Toxic empathy...?

Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials:
“In my work with the defendants, I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
- Did he conclude whether those people started without empathy or just lost it due to the things they did?
  
  He did not. But it's most likely both.
  
  I think a good number of them have it educated out of them, by growing up in an environment where empathy is actively discouraged and portrayed as a negative trait.
  There's also conditional empathy, where you're taught that there are certain groups to whom empathy doesn't apply (or that empathy only applies to your group), or applies to a lesser extent (e.g., your pet dog deserves empathy — unlike the neighbours' —, but that empathy only extends to taking it behind the shed and shooting it, not to paying for a veterinarian to take care of the minor problem it's suffering from).

Christ: Please be kind.
Christians: Empathy is toxic.
- Christ: Please love thy neighbour.
  Christians: Go back to Mexico!
- Kindness and empathy are very different things. It is easy to have either and not the other. Empathy is insight. Kindness is behavior and disposition. I have met many people who prioritize kindness but do not have the insight to do perform it in a meaningful way. I have known people who are emotionally insightful and even experience the feelings of others, but for whom kindness is not a priority.
  
  Why do people associate the two inherently. It's like some sort of rationalization fallacy that insight leads to benevolence. There are people who use empathy with malice.
  I see people saying bigots just don't understand others enough so that's why they hate. So if they just understand then the hate will go away. Some of them know very well. They use that knowledge to be more hateful.
  There's a dark side to social media and the internet in general. People have been using it to get insight into different facets of humanity. Some have been using it to study how to be more effective bigots. I noticed this after lurking subreddits for so many years.
  This is sort of tangential but I've found these types of sociopathic people on mental health subreddits. They prey on the vulnerable. Those individuals will dump on anyone who will listen. Quite frankly there are malicious who are stalking around subs like that. They prey on and nudge those individuals further down into darkness.
  Those predators have evoked empathy on an individual which is mistaken for kindness. So they think that person is on their side. How can you tell an individual they might want to reconsider the things this person or people have been whispering in their ear.
  I suspect this happens on other places too like LGBT+ and racial minority subreddits. Though it's more difficult to understand from the outside. The subreddits for mental health / personal issues is more universally relatable.
- there are plenty of kind Christians who are absolute pieces of shit
  
  Exactly, their kindness only extends the people they know who look like them.
- Christ: didn't exist
  Christians: This is what Jesus said and meant I know for a fact!!!!
- Also jesus: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"

People like this are eating the same glue that Elon does.
Anyone thinking that empathy is a liability rather than an advantage are fucking stupid.
- Empathy is a liability. It's also what makes human connection and love possible.
  People who lack empathy are the broken ones.
  
  And human connection is what gives humans their advantage, so we come full circle.
  
  I consider empathy to be one of our greatest strengths, helping eachother creates a strong society, lack of empathy just fractures society.
- I think I found the author.

It's frustrating to read Christians trying to distinguish themselves from one another based on interpretations of a book while also all believing in a magical creature that lives in the clouds who will both condemn someone to an eternity of torture and provide unconditional love and acceptance.
- The idea that anything anyone could ever do warrants an infinite amount of suffering is crazy.
  
  Ehh I mean some people who are irredeemably awful and would do awful things when given the chance 10 times out of 10...
  Though that's more about who they are.
- unconditional* love
  terms and conditions apply
  
  Depends on who you ask.
- Is there a slur for christians?
  
  christian is sufficient
  
  These sorts? Absolutely.
  My favorites:
  y'all qaeda
  talibangelicals
  
  Bible Humper
  
  unbelievable christian
- Nevermind that it's 2000 years old
  
  The parts they stole from older religions are much older.
- right wing christians, to be exact. They only see things from an evangelical perspective.

Ah “toxic empathy” this is the “I need to protect my mental health— I can’t be bothered with seeing homeless people or caring about genocide. It hurts me to care, so I just won’t.” crowd. And every last one of them is a “magical empath” with more empathy than anyone ever had ever. They’re the mostest empathetic and don’t question it!

Sadly, this is a thing.
(Note: I am not encouraging one to read the link.)
Witnessing to Liberals by Ron Rhodes
God’s primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
The writing spends a lot of time arguing against the "mischaracterizations of evangelicals", while mischaracterizing "liberal Christians".
Such a horrible out world view.
(I don't care to find out what this detestable person has to say about Atheists.)
- The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
  Hell isn't a scriptural concept, it was taken and evolved from Hellenism. While I'm deconstructed, I know several "leftist Christians" that reject most modern evangelical dogma as "unscriptural." I agree with them, but there is no ethical justification for things like "God told the Israelites to genocide an entire people, including babies." At the end of the day, even if you agree with Jesus' humanist teaching, the Bible is full to the brim with "God" ostensibly telling people to do horrible, unjust, repugnant things.
  
  The hell everyone thinks of was basically just biblical fan fiction.
  
  There absolutely is support for the existence of hell in scripture. Of course, the bible is constructed in such a way that you can use the contradicting passages to support nearly any viewpoint you want.
  A large amount of the early christianity is Hellenistic, hence the influences.
- Against my best judgement, I read the whole thing. (You practically begged me to!) He's just offering incredibly disingenuous "talking points" for "liberal Christians" that are actually things you might say to an atheist. The whole thing just exists to characterize non-conservative Christians as fake Christians.

I would say that empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy. Anyone who lacks empathy is simply unsuitable, because you have to be able to put yourself in the voters' shoes in order to fulfill your mandate as an elected representative of the people.
Empathy would also be highly desirable in business leaders, as the purpose of the economy is to serve society and distribute goods at least somewhat fairly.
In our dark times, however, when politics and business mainly serve to maintain the power of those who are already powerful, it is hardly surprising that someone who is interested in doing just that propagates such idiotic ideas as "toxic empathy."
- empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy
  Empathy should be a basic requirement for participation in society, period.
  The whole concept of a social contract is based (and dependant) on empathy.
  You lack empathy, you get put into a mental hospital to get it fixed, and to prevent you from harming others and society in general.
  If your case is currently incurable (probably because it's not acquired but due to some as yet unfixable brain malformation), you get taken care of as well as possible for the rest of your life (or until a cure is developed), but prevented from ever interacting with society.
  This alone would fix most of humanity's problems.

Religion. The only mental illness not in the DSM.
- Don't forget to add the fascism subtype.
  
  Literally every religion is in that subtype, so it’s a bit redundant.
- When one person believes a delusion, it's schizophrenia. When millions do, it's religion
  
  I often wonder if the combination of schizophrenia and heat stroke explains why so many religions started in deserts.

I'm old enough to remember in 2009 when Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, mentioning empathy as one of the characteristics he valued in her, and the right melted down

There's no such thing as toxic empathy. If it's hurting others, it's not empathy.

They're SO DAMN CLOSE TO ACTUALLY BEING SELF AWARE
- And yet so very far
  
  Their understanding is asymptotic

Toxic empathy can only harm the person who has it. In truth you have to be a little selfish. The trouble with anyone who thinks empathy is really toxic are the ones who are too selfish.
- You gotta be "me first." But you can also realize that other people deserve to be happy and healthy, and sometimes you can sacrifice for them.
  I did the volunteer EMT thing for a number of years, but I think I was always selfish. I felt accomplished, I felt connected with my community, I thought I was doing good things. So it was all these good feelings that drove me to keep doing it, and a nice fringe benefit was that I helped people.

No surprises that MAGA wants to teach that we shouldn't consider someone elses position. Its their way or the highway.

Not sure what the article is getting at, but there’s a thing called “weaponized empathy” - or “concern trolling” - which is a bad-faith argumentation tactic where you pretend to be worried about someone, when in reality you’re just using that as a cover for judgment or hostility.
It can also be used more broadly. Think of how often “think of the children” gets trotted out as a justification to invade people’s privacy, when the supposed concern for kids’ wellbeing is really just an excuse.
- The line below the title tells you everything you need to know about what the article is getting at.
  How Allie Beth Stuckey is holding the line on the right.
  This is about not empathizing with the "wrong people" and making sure to see everything through a "Christian" lens. I put Christian in quotes because this isn't according to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ but the interpretation of the Christian Fundamental movement which sees anyone who doesn't identify as one of them as an enemy to be either converted or destroyed and anyone not confirming to the "natural" standard (I.E. Trans and Homosexuals) should be condemned as irredeemably immoral. These people are basically the ISIS of Christianity.
- Like all the "why would you vote for Genocide Joe?" people who suddenly disappeared when Trump took charge...
  
  That does tend to happen with elections in the past.

If toxic masculinity is destructive masculinity like "boys be boys" and neofascist pundits, then toxic empathy would be something like Stockholm-syndrome. In context it does sound more like the expression stems from sociopathy.
- How did "boys will be boys" go from "coming home at age 7 covered in mud, with a skinned knee, and a frog in your pocket" to "sexual assault and felony gun possession?"
  
  Even in the first one, 'boys will be boys' is often used to explain why you react differently to the same scenario depending on whether it's a boy or girl. I remember being scolded for this stuff as an AFAB, while boys got away with it. Same story with getting into little physical fights, being rowdy, aggressive, destroying stuff. I guess that can be a slippery slope into the latter one, if you keep it up long enough. Just my attempt at an explanation.
  
  That's puberty for you! 🤷🏻‍♂️
  
  "Boys will be boys" has always been the hall pass for males to commit sexual crimes since the 80's. What halcyon, lost forgotten era are you trying to evoke? It doesn't matter. You are a shit human being.
- I can't really find a better way to phrase it, but I could see an excess of empathy leading to some toxic behaviors. my SiL frequently goes to a church where people "give 'till it hurts" and then next week is the one begging people to help. because they gave away all their savings the week before, and now can't afford the medical procedure they got lined up next week.
  The issue here is that a little financial responsibility would have saved everyone from being in that position in the first place. collectively, the issue is they have no impulse control and a priest taking advantage of it.
- Sounds more like manipulation, when the other comment said it can weaponized, I'm assuming he meant manipulation, which is deceptive and not empathy at all, and that is what sociapaths use
- If it's pulling someone to the left, it can't be toxic. Also, if the headline is a question, it's not a sign of quality. (One point for Betteridge's law of headlines.)
  
  The notion that there are no toxic entities on the left is naive.

What if they're taking about fake empathy that certain church people exude? I used to see that all the time
- "Thoughts and prayers"
- They are not.
  They're talking about empathy at all. Christians do not understand love, only fear and obedience. The thought of being kind without expecting anything in return is abhorrent to them.

So, this is controversial, but when I hear "toxic masculinity" I understand that it means that not all masculinity is toxic, but masculinity can have toxic forms. In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.
Now, I don't think that left/progressive ideals are toxic in general, and certainly aren't toxic when they're based in empathy and compassion. And I realize that the "side" that coined the phrase "toxic empathy" is also the side that thinks "toxic masculinity" is an absolute phrase. So it would make sense that right/conservative people would think "oh we'll call ideals we don't like toxic, like the libs do with masculinity" without any deeper understanding.
Just want to be pedantic to try to keep the capital-D Discourse on the nature of empathy from becoming black-and-white polarized.
- In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.
  Which situations can you conceive that would be made worse by all involved parties understanding each others feelings?
  
  Yeah exactly, I don't get it either.
  With "Toxic Masculinity" it's pretty clear how masculinity - which is not a problem in itself - can become over-applied to the point where it's damaging both to oneself and to others.
  But toxic empathy? Is it really possible to care about others too much? To try and see things from someone else's perspective too much? I feel like it really isn't, because there can never be enough of that in the world.
  Which means "toxic empathy" is genuinely nothing more than a nonsense phrase for people who don't wish to see or hear about any viewpoint except their own.
  
  Couldn't what we typically call concern trolling be a type of toxic empathy? Of course you could make an argument that concern trolling is entirely removed from empathy, but then things like toxic positivity tends to only be positive at a very surface level view.
- there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.
  certainly aren't toxic when they're based in empathy and compassion
  Pick a lane? I mean no offense, but I did kinda feel like I had a stroke trying to follow your argument.
  The way I see it, "toxic empathy" is self contradicting, which is a regular tactic of fascist propaganda. The whole point is to interfere with the listeners' ability to approach their argument with reason and logic, leaving them more vulnerable to emotional manipulation.
  Anyway, I'll just go ahead and say it: no, there is no such thing as "toxic empathy". It's a meaningless word salad to dress their appeal to emotion up to look like some kinda of reasoned argument (but only if you don't look to close, which of course a radical will do everything to avoid).
- A hypothetical "toxic empathy" could be our evolved hunting technique. We would run down prey with endurance hunting. If we lost them, we could use empathy to put ourselves in their mindset, and so predict their movements.
  Even this would be "venomous empathy". Toxic masculinity is partially defined by the way it hurts the man doing it. It's toxic to the host. It's misused enough however to muddy that, considerably.
  
  Toxic empathy is when you bite them and feel bad. Venomous empathy is when they bite you and you feel bad.
- The only toxic empathy I can think of is Stockholm syndrome.

i don't understand how empathy can be toxic.....
- Neither does the woman who defined the term and wrote a whole book about it.
  Ruinous Empathy is an interesting concept, but unfortunately much like toxic empathy (but without the obvious malintent from the start), it's mostly used by psychopaths in positions of power to justify their antisocial behaviours in environments that generally forbid it.
- Like the second you get a ping of sorry for some illegals of the wrong colour. You chastise yourself "No! this is wrong!!!" and use the daily mantra from Fox to clear your mind: Barack Hussain Obama is guilty!
  /S
- It absolutely can be if you let it get out of control. I still struggle with it in fact. It can cause emotional burnout, wreck your mental health, things like that. To be fair, even the "good" version of this gets weaponized to ignore causes that someone might not want to care about without "being a bad person" all the time. Think the "I have to prioritize my own mental health" types who only seem to have energy for issues that directly affect them. Again having limited emotional energy isn't the issue, being disingenuous about it is.
  But that's not what this freak is talking about. What this freak is talking about amounts to "Empathy is reserved for the in-group. If it impedes our efforts or contradicts our dogma, then it's toxic empathy," basically.
  
  People with higher levels of empathy are good targets for abusive and manipulative people.
- As an example there's my mother who feels empathy for everyone, paedophiles and rapists included, and even acts on these impulses e.g. signed a petition to ask for charges against one to be dropped. I would say she's misdirecting her empathy to a toxic level...

Is that what they're now calling "virtue signalling"?
Ugh, don't you just hate it when people care about someone other than themselves?

This comment will probably seem tone-deaf at best and malicious at worst. I want to be clear that I am not saying people shouldn't be empathetic. I'm not saying that empathy-based morality is a problem. I'm not saying being a bigot is okay. So what am I saying?
It's just that yesterday I learned from the Healthy Minds program that empathy can sometimes be problematic, and that the solution is compassion.
The problem has to do with the fact that some service workers are immersed in workplaces filled with suffering. Think of nurses. Think of first-aid responders. These people constantly see human suffering. And if these service workers empathize with the suffering, they themselves can suffer immensely.
The solution, the Healthy Minds program claims, is to not be empathetic, but compassionate. The difference is that empathy, at its core, is about understanding and feeling what others are thinking and feeling. However, compassion is about understanding others enough to be able to understand their difficulties, and (crucially) wishing them well. Empathy over-identifies with suffering and compassion believes suffering is the current reality but improvements are possible.
If you are interested in reading about this, it's ironic that the Wikipedia article is titled "Compassion fatigue". I suppose that the Healthy Minds app uses different definitions than the Wikipedia article.
Anyway, I will do what the program suggests and wish you all the best!
- You oversimplified. The problem is not empathy on it's own, but that's how you worded it. The problem is life is fucked up.
  
  That sounds like an oversimplification.

Conservative Christians are fundamentally incapable of understanding the concept of a social contract in a pluralistic society. They'll console themselves with the belief that empathy is a sin whilst stepping on our necks with the authority of the state.

For those who might want to know what she means by that phrase, here's the full interview (archive). It's... certainly a viewpoint.
- TL;DR
  if compassion leads to affirming trans rights, understanding racism, or treating asylum seekers like humans, it’s “toxic"
  
  Its toxic because allowing one's self to have such empathy would cause one to question Christian dogma and thus it must be toxic. Rigid conformity must be maintained at all costs.

You know who I blame? Jesus. Going round teaching people to care about one another regardless of creed and colour. His toxic empathy has really ruined Christianity.

Sometimes I really believe I have died and gone to hell. WTF did I do to deserve this crap?
- Believe it or not, toxic empathy.
  
  Fair enough

Empathy can be weaponised. For instance u can weaponise empathy for the few to prevent good for the majority.
- That doesn't really sound like empathy...?
  I'm guessing that I'm not fully understanding your position.
  The way I see it, empathy can absolutely be exploited. But that's not the same as weaponized.

Too much of anything can be bad, but in North America Christian evangelicals could use more empathy.
People are leaving churches over "woke" sermons like caring for the needy or turning the other cheek.
- It's common knowledge that Jesus Christ only handed out food for 2 denarius per family. Healing a common illness was priced at 3 denarius but a miracle such as curing blindness would cost 5.

We didn’t evolve to have a 24 hour news cycle, with 8 billion people someone will always be having a bad day and at some point you run out of fucks to give.
- There is a difference between "I don't have the energy to care about everyone" and "empathy is toxic".

I legit felt my brain cells dying reading this!

The best thing to say to hateful “Christian’s”: Eat shit. Your god love me too.

At least they are finally being honest with themselves over their sociopathy lol

Anger is a removed.
- The line is "Anger is a gift" actually.

Yep! Toxic empathy is the main reason, besides Global Warming that I decided right-wing isn't for me.
This value formed the base of what would become the antithesis to my previous beliefs.
- What is toxic empathy..?

It's not abuse, it's tough love!

As a person of lower 1 to 1 empathy, overly empathetic people are similar to the toxic positivity people. Very off putting. But that isn't really how they are using toxic empathy in this case. So fuck em.
- Could you define how overly empathetic people act?
  
  That is a tough one. But it is similar to the toxic positivity people. They are so empathetic, and talking about it all the time that it feels fake. Thier empathy becomes thier whole personality instead of just a trait. I think that is the best I can do.