That guy is another example of ego-driven influencer-type mentalities run amok, where dumb hot takes can receive way, way, way too much attention because of the internet. People like this just look to see what mood is trendy and roll up a cultural product to make a buck and feel like they achieved something, without stopping to think about its moral value or utility. He didn’t reflect one whit on it to think maybe, just maybe, the safer world we live in was achieved with empathy and compassion. What a dunderhead.
I think of what the world would be like without empathy - Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia come to mind. Given a choice between a society of excessive empathy and a society where empathy is eliminated by government, I'll take the sloppy and sometimes overly empathetic culture usually found in democracies. A society that allows for imagining what the other side is thinking and feeling requires some empathy and the understanding that maybe the other side has some valid points - and debate is possible and even neessary. Totalitarian societies put into their very foundations that there is only one correct way to think and that everything else needs to be ruthlessly suppressed and exterminated -without feeling or empathy.
Saad's condemnation of suicidal empathy is a straw-man argument. Empathy, or lack thereof, is not the issue. Saad and others in the far-right echo chamber love to attack empathy. The actual issue is empathy for whom. As Cathy Young mentions, Saad and his bros have plenty of empathy for their own tribe, even when they attack police. Empathy itself is not the issue.
The same hypocrisy applies to many other supposedly universal concepts embraced by staunch conservatives. "States rights" is not an absolute concept. States rights only apply to states adopting conservative policies. Free speech is not absolute. It only pertains to right wing speech. Liberal speech can be eliminated. Even right-wing support for police is conditional. Freedom of religion is clearly very conditional for the far-right.
We need to consistently call out the fallacious "principles" invoked by the far-right. Saad is not really concerned about empathy, not at all.
There is always some confusion in what is meant by empathy, sympathy, compassion - all similar terms that are often used interchangeably. But empathy, literally the capacity to feel what another feels, is, I think key to all morality and critical to democratic governance. But empathy need not preclude some ultimate judgement. A decent person can and should be empathetic to the plight of immigrants. One still might support, say, some limitation on immigration, but a decent person, drawing on empathy, would never support cruelty in the enforcement. An interesting question is: can a decent person be empathetic with MAGA? I think they can, or should, but here’s the catch: to be empathetic one has to draw, temporarily, on the passions of MAGA. Every human has within them a well of passions - fear, hatred, greed, vanity, etc. that our moral traditions have always recognized need to be controlled for decent human community. Being empathetic with MAGA requires drawing temporarily from this dark well. Empathy allows us to walk in MAGA’s shoes for a moment. We can understand them, feel for a moment their hatred’s, fears, etc. but empathy need not ultimately lead us to be sympathetic with them or accept these as valid. Many of these anti-empathy commentators are in fact asking for empathy. Fear what I fear. Hate what I hate. Resent what I resent. Lust for what I lust for. But empathy tells us that their motivations come from a darkness in the human heart that we all viscerally experience in ourselves- but that our better angels seek to contain. The moral person is not unfamiliar with these dark passions, but because they seek to control them themselves, they can, because of empathy, adversely judge those who make no attempt to do so. Empathy does not always mean sympathy or compassion or agreement. But I think it is always necessary for an honest moral judgement.
Hmmmm, well I am probably a conservative, albeit of the radical tory variety, due to The Lord of the Rings, a book permeated with 'suicidal empathy.' Not only does Tolkien repeatedly emphasis 'pity' and 'mercy' as cardinal virtues but also that mercy is only a virtue when done for its own sake, without benefit to the giver. Frodo embarks on a hopeless journey for the sake of a community he never expects to see again, Sam's love for his master sustains him as Frodo succumbs to the influence of the ring, characters in a book deeply the product of a worldview deeply rooted in Christian, and Western, values.
I've seen a number of Gad Saad's youtubes. He does tend to overlook Trump's excesses and authoritarianism. I assume because he's playing to his Fox News fan base. Nevertheless, as Cathy writes, he's onto something here. Our societal balance between seeking justice and being righteous (empathy) is overly tilting toward empathy.
One subject he focuses on is increased Muslim immigration to the West, which he sees as a threat to our liberal democracies. Due to disproportionate % (not all Muslims) holding misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic views. I've found him well informed on the subject. As to the increase of Muslim public prayer activity in the West, in public squares and so on, I'm surprised Cathy sees it as benign. I don't.
I am not worried that the people who loved and continue to love Jim Crow are going to suffer from toxic empathy. If you can love Alligator Alcatraz, toxic empathy is not your problem. If you can say that slavery was not as bad as people say, toxic empathy is not your problem.
Dickens got it right in "Christmas Carol" when the ghosts delivered judgement and grace as they revealed to Scrooge ...himself.
An example of excess empathy would be Australia and other countries allowing ISIS brides to return back from Syria and Iraq to Australia.
Unless they have a permit, I generally don't like it when individuals or groups impinge on the public square to pray or demonstrate or display their religious practices. Such as ad hoc taking over a sidewalk or bus station or parking lot or even the street to hold prayer session. Maybe that's just me. If you do a youtube search of "Islam Public Prayer in Europe" there are lots of examples. And now in the US--search "Times Square Islamic Prayer".
Are you talking about the Australian women who were immediately arrested on terrorism and human trafficking charges upon their return? I'm not seeing the excess of empathy there? On a related note, what about people who were groomed as children - there are stories of 13-15 year old girls from several countries having been lured in. Is it right for a 15 year old British girl to be stripped of her citizenship?
I have to be honest, I would hope for a reason greater than "I don't like it" when we are talking about wanting to impede religious practices. I am wondering, are you a member of a religion yourself? Is it perhaps the dominant religion in your area? As an atheist I sometimes feel that, for example, dominant groups in a region or country, like American Christians, seem incredibly unaware of the extent of their own public demonstrations of faith at various holidays and throughout the year, and conversely seem hyperaware of the practices of others...
Why would I be more bothered by that than any other religious observances or celebrations all over the place? I don't complain about neighbors across the street observing Sukkot on their front lawn, or my old neighbors putting out Diwali candles on our shared property boundary,, or big local community Lunar New Year festivals, or Jehovah's Witnesses or LDS missionaries knocking on my door, or the insane amount of Christian holiday stuff that is in everyone's face all the time multiple times per year, either. I just don't see muslim prayer as somehow uniquely bad or categorically different from plenty of other experiences I've had with religious people, organizations, and community events.
It does seem that there is more public prayer among Muslims in the US vs other religions. This is a topic worthy of public discussion. Is public prayer benign or not? Does it matter which religion it is? How much is too much. Are there dangers associated with it and if so, what are they? Are there ways to guard against that danger? Without that discussion, the wariness against it will go underground and emerge as plain old bigotry.
Off the top of my head, the majority of Muslim immigrants lived in countries where Islam was the state religion, so public worship would be the norm, and a loud call to prayer would be fine since everyone was considered Muslim (and also, nobody would DARE complain about it). Not so in a pluralistic society.
I'm wondering if you are aware of the reason you will sometimes see Muslims praying in public (hint: it's not because they are prayer exhibitionists)? It seems like it would be very hard to have a meaningful conversation about the significance of rates of public prayer versus private prayer between one religious group and another without taking into account the prayer practices of each religion.
Anything that smacks of religious ritual into a public space that has the potential of impinging in that public space, needs to be addressed and discussed head-on, for the reasons I stated. If it's intruding on non-Muslims, it becomes a public interest question. While different prayer practices may play a role in why it happens, that does not solve the public perception problem about it. And while there is nuance here (what constitutes religious intrusion into a public space? example: the accommodation of religious symbols at government building sites such as nativity scenes, menorah's etc), we'll never get to the nuance unless it's discussed openly. It'll just devolve into polarizing bulsh*t that demagogues use to further divide us.
Once again we have someone who is an atheist (aren't we all really?) but aligns himself as culturally Jewish. Is that for the sense he is "chosen by God" without the fealty and commitment to their faith? Not to judge if that is right or wrong but honestly, just name the book "I am A Sociopath who does not care about others because I am incapable of love and connection" next time.
Minor point about the tame squirrel and racoon euthanized by NY DEC. It was the sort of state over reach that should offend anyone with a bit of empathy. The couple that rescued the animals live on a remote farm, have numerous animals, and monetized their lives on the farm with a YouTube channel. They attracted the attention of an ICE like DEC officer because some of the rescue animals were depicted online as at least occasionally living inside their farmhouse. The DEC officer became irate because the couple were not sufficiently awestruck by his power. Wild animals living in a house not being legal in New York. The officer got into a power contest with the couple and arranged a massive multi agency law enforcement raid on their farm, detained the couple, seized the tame animals, and euthanized them. Rabies was an after the fact excuse and had nothing to do with raid justifications. And of course the animals were not rabid. There was about zero danger to the general public created by the couples animal rescue activities. As a farmer federal law enforcement officer I generally support police. But for law enforcement to maintain the trust of the general public, there needs to be some empathy for the people with whom police deal.
If the book author is basing an entire concept off of one incident, my natural conclusion from this is that the situation of empathy leading to horrific outcomes is very rare. If anything, I would say that the people who lack empathy are the people one needs to avoid. Generally, those are the people at the upper echelons of society, not the lower ones.
Let's see how these Shit For Brains Republicans like it when they get a ton of pain and nobody gives a fuck. You can't give what you never got from abusive, abandoning, destructive parents. As Sunryu Suzuki, the founder of the San Francisco Zen Center said to his pampered American students, "Always the sweet pill, never the bitter pill! More suffering...you all need more suffering!!" You've simply not suffered enough if you think empathy and compassion are expendable.
Jim Jarmusch directed the mind-blowing (1995) film, "Dead Man" (many Zen themes) starring Jonny Depp about life in the West in the late 1800s. At one point Gary Farmer playing a large Native American looks around at all the destruction caused by the white settlers and says, "Stupid fucking Whiteman." This country is full of Stupid Fucking Whitemen.
Empathy is not the real issue here. Non-empathy is simply an excuse and rationalization for cruelty and sadism.
Great review. It sounds as if the author took on that most pedestrian of concepts, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There is truly nothing new under the sun.
One comment, not really about the main point, but the litany of liberal sins was a bit too easy. So let's look at crime. And I say this as someone who commuted to NYC on and off starting in 1969. So saw the worst and the improvement. Let's look as so called soft on crime. With the exception of a few extremists who really wanted to close down police departments, much of the complaints about judges or prosecutors being soft on crime amount to meaningless anecdotes. So yes the NY Post would highlight a criminal being released. But there was not clear pattern that showed the either soft or hard policies reduced crime.
The same with bail reform. While cops seem to hate it, there is little evidence that this has impacted crime in a meaningful way - though there may be a few isolated incidents.
Crime went up for decades till it peaked - and it did this nationwide, then crime went down nationwide. And in NYC the drop began before Mayor Giuliani.
The link between lead exposure and crime continues to hold up across multiple historical time periods and after decades of research, and neatly matches the rise and decline of crime in the 2nd half of the 20th century...
That guy is another example of ego-driven influencer-type mentalities run amok, where dumb hot takes can receive way, way, way too much attention because of the internet. People like this just look to see what mood is trendy and roll up a cultural product to make a buck and feel like they achieved something, without stopping to think about its moral value or utility. He didn’t reflect one whit on it to think maybe, just maybe, the safer world we live in was achieved with empathy and compassion. What a dunderhead.
I think of what the world would be like without empathy - Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia come to mind. Given a choice between a society of excessive empathy and a society where empathy is eliminated by government, I'll take the sloppy and sometimes overly empathetic culture usually found in democracies. A society that allows for imagining what the other side is thinking and feeling requires some empathy and the understanding that maybe the other side has some valid points - and debate is possible and even neessary. Totalitarian societies put into their very foundations that there is only one correct way to think and that everything else needs to be ruthlessly suppressed and exterminated -without feeling or empathy.
Saad's condemnation of suicidal empathy is a straw-man argument. Empathy, or lack thereof, is not the issue. Saad and others in the far-right echo chamber love to attack empathy. The actual issue is empathy for whom. As Cathy Young mentions, Saad and his bros have plenty of empathy for their own tribe, even when they attack police. Empathy itself is not the issue.
The same hypocrisy applies to many other supposedly universal concepts embraced by staunch conservatives. "States rights" is not an absolute concept. States rights only apply to states adopting conservative policies. Free speech is not absolute. It only pertains to right wing speech. Liberal speech can be eliminated. Even right-wing support for police is conditional. Freedom of religion is clearly very conditional for the far-right.
We need to consistently call out the fallacious "principles" invoked by the far-right. Saad is not really concerned about empathy, not at all.
This is an excellent piece, Thank you Cathy for a deserved takedown of a so called heterox thinker.
There is always some confusion in what is meant by empathy, sympathy, compassion - all similar terms that are often used interchangeably. But empathy, literally the capacity to feel what another feels, is, I think key to all morality and critical to democratic governance. But empathy need not preclude some ultimate judgement. A decent person can and should be empathetic to the plight of immigrants. One still might support, say, some limitation on immigration, but a decent person, drawing on empathy, would never support cruelty in the enforcement. An interesting question is: can a decent person be empathetic with MAGA? I think they can, or should, but here’s the catch: to be empathetic one has to draw, temporarily, on the passions of MAGA. Every human has within them a well of passions - fear, hatred, greed, vanity, etc. that our moral traditions have always recognized need to be controlled for decent human community. Being empathetic with MAGA requires drawing temporarily from this dark well. Empathy allows us to walk in MAGA’s shoes for a moment. We can understand them, feel for a moment their hatred’s, fears, etc. but empathy need not ultimately lead us to be sympathetic with them or accept these as valid. Many of these anti-empathy commentators are in fact asking for empathy. Fear what I fear. Hate what I hate. Resent what I resent. Lust for what I lust for. But empathy tells us that their motivations come from a darkness in the human heart that we all viscerally experience in ourselves- but that our better angels seek to contain. The moral person is not unfamiliar with these dark passions, but because they seek to control them themselves, they can, because of empathy, adversely judge those who make no attempt to do so. Empathy does not always mean sympathy or compassion or agreement. But I think it is always necessary for an honest moral judgement.
Well said.
Then there is the empathy for “law-abiding gun owners” whose way of life is threatened by unsympathetic liberals every time there is a mass shooting.
Hmmmm, well I am probably a conservative, albeit of the radical tory variety, due to The Lord of the Rings, a book permeated with 'suicidal empathy.' Not only does Tolkien repeatedly emphasis 'pity' and 'mercy' as cardinal virtues but also that mercy is only a virtue when done for its own sake, without benefit to the giver. Frodo embarks on a hopeless journey for the sake of a community he never expects to see again, Sam's love for his master sustains him as Frodo succumbs to the influence of the ring, characters in a book deeply the product of a worldview deeply rooted in Christian, and Western, values.
I've seen a number of Gad Saad's youtubes. He does tend to overlook Trump's excesses and authoritarianism. I assume because he's playing to his Fox News fan base. Nevertheless, as Cathy writes, he's onto something here. Our societal balance between seeking justice and being righteous (empathy) is overly tilting toward empathy.
One subject he focuses on is increased Muslim immigration to the West, which he sees as a threat to our liberal democracies. Due to disproportionate % (not all Muslims) holding misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic views. I've found him well informed on the subject. As to the increase of Muslim public prayer activity in the West, in public squares and so on, I'm surprised Cathy sees it as benign. I don't.
There also seem to be a disproportionate number of while evangelicals holding misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, just sayin'...
And, as far as our societal balance overly tilting toward empathy, what year exactly are you thinking of when you make that statement?
I'm also a little confused as to what you see as the issue with people following the manner of prayer that is associated with their religion?
I am not worried that the people who loved and continue to love Jim Crow are going to suffer from toxic empathy. If you can love Alligator Alcatraz, toxic empathy is not your problem. If you can say that slavery was not as bad as people say, toxic empathy is not your problem.
Dickens got it right in "Christmas Carol" when the ghosts delivered judgement and grace as they revealed to Scrooge ...himself.
An example of excess empathy would be Australia and other countries allowing ISIS brides to return back from Syria and Iraq to Australia.
Unless they have a permit, I generally don't like it when individuals or groups impinge on the public square to pray or demonstrate or display their religious practices. Such as ad hoc taking over a sidewalk or bus station or parking lot or even the street to hold prayer session. Maybe that's just me. If you do a youtube search of "Islam Public Prayer in Europe" there are lots of examples. And now in the US--search "Times Square Islamic Prayer".
Are you talking about the Australian women who were immediately arrested on terrorism and human trafficking charges upon their return? I'm not seeing the excess of empathy there? On a related note, what about people who were groomed as children - there are stories of 13-15 year old girls from several countries having been lured in. Is it right for a 15 year old British girl to be stripped of her citizenship?
I have to be honest, I would hope for a reason greater than "I don't like it" when we are talking about wanting to impede religious practices. I am wondering, are you a member of a religion yourself? Is it perhaps the dominant religion in your area? As an atheist I sometimes feel that, for example, dominant groups in a region or country, like American Christians, seem incredibly unaware of the extent of their own public demonstrations of faith at various holidays and throughout the year, and conversely seem hyperaware of the practices of others...
I'm a Jewish Agnostic. I'm surprised that since you're an atheist, you're apparently ok with Islamic public prayer all over the place.
Why would I be more bothered by that than any other religious observances or celebrations all over the place? I don't complain about neighbors across the street observing Sukkot on their front lawn, or my old neighbors putting out Diwali candles on our shared property boundary,, or big local community Lunar New Year festivals, or Jehovah's Witnesses or LDS missionaries knocking on my door, or the insane amount of Christian holiday stuff that is in everyone's face all the time multiple times per year, either. I just don't see muslim prayer as somehow uniquely bad or categorically different from plenty of other experiences I've had with religious people, organizations, and community events.
It does seem that there is more public prayer among Muslims in the US vs other religions. This is a topic worthy of public discussion. Is public prayer benign or not? Does it matter which religion it is? How much is too much. Are there dangers associated with it and if so, what are they? Are there ways to guard against that danger? Without that discussion, the wariness against it will go underground and emerge as plain old bigotry.
Right. What's wrong with people praying in their respective House of Worship?
Off the top of my head, the majority of Muslim immigrants lived in countries where Islam was the state religion, so public worship would be the norm, and a loud call to prayer would be fine since everyone was considered Muslim (and also, nobody would DARE complain about it). Not so in a pluralistic society.
I'm wondering if you are aware of the reason you will sometimes see Muslims praying in public (hint: it's not because they are prayer exhibitionists)? It seems like it would be very hard to have a meaningful conversation about the significance of rates of public prayer versus private prayer between one religious group and another without taking into account the prayer practices of each religion.
Anything that smacks of religious ritual into a public space that has the potential of impinging in that public space, needs to be addressed and discussed head-on, for the reasons I stated. If it's intruding on non-Muslims, it becomes a public interest question. While different prayer practices may play a role in why it happens, that does not solve the public perception problem about it. And while there is nuance here (what constitutes religious intrusion into a public space? example: the accommodation of religious symbols at government building sites such as nativity scenes, menorah's etc), we'll never get to the nuance unless it's discussed openly. It'll just devolve into polarizing bulsh*t that demagogues use to further divide us.
He’s of Lebanese Jewish origin and religious wars have torn the country apart.
Religious extremism is a problem regardless of which religion it is.
I watched the vido. He went on three local missions before his mother put the kibosh on it.
You don't believe they were afraid Mommy would expose them? Seems like a real concern. If the family is not cooperative, that's a problem.
Once again we have someone who is an atheist (aren't we all really?) but aligns himself as culturally Jewish. Is that for the sense he is "chosen by God" without the fealty and commitment to their faith? Not to judge if that is right or wrong but honestly, just name the book "I am A Sociopath who does not care about others because I am incapable of love and connection" next time.
You’re referring to Gad Saad, who is a Canadian of Lebanese Jewish origin?
Pretty sure that’s his name and he’s the author of the book that the article is about.
Yep.
Exactly the sort of thing that demands a degree of nuance. Something I suspect Ms. Young has and Mr Saad is deficient in.
Minor point about the tame squirrel and racoon euthanized by NY DEC. It was the sort of state over reach that should offend anyone with a bit of empathy. The couple that rescued the animals live on a remote farm, have numerous animals, and monetized their lives on the farm with a YouTube channel. They attracted the attention of an ICE like DEC officer because some of the rescue animals were depicted online as at least occasionally living inside their farmhouse. The DEC officer became irate because the couple were not sufficiently awestruck by his power. Wild animals living in a house not being legal in New York. The officer got into a power contest with the couple and arranged a massive multi agency law enforcement raid on their farm, detained the couple, seized the tame animals, and euthanized them. Rabies was an after the fact excuse and had nothing to do with raid justifications. And of course the animals were not rabid. There was about zero danger to the general public created by the couples animal rescue activities. As a farmer federal law enforcement officer I generally support police. But for law enforcement to maintain the trust of the general public, there needs to be some empathy for the people with whom police deal.
Holy crap!
If the book author is basing an entire concept off of one incident, my natural conclusion from this is that the situation of empathy leading to horrific outcomes is very rare. If anything, I would say that the people who lack empathy are the people one needs to avoid. Generally, those are the people at the upper echelons of society, not the lower ones.
Let's see how these Shit For Brains Republicans like it when they get a ton of pain and nobody gives a fuck. You can't give what you never got from abusive, abandoning, destructive parents. As Sunryu Suzuki, the founder of the San Francisco Zen Center said to his pampered American students, "Always the sweet pill, never the bitter pill! More suffering...you all need more suffering!!" You've simply not suffered enough if you think empathy and compassion are expendable.
Jim Jarmusch directed the mind-blowing (1995) film, "Dead Man" (many Zen themes) starring Jonny Depp about life in the West in the late 1800s. At one point Gary Farmer playing a large Native American looks around at all the destruction caused by the white settlers and says, "Stupid fucking Whiteman." This country is full of Stupid Fucking Whitemen.
Empathy is not the real issue here. Non-empathy is simply an excuse and rationalization for cruelty and sadism.
“Toxic Saadism”
👏👏👏👏
10/10, well played.
Great review. It sounds as if the author took on that most pedestrian of concepts, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There is truly nothing new under the sun.
One comment, not really about the main point, but the litany of liberal sins was a bit too easy. So let's look at crime. And I say this as someone who commuted to NYC on and off starting in 1969. So saw the worst and the improvement. Let's look as so called soft on crime. With the exception of a few extremists who really wanted to close down police departments, much of the complaints about judges or prosecutors being soft on crime amount to meaningless anecdotes. So yes the NY Post would highlight a criminal being released. But there was not clear pattern that showed the either soft or hard policies reduced crime.
The same with bail reform. While cops seem to hate it, there is little evidence that this has impacted crime in a meaningful way - though there may be a few isolated incidents.
Crime went up for decades till it peaked - and it did this nationwide, then crime went down nationwide. And in NYC the drop began before Mayor Giuliani.
The link between lead exposure and crime continues to hold up across multiple historical time periods and after decades of research, and neatly matches the rise and decline of crime in the 2nd half of the 20th century...