Latter-Day Saints, white Evangelical value empathy the least

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, Eschaton said:

This seems to be an exercise in excuse-making. We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years, and the slow poison has worked its way into the two most conservative religious populations, white evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints. White evangelicals are probably a lost cause at this point, but I don't think the same is true of LDS people. 

"We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years" Who are these certain extremists? It would be helpful to know of whom you speak? Evangelicals stand against extremism in all its forms. That is why they formed in the early 1940s and why they still exist today. I would not describe either Latter-Day Saints or "Evangelicals (white or otherwise) as the two most conservative religious populations. That is a bridge way too far. Perhaps Fundamentalist Mormons and Fundamentalist non-Mormon Christians are among the most conservative religious populations who are Christian. There certainly are more conservative religous groups like Salafist Islam that out-conservative conservative Christian groups. Of course, now we have to define Conservative, don't we? Russian Mennonites here in Chihuahua are certainly extremely conservative in many ways. They are neither Mormon, and in many cases are Fundamentalists rather than Evangelicals. Some in certain places here certainly are Evangelicals. There are many doctrinally conservative Presbyterians who are an interesting combination of Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalists, depending on how you are using the terms. Many of them are more conservative than the LDS, depending on how you use the term. There also is great variance in Conservativeness (is that a word) among Catholics. All of that is why I think we always need to define our terms prior to engaging in discussing the "other." 

I often find labels unhelpful, especially those that are meant to rank, normalize, generalize, dehumanize, other, and only.  I am a White Evangelical (capital E). How am I lost? Somehow I don't think you are complimenting me; at least it doesn't feel that way. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Navidad
typo

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am unaware of any definition of empathy out side of right wing talking points that requires acquiescence to a policy point of view.

I am.  

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will say that some points of view are inherently unempathetic.

I agree.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For example describing a 20 week fetus as a clump of cells.

I agree.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”.

I can't go along with this.  "Illegal alien" is a legal term.  "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants").  From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant") :

Quote

There is no difference in legal status. The distinction is purely terminological and rhetorical.

Legal Term: “Illegal alien”

• This is the language used in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act and other federal statutes.
• An “alien” is any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.
• An “illegal alien” is a non-citizen who is present in the United States in violation of law (illegal entry, visa overstay, or other unlawful presence).
• It is the precise statutory description of the person’s legal status.

Non-Legal Term: “Undocumented migrant”

• This is not a defined term in U.S. immigration law.
• It is a preferred phrase used by many media outlets, advocacy organizations, and some government communications in recent years.
• It focuses on the absence of valid documents rather than the fact of unlawful presence or entry.
• “Migrant” is sometimes chosen over “immigrant” because it can imply movement rather than permanent settlement, but in practice the two are often used interchangeably in this context.

Summary of the Difference

Term	Legal status	Primary emphasis	Origin of usage
Illegal alien	Statutory term	Unlawful presence	U.S. Code and case law
Undocumented migrant	Not a legal term	Lack of paperwork	Media and advocacy

 

 

Both phrases can refer to the same individuals. The choice of words does not change the underlying facts of how a person entered or whether they have lawful authorization to remain. “Illegal alien” tracks the statutory language; “undocumented migrant” is a softer, non-statutory framing.

That seems about right.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or saying that the law of chastity impacts gay and straight people equally.

I don't think the Law of Chastity "impacts gay and straight people equally."  I think it applies equally.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  Most people don't want to, so that impact on them is negligible.  Some do, so that impact is more potent.  Same law, disparate impact. 

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or saying religious people are delusional.

Yes, broad ugly stereotypes are indeed lacking in empathy, as they impute negative characteristics onto an entire category of persons, without regard to individual choice and conduct.

"All men are potential rapists" is another not-very-empathetic sentiment.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This does not require one to adopt an anti-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, or pro religious stance. 

Looks like we may agree more than we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”.

I can't go along with this.  "Illegal alien" is a legal term.  "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants").  From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant")

Illegal alien is a legal term. “Illegal” is a derogatory slang term to reduce a person to their immigration status. 

[The Nehor]

Considering how many LDS use evangelical Christianity’s talking points (particularly the fundamentalist and/or Christian Nationalist versions) as a watering trough and enthusiastically lap it up  I am very unsurprised.

Thanks President Benson. Good job everyone! Why we thought feasting on the propaganda of groups that historically have despised us was a good idea is completely beyond me. Especially since many of them still despise us even if they find us helpful at the moment as a gaggle of ‘useful idiots’.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Eschaton said:

A recent survey on empathy

Just to be clear, it appears there was only one question on empathy.  The other questions were on different topics, correct?

I found what I think is their database, but 2026 hasn’t been added yet.  Nor can I find anything resembling this empathy question.  
 

https://ava.prri.org/?_gl=1*1k13v1y*_gcl_au*MTc5NTEwNjEwMi4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga*MTMzMDA3Njk4My4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga_0B2WQXPZMT*czE3OTI1NjY2MzYkbzEkZzEkdDE3OTI1NjcwODIkajMkbDAkaDA.

 

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Empathy is a traditional Christian value, which the opponents of Christianity have rejected. You don't seem to understand what the word means. 

Hmmm.  With due respect, I wonder ... does anyone have a mirror handy that Eschaton can borrow?  

[Eschaton]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Navidad differentiates (probably correctly imo in terms of scholarly categories…spacing on the right word now for that, but I don’t believe that is how most people use “evangelical”) between Evangelical and Fundamentalist.  If I understand him correctly, one can’t be both.  OTOH, there can be evangelical or fundamentalists LDS, Catholics, Muslims, etc.

In his view, my guess that the groups of political or religious “extremists” that see empathy as highly dangerous are more likely Fundamentalist than Evangelical.  He will hopefully correct me if I have misunderstood him.

You both will end up talking past each other if you don’t agree on a definition for Evangelical here and given his past comments, I don’t think Navidad will budge on this.  It concerns him greatly.  I can understand that as it can cause great confusion as it is doing here (there are many liberal white evangelicals, but they are getting clumped in with white fundamentalists in this survey).

There are fundamentalist evangelicals for sure, but not every evangelical is a fundamentalist. 

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  With due respect, I wonder ... does anyone have a mirror handy that Eschaton can borrow?  

I value empathy. The opponents of Christ and traditional Christianity do not. Do you value empathy Kenngo? 

[Eschaton]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, it appears there was only one question on empathy.  The other questions were on different topics, correct?

I found what I think is their database, but 2026 hasn’t been added yet.  Nor can I find anything resembling this empathy question.  
 

https://ava.prri.org/?_gl=1*1k13v1y*_gcl_au*MTc5NTEwNjEwMi4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga*MTMzMDA3Njk4My4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga_0B2WQXPZMT*czE3OTI1NjY2MzYkbzEkZzEkdDE3OTI1NjcwODIkajMkbDAkaDA.

 

Yes I believe that's right

[smac97]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Illegal alien is a legal term. “Illegal” is a derogatory slang term to reduce a person to their immigration status. 

When immigration status is the topic or associated with the topic, I think referring to illegal aliens as such is descriptive, not pejorative.

Are you okay with references to "Illegal aliens," but not "illegals?" 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you okay with references to "Illegal aliens," but not "illegals?" 

This is exactly the point I was trying to (inadequately) make. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Yes I believe that's right

Then my belief this survey is faulty is even stronger after thinking more about it.

One question that only measures priority between two things at best does not measure absolute value.  These statements are not mutually exclusive or even on a spectrum, they deal with two different things that may or may not have something to say about the other.e 

By absolute value I mean how much they value the position on its own, independently of the other position.  Someone might just not see empathy as relevant or necessary, so not view it be as much of a foundational principle of Christian behaviour, but also think it’s silly to call it dangerous, so they get measured as valuing empathy when that’s not accurate, they just don’t see it as dangerous.  Not saying this is true for enough that it invalidates the findings completely, but with only one question, how can they eliminate that possibility from confounding the results.

A more likely possibility that screws up the ability to draw any such conclusion from that question is even if one might view the misuse of empathy as dangerous, one can still value the appropriate use very highly and/or see it as a crucial foundational principle of Christianity, it is just that the concern is more intense.

In case that seems unlikely….think about another situation where one might view medication as an essential part of a good treatment for pain management to the point of fighting with doctors to ensure they got effective care, but also even more strongly view misuse of pain meds as dangerous because experiences due to mismanagement by doctors or something else, like addiction experiences.  We have a situation like that in my own family where my daughter is suffering because insurance will only cover 2 pills a day while she needs 3 of a very expensive drug based on past treatment when they were covered, but one of the reasons she needs a stronger dose than typical is because her first doctor to treat her anxiety messed up and gave her the wrong drug at too high of a dose, which made her RLS severe rather than moderate.  So I see drugs as adding much to life, but so easily destroying it as well.  “Do no harm” needs to be of primary purpose.

One might very strongly view empathy as a foundational principle of Christianity and try to use it constantly with everyone in their life, but still have a massive concern with misuse because they experienced suffering in their lives because someone applied it incompletely…perhaps a sibling had physical and mental limitations and their parents spent so much time advocating for their sibling’s needs, supporting that sibling with so much of their time and attention, ensuring that sibling was able to fulfill their hopes and dreams while they were left to fend for themselves because the parents were so overwhelmed by the fear of their one not as capable child not having a quality life, that it didn’t occur to them that their other ‘normal’ or healthy child might need their help as well.  The parents’ empathy for their sibling was very important and not misplaced, but it was not enough.  Their other child needed it too.  Focus on one person or group’s needs so strongly that another is neglected is not uncommon from what I see.  In a world of limited resources, it’s understandable and we need to be careful not to become so concerned with one demand that other demands we are responsible for fall unattended.

The question only measures whether one feels more strongly about it being a foundational principle than they see it as potentially dangerous.  Saying that LDS or white evangelicals value empathy less than others do because they more often rated the danger higher based on this one question is unfounded because the question doesn’t provide that type of information, which is how strong they feel about empathy.

One also might not feel that strongly about the statement empathy is a foundational Christian principle because for them empathy isn’t viewed as tied to religion, but tied to humanity while the other statement is a closer approximation of their beliefs.  If they are being accurate and not trying to figure out what the question is trying to measure, they might choose the dangerous statement as closer to their position even though they would rate the statement “empathy is of primary importance in the lives of all humans” higher.  I don’t see this as happening much, it’s more of an issue with the methodology and not seeing them take the time to avoid potential confusions.  It is always disappointing to see large scale studies that could provide very meaningful data screw up.  What a wasted opportunity.

And unfortunately many will see it as justifying labeling white evangelicals and LDS in general as not valuing empathy…which means that is going to become the focus with arguments over whether this is true or not rather than how empathy is best applied.

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, Eschaton said:

We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years, and the slow poison has worked its way into the two most conservative religious populations, white evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints. White evangelicals are probably a lost cause at this point, but I don't think the same is true of LDS people. 

I challenge these contentions.

You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me?   

For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them?

I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory.  

Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ!  

I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition.

There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause!  

I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus.  

3DOP

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me?   

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I challenge these contentions.

You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me?   

For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them?

I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory.  

Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ!  

I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition.

There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause!  

I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus.  

3DOP

 

I envy you not having heard of it, but it's real:

 

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Then my belief this survey is faulty is even stronger after thinking more about it.

One question that only measures priority between two things at best does not measure absolute value.  These statements are not mutually exclusive or even on a spectrum, they deal with two different things that may or may not have something to say about the other.e 

By absolute value I mean how much they value the position on its own, independently of the other position.  Someone might just not see empathy as relevant or necessary, so not view it be as much of a foundational principle of Christian behaviour, but also think it’s silly to call it dangerous, so they get measured as valuing empathy when that’s not accurate, they just don’t see it as dangerous.  Not saying this is true for enough that it invalidates the findings completely, but with only one question, how can they eliminate that possibility from confounding the results.

A more likely possibility that screws up the ability to draw any such conclusion from that question is even if one might view the misuse of empathy as dangerous, one can still value the appropriate use very highly and/or see it as a crucial foundational principle of Christianity, it is just that the concern is more intense.

In case that seems unlikely….think about another situation where one might view medication as an essential part of a good treatment for pain management to the point of fighting with doctors to ensure they got effective care, but also even more strongly view misuse of pain meds as dangerous because experiences due to mismanagement by doctors or something else, like addiction experiences.  We have a situation like that in my own family where my daughter is suffering because insurance will only cover 2 pills a day while she needs 3 of a very expensive drug based on past treatment when they were covered, but one of the reasons she needs a stronger dose than typical is because her first doctor to treat her anxiety messed up and gave her the wrong drug at too high of a dose, which made her RLS severe rather than moderate.  So I see drugs as adding much to life, but so easily destroying it as well.  “Do no harm” needs to be of primary purpose.

One might very strongly view empathy as a foundational principle of Christianity and try to use it constantly with everyone in their life, but still have a massive concern with misuse because they experienced suffering in their lives because someone applied it incompletely…perhaps a sibling had physical and mental limitations and their parents spent so much time advocating for their sibling’s needs, supporting that sibling with so much of their time and attention, ensuring that sibling was able to fulfill their hopes and dreams while they were left to fend for themselves because the parents were so overwhelmed by the fear of their one not as capable child not having a quality life, that it didn’t occur to them that their other ‘normal’ or healthy child might need their help as well.  The parents’ empathy for their sibling was very important and not misplaced, but it was not enough.  Their other child needed it too.  Focus on one person or group’s needs so strongly that another is neglected is not uncommon from what I see.  In a world of limited resources, it’s understandable and we need to be careful not to become so concerned with one demand that other demands we are responsible for fall unattended.

The question only measures whether one feels more strongly about it being a foundational principle than they see it as potentially dangerous.  Saying that LDS or white evangelicals value empathy less than others do because they more often rated the danger higher based on this one question is unfounded because the question doesn’t provide that type of information, which is how strong they feel about empathy.

One also might not feel that strongly about the statement empathy is a foundational Christian principle because for them empathy isn’t viewed as tied to religion, but tied to humanity while the other statement is a closer approximation of their beliefs.  If they are being accurate and not trying to figure out what the question is trying to measure, they might choose the dangerous statement as closer to their position even though they would rate the statement “empathy is of primary importance in the lives of all humans” higher.  I don’t see this as happening much, it’s more of an issue with the methodology and not seeing them take the time to avoid potential confusions.  It is always disappointing to see large scale studies that could provide very meaningful data screw up.  What a wasted opportunity.

And unfortunately many will see it as justifying labeling white evangelicals and LDS in general as not valuing empathy…which means that is going to become the focus with arguments over whether this is true or not rather than how empathy is best applied.

 

While it's not comprehensive, it's enough to show a trend away from empathy as a value amongst the two most conservative American religious groups. Empathy gets in the way of the aims of the wicked, so they propaganize their adherents to harden their hearts against human kindness. Propagandists are eager to have their abuses tolerated by the American public, hence the anti-empathy campaign. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Eschaton

[Calm]

No, it does not measure how much they value empathy, only possibly whether they are more concerned about misuse.

It’s sloppy work, don’t be sloppy in how you use it too.

I thoroughly condemn how it’s become a political talking point among some conservatives.  I do think there is an actual danger of devaluing empathy because of such language.  This survey question does nothing significant to demonstrate that, imo.  The result may be an artifact of propaganda devaluing empathy.  It may not.  Impossible to tell given the poor choice made to measure it.  Which is unfortunate because if it is happening (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was), we need solid evidence to work with, not something that can be legitimately dismissed as agenda driven or biased (because of setting those up as if they were opposites or on the same scale so to speak when they are not).

What I would like to see are comparisons of past and present charitable activities, volunteering and donations.  Preferably what types and for whom, but at least whether donations and volunteering for those outside one’s community has decreased, stayed the same, or risen.  Measuring actual behaviour rather than language is more accurate in my view, though language has a massive impact on behaviour.  Sometimes though we make the wrong assumptions of what that impact will be, so that is why I prefer behavioural measures.

Edited 3 hours ago by Calm

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

One question that only measures priority between two things at best does not measure absolute value.  These statements are not mutually exclusive or even on a spectrum, they deal with two different things that may or may not have something to say about the other.e 

Careful, you are getting dangerously close to agreeing with smac97! 😁

I jest. I quite agree with your statement. In some ways I'm pleased to see how strongly the LDS respondents valued the idea God's truth (which, for us, would absolutely include being empathetic for others).

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

 

I envy you not having heard of it, but it's real:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

Thanks Eschaton and Seeking Understanding.

I wasn't aware of this public discourse which seems to pit anti-empathy against pro-empathy. It appears to me to be more nuanced than presented by the poll, or the NCR article which baited them into foolishly arguing against something called empathy, but which demands more than is prudent or reasonable. It made them look like terrible people, but if we have empathy, we will try to understand them better.   

I said that "I do not know of a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody."

It seems to me that what is bolded and italicized is not the same as the "empathy" that the conservatives are opposing. If they are all really against what I described as empathy above, they have not declared themselves against that. Do either of you take issue with how I have described empathy?

The NCR article begins as follows:

"There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?"

From what I could see in the subsequent article, the conservatives were accepting a new definition of "empathy" which views those who are against unlimited immigration as lacking in the same. Hopefully not. Many of us can't accept a novel kind of empathy that is certainly not traditional, and which requires us to accept as good and moral everything that anyone with whom we empathize believes or does. To empathize with someone does not traditionally require agreement with all of their beliefs and actions. However, to empathize with those with whom we disagree is a very traditional Christian virtue. It is natural and easy to empathize with those with whom we agree. How much merit is there in that? I am afraid I don't see much empathy on the non-conservative side either, beyond those with whom they already agree about morals and law.

I did like a lot of what you said SeekingUnderstanding above. I certainly wouldn't include you among those who paint the other side in the worst possible light. I appreciate that while you are probably what is called pro-choice, you do not approve of calling a fetus, a clump of cells. I am what is called pro-life, but I have to recognize that pro-choicers do not believe as I do, that God imparts the immortal soul of a human person at conception. How can it be a crime if the fetus is no more human at the start than is a mouse full-grown?  

I disagree with anyone who thinks empathy should be the supreme rule by which civilization should be governed. Hyperbolic comments against the word by conservative commentators are unfortunate. But if those who are against the conservatives in this debate wanted to empathize with the conservatives, they would see that they are not against traditional ideas of empathy. They are only against empathy if it requires them to try to coherently accept the beliefs and behaviors of everybody they disagree with at once. 

Even Elon Musk was quoted as saying that empathy is good in its proper place: "Empathy can be good, but it's too often weaponized to persuade well-meaning people to support bad ideas." 

No one said anything against trying to "understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody." 

Edited 4 hours ago by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

 

While it's not comprehensive, it's enough to show a trend away from empathy as a value amongst the two most conservative American religious groups. Empathy gets in the way of the aims of the wicked, so they propaganize their adherents to harden their hearts against human kindness. Propagandists are eager to have their abuses tolerated by the American public, hence the anti-empathy campaign. 

Not sure if they are the two most conservative groups. Maybe though.

And yeah, the propagandists are fascists and are working the fascist playbook. Empathy and compassion are for the in-group. You focus entirely on the (often imagined) crimes of the out group against the in-group. Then you allow the out group a human capacity for planning in a kind of hive mind way and deny them individuality or basic human emotions. Thus the Jews or the trans people or the illegal immigrants or the Muslims or the liberals or the communists or the gays or women become a solid bloc that has advanced nefarious plans that they are trying to execute to harm the in-group. Since the in-group are the victims they are justified in defending themselves but you deny individual personhood to the out-group so empathy for them or compassion or giving them legal due process is pointless. They are the enemy.

It is the moral disengagement hypothesis. It is how you create terrible humans willing to be cruel and unjust while setting up mental defense mechanisms within them that shut down any attempt at self-reflection or wondering if this has gone too far. You end up with someone that values civil liberties but thinks that different people don’t deserve them or have to meet an arbitary moral standard to earn or deserve them “he was no angel”, who thinks peace is a great ideal but it perpetually at war with all the out-groups, and imagines they haven’t changed at all when they are advocating for obvious and unnecessary cruelty.

[Eschaton]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not sure if they are the two most conservative groups. Maybe though.

And yeah, the propagandists are fascists and are working the fascist playbook. Empathy and compassion are for the in-group. You focus entirely on the (often imagined) crimes of the out group against the in-group. Then you allow the out group a human capacity for planning in a kind of hive mind way and deny them individuality or basic human emotions. Thus the Jews or the trans people or the illegal immigrants or the Muslims or the liberals or the communists or the gays or women become a solid bloc that has advanced nefarious plans that they are trying to execute to harm the in-group. Since the in-group are the victims they are justified in defending themselves but you deny individual personhood to the out-group so empathy for them or compassion or giving them legal due process is pointless. They are the enemy.

It is the moral disengagement hypothesis. It is how you create terrible humans willing to be cruel and unjust while setting up mental defense mechanisms within them that shut down any attempt at self-reflection or wondering if this has gone too far. You end up with someone that values civil liberties but thinks that different people don’t deserve them or have to meet an arbitary moral standard to earn or deserve them “he was no angel”, who thinks peace is a great ideal but it perpetually at war with all the out-groups, and imagines they haven’t changed at all when they are advocating for obvious and unnecessary cruelty.

Yup, exactly. 

Regarding the most conservative religious groups, it's definitely white evangelicals and LDS:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Yup, exactly. 

Regarding the most conservative religious groups, it's definitely white evangelicals and LDS:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/

Oh, you meant in that poll. I was thinking there are much more conservative religious groups out there but they aren’t in that poll. Apologies.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Eschaton said:

There are fundamentalist evangelicals for sure, but not every evangelical is a fundamentalist. 

Love the certainty.  What you are claiming is like saying there are cat dogs for sure, but not every cat is a dog. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are two entirely different species of Christians, who have spent more time at each other's throats (metaphorically speaking) than they ever have at other brands or species of Christianity, including the LDS. Evangelicals migrated out of Fundamentalism in the 1940s and have never looked back. Fundamentalists have demeaned Evangelicals for their migration and have never even tried to mend the fence, or bridge the gap between them. You talk like you think cats and dogs are two points on the same continuum. Perhaps they are both four legged carnivorous mammals.  That is as close as you can get. The closest metaphor I can think of is that you are saying that there are FLDS LDS Christians for sure, but not every LDS Christian is FLDS. I don't think that would make sense to either an FLDS or an LDS Christian. Yet, it is said out of a lack of knowledge of the true distinctions between them.   Now, if you were to say there are conservative Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a conservative, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. If you said there are liberal Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a liberal, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. Words matter. I would be much less welcome to give a talk in a Fundamentalist church than I would be to give a talk in an LDS sacrament service. I might not be welcome in either depending on the LDS bishop, but at least in the LDS church that would be a local decision. Fundamentalists are pretty united, in my experience and knowledge, in their opposition to the reprobate Evangelical. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

 

I envy you not having heard of it, but it's real:

 

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

So NPR generalizes from one conversation to a whole class of people. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Not sure if they are the two most conservative groups. Maybe though.

And yeah, the propagandists are fascists and are working the fascist playbook. Empathy and compassion are for the in-group. You focus entirely on the (often imagined) crimes of the out group against the in-group. Then you allow the out group a human capacity for planning in a kind of hive mind way and deny them individuality or basic human emotions. Thus the Jews or the trans people or the illegal immigrants or the Muslims or the liberals or the communists or the gays or women become a solid bloc that has advanced nefarious plans that they are trying to execute to harm the in-group. Since the in-group are the victims they are justified in defending themselves but you deny individual personhood to the out-group so empathy for them or compassion or giving them legal due process is pointless. They are the enemy.

It is the moral disengagement hypothesis. It is how you create terrible humans willing to be cruel and unjust while setting up mental defense mechanisms within them that shut down any attempt at self-reflection or wondering if this has gone too far. You end up with someone that values civil liberties but thinks that different people don’t deserve them or have to meet an arbitary moral standard to earn or deserve them “he was no angel”, who thinks peace is a great ideal but it perpetually at war with all the out-groups, and imagines they haven’t changed at all when they are advocating for obvious and unnecessary cruelty.

Can you tell us more about the "moral disengagement hypothesis?" I have never heard that term. I think I like it, but want ot know more.