all) humans have) is essential for the ethical development of mankind as a whole.

Interesting in this context is also what the renowned scientist Steven Pinker has said on the subject. Pinker speaks about mankind having become more empathetic in the course of history.

http://www.kranti.org/component/k2/item/23-steven-pinker-on-the-myth-of-violence.html

He also mentions Peter Singer's concept of the "expanding circle", where human empathy is extending also to those who are not in our immediate sphere of love. It is also extending to animals.

Millions of Old Romans obviously had no qualms of conscience when seeing humans torn to death by wild animals in the arena.

Today, one would probably label such a person as a 'psychopath'. But now to argue that millions of psychopaths were sitting in the arena back then would be odd.

Human ethical standards have evolved, and this process will continue.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

Thanks for directing me to Baron-Cohen, Carol.

While I do have quite a bit of practical experience working with the empathy principle since it has always been one of the pillars my pedagocical concept rests on, there's much yet for me to absorb when it comes to the various theories on empathy.

You're very welcome. Your comment on pedagogy made me realize that though I teach adults, in a very different context from yours, it is in fact the unifying factor of empathy that makes it easier for me to teach these culture-shocked, entirely different people, and for them to learn. The basics of language begin with the basics of life, and the students, many of whom have never heard of each others' countries, have to learn Canada and English at the same time. The basic underlying humanities get us through.

[anthony]

He also mentions Peter Singer's concept of the "expanding circle", where human empathy is extending also to those who are not in our immediate sphere of love. It is also extending to animals.

Surely the essence of empathy, its value, lies in its applicability ONLY to those outside one's sphere of love?

To strangers.

(And stranger cats and dogs.)

[Xray]

He also mentions Peter Singer's concept of the "expanding circle", where human empathy is extending also to those who are not in our immediate sphere of love. It is also extending to animals.

Surely the essence of empathy, its value, lies in its applicability ONLY to those outside one's sphere of love?

To strangers.

(And stranger cats and dogs.)

Of course the value of empathy does not lie "ONLY" to those outside one's sphere of love. This would make no sense at all, would it.

I think I know where you're headed, Tony, we've had so many exchanges on this.

Admit it, you want to pigeonhole me as an "altruist". ;)

But I assure you that I'm as selfish as everyone else. And if you want to use the Objectivist term "rational selfishness", one could call the Golden Rule a truly rationally selfish principle.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Children who are raised the way SM apparently wants them raised--with no guidelines or enforced discipline (psychologists call this "indulgent parenting") are less likely to be socially competent and in fact are more likely to be domineering, egocentric, and have trouble with self-control.

It's the way to raise a little tyrant actually.

Molyneux' huge error lies in misinterpreting every parental attempt at guiding and directing the child as an infringement on the child's "liberty".

Edited August 3, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

He also mentions Peter Singer's concept of the "expanding circle", where human empathy is extending also to those who are not in our immediate sphere of love. It is also extending to animals.

Surely the essence of empathy, its value, lies in its applicability ONLY to those outside one's sphere of love?

To strangers.

(And stranger cats and dogs.)

Of course the value of empathy does not lie "ONLY" to those outside one's sphere of love. This would make no sense at all, wouldn't it.

I think I know where you're headed, Tony, we've had so many exchanges on this.

Admit it, you want to pigeonhole me as an "altruist". ;)

But I assure you that I'm as selfish as everyone else. And if you want to use the Objectivist term "rational selfishness", one could call the Golden Rule a truly rationally selfish principle.

Xray, your defensiveness is showing.

Mine was a totally innocent question trying to identify empathy objectively. It did seem that love completely subsumes empathy, and made it superfluous.

I'd be willing to swap my "Only" for "Mainly".

A little too late - but, checking my dictionary, 'empathy' is : "the power of projecting into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation."

Huh, not what precisely what I thought, and I wonder if you have it right too - in the context you commonly use it. Or anyone does. Connotation and denotation, again?

Don't you use it as synonomous with compassion? "Pity inclining one to spare or help."

'Empathy' is much more neutral, and less loaded than I previously guessed. Nothing like 'sympathy'. And you are right - it does apply to loved ones.

Tony

[slpresley]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

This was an interesting article; the author thinks that the Baron-Cohen book is oversimplified, which certainly seems to be the case IMO. But he seems to buy into the alleged link between testosterone and lack of empathy. I could write a whole book about what's wrong with that kind of conclusion (and actually intend to ) Simplistic links between substance x and behavior y as if they were causal is fraught with more difficulties than I have time to discuss right now. Correlation does not prove causation--a fundamental rule from Research Methods 101 that some researchers conveniently forget when they want to make a point.

I wonder if Baron-Cohen deals with the true psychopaths (the term that clinical forensic psychologists prefer) because, as the article points out, they basically cannot be rehabilitated. Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

[slpresley]

Children who are raised the way SM apparently wants them raised--with no guidelines or enforced discipline (psychologists call this "indulgent parenting") are less likely to be socially competent and in fact are more likely to be domineering, egocentric, and have trouble with self-control.

It's the way to raise a little tyrant actually.

Molyneux' huge error lies in misinterpreting every parental attempt at guiding and directing the child as an infringement on the child's "liberty".

Xray, I totally agree. That seems to be exactly what SM does. But the research is way NOT on his side. So far what I have seen him say is slippery and misrepresents some of the research. He talks about how bad spankings are (OK, the research does say that parents who primarily use spankings as their means of childrearing get bad results) but what he does not talk about in what I have heard so far is the part about GUIDELINES and enforcing the guidelines through nonpunitive means. He carefully evades that. But that is the crux of the matter. Guidelines more likely to lead to good results; no guidelines not such good results. And we don't have to pick and choose from the research. It is ALL consistent.

Elsewhere he also pulls the correlation and causation trick by pointing out that kids with lower IQs are more likely to have been abused. I bet even you nonpsychologists can figure out what's wrong with that reasoning. Parents with lower IQs may be more likely to abuse and IQ has a huge genetic component. And they are more likely to be lower SES and less well-educated about the problems with spanking and the possible alternatives. In addition, lower IQ is associated with less verbal ability, ergo less ability to explain to children, ergo whack them on the butt instead. Somewhat simplified but you get the idea. This is an example of how he distorts the research to suit his own conclusions.

[Xray]

Xray, your defensiveness is showing.

Defensiveness about what?

Mine was a totally innocent question trying to identify empathy objectively.

Tony, I have nothing against probing questions, on the contray. It keeps me on my toes. So don't hesitate to scrutinize.

A little too late - but, checking my dictionary, 'empathy' is : "the power of projecting into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation."

Huh, not what precisely what I thought, and I wonder if you have it right too - in the context you commonly use it. Or anyone does. Connotation and denotation, again?

What was your idea of empathy before you read the dictionary entry?

Don't you use it as synonomous with compassion? "Pity inclining one to spare or help."

I would use "compassion" in connection with someone who is already suffering. Whereas empathy as general attitude can lead to actions that prevent suffering.

Let say a John Doe happens to be in a really bad mood when going to work on a rainy Monday.

But instead of snapping at his colleagues over small stuff (as we are often inclined do when we are in a bad mood), if John is empathetic, he can consciously refrain from hurting the co-workers' feelings by his testiness.

'Empathy' is much more neutral, and less loaded than I previously guessed.

That's exactly why like workng with the term: because it is neutral, very objecitive actually.

Up-thread, there was some discussion regarding the use of the term "evil". As opposed to "empathy", a term like "evil" is not neutral, but very loaded. "Evil" is about moral judgement, about moral outrage, and thus not of much help when it comes to objectively analyzing an issue.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Children who are raised the way SM apparently wants them raised--with no guidelines or enforced discipline (psychologists call this "indulgent parenting") are less likely to be socially competent and in fact are more likely to be domineering, egocentric, and have trouble with self-control.

It's the way to raise a little tyrant actually.

Molyneux' huge error lies in misinterpreting every parental attempt at guiding and directing the child as an infringement on the child's "liberty".

Xray, I totally agree. That seems to be exactly what SM does. But the research is way NOT on his side. So far what I have seen him say is slippery and misrepresents some of the research. He talks about how bad spankings are (OK, the research does say that parents who primarily use spankings as their means of childrearing get bad results) but what he does not talk about in what I have heard so far is the part about GUIDELINES and enforcing the guidelines through nonpunitive means. He carefully evades that. But that is the crux of the matter. Guidelines more likely to lead to good results; no guidelines not such good results. And we don't have to pick and choose from the research. It is ALL consistent.

Elsewhere he also pulls the correlation and causation trick by pointing out that kids with lower IQs are more likely to have been abused. I bet even you nonpsychologists can figure out what's wrong with that reasoning. Parents with lower IQs may be more likely to abuse and IQ has a huge genetic component. And they are more likely to be lower SES and less well-educated about the problems with spanking and the possible alternatives. In addition, lower IQ is associated with less verbal ability, ergo less ability to explain to children, ergo whack them on the butt instead. Somewhat simplified but you get the idea. This is an example of how he distorts the research to suit his own conclusions.

Thank you for this informative post, Sharon.

[Xray]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

This was an interesting article; the author thinks that the Baron-Cohen book is oversimplified, which certainly seems to be the case IMO. But he seems to buy into the alleged link between testosterone and lack of empathy. I could write a whole book about what's wrong with that kind of conclusion (and actually intend to ) Simplistic links between substance x and behavior y as if they were causal is fraught with more difficulties than I have time to discuss right now. Correlation does not prove causation--a fundamental rule from Research Methods 101 that some researchers conveniently forget when they want to make a point.

Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

It's a pity the parent's don't use this more often. I don't know what I'd do without it in my job as a teacher of 3 to 6 year olds. I'm using it all the time and get the direct feedback how well it works.

But sadly, the human capacity to feel empathy can also be crushed by indoctrination. Children who are e. g. raised in an environment where it is constantly hammered into their heads that certain groups of people are "the enemy" who has to be destroyed, are not likely to develop empathy toward these individuals as fellow humans.

Especially infamous was the propaganda used by the Hitler regime in labeling those not belonging to the allegedly "superior Arian race" as "sub-human", even as "vermin".

The cruel intention was to 'remove' the idea in people's minds that we are all fellow human beings.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xray

[slpresley]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

It's a pity the parent's don't use this more often. I don't know what I'd do without it in my job as a teacher of 3 to 6 year olds. I'm using it all the time and get the direct feedback how well it works.

But sadly, the human capacity to feel empathy can also be crushed by indoctrination. Children who are e. g. raised in an environment where it is constantly hammered into their heads that certain groups of people are "the enemy" who has to be destroyed, are not likely to develop empathy toward these individuals as fellow humans.

Especially infamous was the propaganda used by the Hitler regime in labeling those not belonging to the allegedly "superior Arian race" as "sub-human", even as "vermin".

The cruel intention was to 'remove' the idea in people's minds that we are all fellow human beings.

Yes, unfortunately people are very suggestive in terms of what they are taught. Isn't there a song from "South Pacific" about that? You have to be taught to hate. Most people do go along with their culture, some out of fear, some out of belief. But Nazi Germany and now the Taliban and portions of the Middle East show us that people are capable of monstrous acts if they are taught that certain groups are evil. The huge cultural differences certainly suggest that whatever component of empathy may have genetic influences (and some psychologists think it does) is pretty weak compared to the power of cultural learning.

[studiodekadent]

Dr Presley,

Just wanted to say I greatly approve of your careful distiction between expertise and authority. A very useful concept! Thank you for it; I've found it a very effective analytical tool.

[slpresley]

Dr Presley,

Just wanted to say I greatly approve of your careful distiction between expertise and authority. A very useful concept! Thank you for it; I've found it a very effective analytical tool.

You're welcome. But I can't claim credit for anything but noting it. I read it in an essay by Robert Bierstedt which was recommended by Stanley Milgram. I found it very useful too and I'm glad you did.

[Brant Gaede]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

It's a pity the parent's don't use this more often. I don't know what I'd do without it in my job as a teacher of 3 to 6 year olds. I'm using it all the time and get the direct feedback how well it works.

But sadly, the human capacity to feel empathy can also be crushed by indoctrination. Children who are e. g. raised in an environment where it is constantly hammered into their heads that certain groups of people are "the enemy" who has to be destroyed, are not likely to develop empathy toward these individuals as fellow humans.

Especially infamous was the propaganda used by the Hitler regime in labeling those not belonging to the allegedly "superior Arian race" as "sub-human", even as "vermin".

The cruel intention was to 'remove' the idea in people's minds that we are all fellow human beings.

Yes, unfortunately people are very suggestive in terms of what they are taught. Isn't there a song from "South Pacific" about that? You have to be taught to hate. Most people do go along with their culture, some out of fear, some out of belief. But Nazi Germany and now the Taliban and portions of the Middle East show us that people are capable of monstrous acts if they are taught that certain groups are evil. The huge cultural differences certainly suggest that whatever component of empathy may have genetic influences (and some psychologists think it does) is pretty weak compared to the power of cultural learning.

"Happy Talk."

--Brant

edit: wrong song

Edited August 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

It is the lack of freedom that is the "root of all evil." Stop doing evil, be good.

But--the root of the root?

--Brant

I may know the answer, a lady told me

[caroljane]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

It's a pity the parent's don't use this more often. I don't know what I'd do without it in my job as a teacher of 3 to 6 year olds. I'm using it all the time and get the direct feedback how well it works.

But sadly, the human capacity to feel empathy can also be crushed by indoctrination. Children who are e. g. raised in an environment where it is constantly hammered into their heads that certain groups of people are "the enemy" who has to be destroyed, are not likely to develop empathy toward these individuals as fellow humans.

Especially infamous was the propaganda used by the Hitler regime in labeling those not belonging to the allegedly "superior Arian race" as "sub-human", even as "vermin".

The cruel intention was to 'remove' the idea in people's minds that we are all fellow human beings.

Yes, unfortunately people are very suggestive in terms of what they are taught. Isn't there a song from "South Pacific" about that? You have to be taught to hate. Most people do go along with their culture, some out of fear, some out of belief. But Nazi Germany and now the Taliban and portions of the Middle East show us that people are capable of monstrous acts if they are taught that certain groups are evil. The huge cultural differences certainly suggest that whatever component of empathy may have genetic influences (and some psychologists think it does) is pretty weak compared to the power of cultural learning.

"Happy Talk."

--Brant

edit: wrong song

Right musical though. "You've got to be Carefully Taught". Except not in Australian schools, per SD.

[Patience]

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Michael

It's a pity the parent's don't use this more often. I don't know what I'd do without it in my job as a teacher of 3 to 6 year olds. I'm using it all the time and get the direct feedback how well it works.

But sadly, the human capacity to feel empathy can also be crushed by indoctrination. Children who are e. g. raised in an environment where it is constantly hammered into their heads that certain groups of people are "the enemy" who has to be destroyed, are not likely to develop empathy toward these individuals as fellow humans.

Especially infamous was the propaganda used by the Hitler regime in labeling those not belonging to the allegedly "superior Arian race" as "sub-human", even as "vermin".

The cruel intention was to 'remove' the idea in people's minds that we are all fellow human beings.

Yes, unfortunately people are very suggestive in terms of what they are taught. Isn't there a song from "South Pacific" about that? You have to be taught to hate. Most people do go along with their culture, some out of fear, some out of belief. But Nazi Germany and now the Taliban and portions of the Middle East show us that people are capable of monstrous acts if they are taught that certain groups are evil. The huge cultural differences certainly suggest that whatever component of empathy may have genetic influences (and some psychologists think it does) is pretty weak compared to the power of cultural learning.

I agree, people can be very suggestive in terms of what they are taught - particularly when their teacher deliberately sets out to manipulate them. To take the subject back to Molyneux, he teaches his followers to hate their parents because they are "evil", and leads them to "defoo", to cut off from their parents and other family members. He even pulled the same trick on his wife, Christina. In case you haven't already seen it, you can read about Christina and another example on FDRLiberated: http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=5738

[Selene]

Barbara:

Welcome to OL. What a perfect OL forum name - Patience...you will need it.

How did you "discover" Ayn?

Adam

semi-official welcome wagon driver

[john42t]

I thought the article predictable, and laughable too, if it weren't so amoral.

Like all determinists, Baron-Cohen is boring. They all start from the premise that what a man is born with (God-given, instinctive, etc) is his true nobility.

Conversely, rationally choosing a conscious and conscientuous morality to live by, is rather passe - and just too 'easy'.

What article is that? The link "Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil" doesn't work and it appears not be by Baron-Cohen.

Is it really him you refer to?

He brings up the Rwandan genocide as an example of (I assume) lack of empathy. As if every one of the 100's of thousands of perpetrators of it was a psychopath, or indeed would score low on his empathy scale.

One person in the thread spells it out, thanks for this. Sometimes I feel very lonely.

Because I don't trust any single one of you that "empathy" is going to stop your participation in a mob on a killing frenzy once irrational ideas are taking over.