But I really don’t think a lot of people know what “empathy” actually is. So let’s see if we can change that!
Part One: Just What Is This “Empathy” Shit, Anyhow?
First, let’s go over what “empathy” is not. Empathy is not “being nice to everyone.” Empathy is not “respecting everyone’s opinion, even when you disagree with it (and especially when those opinions are inherently violent).” Empathy is not “thinking that all opinions and positions are valid, even ones you disagree with (again, including the ones that are inherently hateful and violent).” Empathy is not “compassion”; rather, compassion is empathy in action (so you need to understand, and have, empathy before you have compassion.) Empathy is not “sympathy” or “feeling bad for someone else.” Empathy is not selfish, and it is not centered on the self. Empathy is not a “sin”, or “toxic.” Empathy is not going to be “the downfall of Western civilization.”
If you have been thinking that empathy is any of these things, you’re not necessarily a bad or evil person; you’re just wrong. “Being wrong” is not the sign of a bad or evil person; everyone is wrong, from time to time. I want to make this clear, because I think there are a lot of people who are gravely mistaken about what empathy is, and that that’s the fault of society. I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe -and there is a ton of historical and contemporary evidence to support it- that the Powers That Be have a vested interest in not only corrupting our natural instinct, as human beings, to protect and care for one another, but perverting the definition of “empathy” and making people believe that “empathy” is “just being nice” or “seeing past our differences” (which, again, does not include any idea that thinks a group of people should be killed, or shouldn’t be allowed to live with “real people”); or, as some of the worst “human beings” to ever live have been saying recently, that it’s a “sin” or a weakness.
Here is how Cambridge University defines “empathy”: the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation.
There is a debate about whether empathy is an innate sense most people are born with, or if it’s a skill people learn. Personally, I think it’s both, to a degree. And I think that, because we know, for a fact, that there are some people who lack what we might call an innate sense of empathy. People with certain personality disorders, like Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), have a lack of innate empathy that often causes them to manipulate and hurt others. However, with therapy and support, people who may have been born without an innate sense of empathy can be taught to be empathetic.
That tells me that empathy, while often something you’re born with, is both a sense and a skill. It strikes me as being like music: Most people have an innate sense of music. Most people have an innate sense of rhythm, and they can carry a tune well enough to sing a Happy Birthday song. But being able to sing like Pavarotti is a skill, and skills are, always and without exception, learned. Even Pavarotti didn’t come out of the womb belting “Ave Maria” with perfect pitch. Playing an instrument is a skill. Singing properly (i.e., not hurting your throat, which, yes, will happen if you sing with improper techniques for long enough) is a skill. These things can come easier to some people because they have more raw talent than others -if, for example, you have a beautiful voice from a young age, or you’re born with perfect pitch, or you gravitate towards instruments, or you have the quite rare sense of melody- but anyone can learn to sing or play an instrument, if they’re willing to put in the time and effort.
Part Two: How To Be Successful At Empathy! (You Are Gonna Have To Try.)
So, let’s say this is true: Empathy is often misunderstood and, through that misunderstanding, incorrectly applied to most situations, and it’s more learned than innate. How do we, after getting a real understanding of what empathy is, go about developing it in ourselves?
First and foremost: Read fiction books. And by that, I mean engage with the book. Don’t just gobble it up in a few hours; read it slowly. Set the book aside, or pause the audiobook, every chapter or so and think about what you just read. Really think about it. Think of the characters’ actions, and ask yourself these two questions: Based on what I know about this character, are their actions sensible? and What would I have done or said, in the same situation? This can take a while, especially if you’ve never read a book in this way before.
Example: In Terry Pratchett’s Wyrd Sisters, the three witches -Magrat Garlick, Granny Weatherwax, and Nanny Ogg- go to a play. The play’s main conflict is a murder (because Wyrd Sisters is a retelling of Macbeth). Magrat has been to several plays and understands that they’re actors telling a story, but it’s the first time attending a play for both Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg. Granny -who’s the POV character out of the witches- is extremely discomfited by the play, feeling that the actors are manipulating people in the audience into denying the truth of what they just saw happen. This upsets her so much that she stands up, points to the actor whose character committed the murder, and shouts that he did it!
Now, those of you who are not familiar with Terry Pratchett, Discworld, or the character of Granny Weatherwax: First of all, stop reading my drivel and go read Wyrd Sisters; it is amazing, and I apologize in advance if you suddenly become obsessed with Discworld and start reading nothing but Discworld novels for the next six months (it’s a very common reaction; also, my favorite Discworld novel, so far, is Mort).
Second, if you’re still reading this (?!), then yes, this type of extreme logical thinking is in character for Granny. She is logical not just to a fault, but to the point of absurdity. It is perfectly in-character for Granny to think anyone telling a story is just lying and manipulating reality, when in fact, reading listening to stories is how people learn to be people. When someone tells a little kid the story of, for example, Pinocchio, they’re not trying to get the kid to believe that lying makes your nose grow. Whether or not Pinocchio’s nose grows when he lies is irrelevant; the point is that lying has consequences. If you lie to someone, it will be found out at some point, and if you lie enough, the consequence is that no one will trust you after a while. That’s a lesson worth learning, one which, clearly, our politicians have never learned.
Now, what would I, Pretend Mulling, have done if I were in Granny’s situation? Well, as someone who is familiar with the purpose of stories, has written and told a lot of them, and has experience acting in live plays, I would have done… nothing. I would have enjoyed the play, and maybe even been one of the audience members Pratchett described as thinking Granny was part of the play, as a sort of MST3K-type figure. (Also, for those of you wondering why no one explained the concept of a play to Granny: Magrat Garlick did. That entire scene involves Magrat trying, over and over, to explain to both Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg what a play is, and how they work. The point isn’t “No one explained plays to Granny, so she didn’t have a chance to understand,” it’s “No one could have made Granny understand how plays work.”)
And here’s where empathy comes into play: While I understand why Granny reacted the way she did, I still think it’s hilarious. And I don’t want her to react any other way. If she didn’t stand up and yell about seeing the murderer onstage, she wouldn’t be Granny Weatherwax, and Wyrd Sisters would not be the great book it is. I’m not laughing at her. I don’t think she’s wrong or stupid for misunderstanding what a play is. I’m laughing at the situation. I understand that she’s never been to a play before, and that she’s logical to the point of absurdism, so this is exactly how she would react to a play. You’re not supposed to laugh derisively at Granny, in this scene; instead, you’re supposed to see this tendency in yourself and laugh, because once it’s spelled out like that, you see just how absurd it is. And we all have that tendency; no one is immune to our own flawed logic. All we can do is understand that when logic is taken to that extreme, it fails to be logical at all and becomes ridiculous. (In the most accurate sense of the word, where “ridiculous” means “worthy of ridicule.”)
Or, if books aren’t your jam, you can very easily do this with movies. Take one of my favorites, 1939’s The Wizard of Oz. Being based on a literal children’s book, this movie is chockful of opportunities to put yourself in the character’s position and contrast what you would have done and whether your actions line up with their characters. That’s what makes a great children’s book, because kids are still learning how to people, and the easiest way for them to learn is to have opportunities like this, that present different personalities and reactions in a way that doesn’t put them directly in that situation. Distance from a situation is not always a bad thing, and it’s necessary for developing empathy.
My favorite of Dorothy’s boys is, and has always been, the Tin Man. (Gee, for such a “hateful,” “unempathetic,” “violence-craving sociopath” -as some on this site have decided- I seem to have a real soft spot and understanding for characters who are gentle, kind, and empathetic.¹ Odd, that.) And there are things he does in the movie that me, being me, I wouldn’t. Like, in the first confrontation with the Cowardly Lion:
I’ve always been on the Scarecrow’s side, here: Tin Man has an ax, why not at least use the handle to stun the Lion.
But… I also know it can’t be the Scarecrow or the Tin Man who confronts the Lion and takes pity on him; it has to be Dorothy. She’s the main character, and the leader of this posse. She’s the one who introduces all three of these guys to the idea that the Wizard can fix what’s broken in them. But of course, the punchline that the audience knows, right from the beginning, is that no one is actually “missing” anything; they just don’t have -in Scarecrow and Tin Man’s cases- the physical embodiment of intelligence and kindness, or, in the Lion’s case, he’s not a coward at all; he just picks his battles. (To be fair, it’s a lot clearer in the book, where the Lion proves his courage several times; the movie version is just Bert Lahr being Bert Lahr in a lion suit.) This is something The Lion King actually clarified, 65 years later:
Or, if you don’t feel like watching another movie clip: After rescuing Simba from the hyenas, and hearing Simba say that he “wanted to be brave, like you,” Mufasa tells him, “I’m only brave when I have to be. Simba, being brave doesn’t mean you go looking for trouble.”
And remind me, how did Dorothy confront the Lion? Oh, right: She slapped him, after he went after Toto. Much peaceful. Such nonviolent. And in the movie, don’t the boys rescue Dorothy by (1) beating up a bunch of Winkies who tried to literally get the drop on them, (2) smashing open a door (AUTOMATON uses an AX against a NON-VIOLENT DOOR! The “Empathetic Left” GOES NUTS!!!!), and (3) literally killing a witch? And weren’t they set on that task by the Wizard himself, who wanted them to bring him her broomstick? They’d have had to kill her to get it, anyway. The Tin Man himself literally says this during the group’s first meeting with the Wizard! (Skip ahead to 3:19.)
HYPOCRISY IN ACTION! T-100 in search of a HEART says he’ll KILL for a BROOMSTICK! INSANE LEFTISTS CHEER!
I don’t know about anyone else, but it does not strike me as a coincidence that the Tin Man, possibly the gentlest, kindest character in all of American film history, still carries an ax! It doesn’t strike me at all as coincidental that, for all of his aversion to violence, he does understand that it’s sometimes necessary. And again, I am specifically talking about the movie; the Tin Woodsman in the novel is actually kind of a fuckin’ proto-Terminator.²
To me, the Tin Man’s being such a gentle, violence-averse character who both carries a literal weapon and uses it when necessary, comes off as both a reference to former President Theodore Roosevelt, who famously said “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” and possibly a call to then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Teddy’s cousin, mind you), who was debating whether or not the US should get involved in the war that was, at the time, breaking out in Europe. This is just my opinion, but I think the writers might have been asking, “Will our current President remember what his cousin said, almost forty years ago, when thinking about the war?”
But that’s just my opinion. Speaking of…
Part Three: Cage Match! Empathy v Sanctimony v Opinion v Ideology!
Okay, so we have a pretty good idea of what “empathy” actually is. But I’ve seen, and been lectured by, people who think “empathy” means “being civil” or “sitting down and having rational, measured conversations with people who have different opinions from you.”
Okay, look: “Differences of opinion” do exist, and I don’t really care if someone’s opinion differs from mine. And again, a “difference of opinion” is whether pineapple belongs on pizza, or when The Simpsons’ Golden Age ended, or which movie is your favorite. An “opinion” is a harmless, but still subjective, point of view on a certain topic.
But if your “opinion” is that certain people deserve to die, because of what they are, or where they live, or where they or their ancestors came from, or what their religion is, or how they identify themselves, or who they love, or if they’re not exactly like you? That is NOT an opinion! That is ideology. It’s literally believing that “this person is different from me, therefore they deserve to die.” It’s an inherently violent thing, to want another person dead just because they’re different from you in ways neither of you can control or change.
I feel like now would be a good time to discuss the difference between empathy and “sanctimony”. Empathy asks us to get in someone else’s head; as Atticus Finch put it in To Kill a Mockingbird, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Empathy demands that we put aside our own ego and perspective and not just consider, but attempt to live (as much as you reasonably can), someone else’s lived experience. Sanctimony doesn’t attempt to get into anyone else’s head or heart, it just tells you that you are a good person- nay, the Best Person! And you are so elevated above these other plebs, they should worship the ground you walk on, and if they don’t, you’re being attacked!”
…Yeah, sanctimony has far more in common with toxic narcissism than it ever will with empathy.
And now you might be wondering, “Well, shoot; if empathy ain’t sanctimony, and sanctimony ain’t empathy, then how in the hootin’ hell do I tell the difference?!” (Yes, I wrote that with Slim Pickens’s voice in my head. Dork, thy name is Pretend Mulling.) Fortunately, it’s quite easy to tell the difference between empathy and sanctimony when you’re doing it! You just ask yourself this question: “Am I considering their experiences, or am I just considering my own?”
Example: If you’re a white person trying to understand how harmful racism really is -trying to be empathetic- you should try to think about how you’d live your life if you were Black. Are there places in your town you’d avoid, because you know people are going to make comments or throw a few n-words at you? Are there certain people you’d avoid, because of their words or behavior towards Black people in general? How might you carry yourself differently in the world? How might your relationships with coworkers and friends change? And after that, you would consider, “How are my opinions on racism and how Black people should respond to racists informed by my white privilege and insulation from racism?”
Sanctimony doesn’t do any of that. Sanctimony makes a white person say, “Well, I’m not Black, but [insert words here that could only be spoken by someone who’s never taken the time or brainpower to really think of how racism harms people.]” And when a Black person points out the harm in that statement, Sanctimony responds with, “But I’m not racist! I love everybody!” But the thing is, “love” without consideration and true empathy isn’t love at all; it’s patronization. It’s not enough for white people to “love” Black people, especially when that “love” hinges entirely on Black people playing the Token Black Friend to our satisfaction. You can’t say racist things, however “innocent,” and not, in some way, uphold systems of white supremacy; in fact, a lot of the upholding of oppressive systems relies on innocence and ignorance.
And then there is the tyrannical sanctimony of “both sides” and “but he was just speaking his mind, he didn’t deserve to die!” and, of course, “So he had a different opinion from you; can’t you just stop being a radical leftist for three seconds and realize it’s not that big a deal?!”
…
This idea that hateful, homicidal and genocidal rhetoric is “just a difference of opinion” is not only untrue, it’s dangerous. You are at perfect liberty to hate trans people or think they shouldn’t exist, but be honest: It’s not about “your opinion,” it’s about fear and being a control freak. It’s about your refusal to understand that not everyone has to live life by your rules. It’s pure, unadulterated selfishness, motivated by your own fear of not “doing things right.” Which, what even is that, “doing things right”? We’re talking about life trajectory, here, not trying to stop another Chernobyl. There are billions of ways to live your life, and as long as it doesn’t involve hurting yourself or others, or inciting people to violence through your words or actions, you’re doing just fine! Stop listening to the voice in your head that tells you “that person should die because they’re different!” (which probably sounds like an abusive parent, if we’re being honest) and replace it with the phrase, “Live and let live.”
And stop making the incredibly dangerous argument about “both sides,” because no, “both sides” are not the same. Never have been, and only will be, if we don’t start pushing back much harder than we do now.
Think of it this way: When Minnesota’s Democratic Speaker of the House, Melissa Hortman, and her husband and dog were murdered in their own home, in front of their daughter, Republicans (who are now just straight-up Nazis) made jokes about it. El Presidente not only joked about it, but refused to even call Minn. Governor Tim Walz because he didn’t “see the point” in doing so (maybe not looking like the bloated, evil pumpkin he is? just a thought!). Right-wing “news” outlets pushed the narrative that the Hortmans’ murder was commited by “radical leftist thugs,” and continued doing so, even after the suspect was caught and confirmed to be a radical right-wing thug, who had a list of 50 Democrats he wanted to kill. (Also remember Trump saying, during his 2016 race, “The only good Democrat is a dead one”? Again, inciting violence with your words is still violence.)
And how did Democrats react to Upchuck’s death? Condolences. “Violence is never the answer.” “Political violence has no place in America.” (Both incredibly incorrect statements, but I understand why they say them.) Condemning gun violence and calling for an end to it. Offering to reach across the aisle to Republicans to find solutions for gun violence and violent political rhetoric.
There is no “both sides” in this argument. One side always glories in, and actively encourages, political and gun violence, and the other side always condemns and tries to discourage it. If you can see the facts and still insist that “both sides are the same,” that’s on you, my darlin’.
And by the way? The people who are actively suffering under your delusions of “both sides” and “difference of opinion” do not, at any point or for any reason, owe you or the people whose rhetoric and actions cause us suffering, “empathy,” or even the performance of it. As Benjamin Faye posted on BlueSky a few days ago: “The conversation we’re not ready to have yet is that having empathy for a white supremacist is part of what upholds white supremacy. And by that measure alone, it fails to be empathy at all.”
If your ideology is that “Jews deserve to die, because they killed Jesus!”, then you are just going to have to deal with my halbejude ass not wanting you in my life because you think I deserve to die (even though I only have the heritage, not the religion, and also, I think religion writ large is a Ponzi scheme)! If your ideology says that Palestinians deserve to die because that land “was promised to the Jews,” then again, you’re just going to have to deal with me telling you to GTFO of my life, because frankly, I think Palestinians deserve Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, wherever they live (and also that Palestine should be an internationally recognized nation-state, and that a two-state solution is a good start, but ultimately, that land does belong to Palestinians). If you’re the type of person who gets angry when you hear someone not speaking English and think “this is America, you should speak English here!”, then frankly, I think you are unempathetic, uncivil, and ignorant of history, because we stole this land from Indigenous Americans! The US government has been committing atrocities against the indigenous peoples of this land for over 400 years, and hasn’t even begun to apologize for it (and if you think the Orange Shitgibbon is gonna do it? To quote Kuni from UHF: “STOOOPID! YOU’RE SO STOOOPID!)
Part Four: “The Duty of Empathy”
“Having empathy” doesn’t mean you don’t get angry. “Having empathy” doesn’t mean “never choosing violence” or “letting violent people have their way with you.” You can be an empathetic, kind person and kick seven shades of hell out of people when you need to. Again, “being brave doesn’t mean you go looking for trouble,” but when trouble finds you and threatens to burn down your house with you in it, you are entirely justified in fighting them off, instead of dying for their selfish pleasure. (By the way: Dying violently doesn’t automatically make you a martyr. MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, they are martyrs, because they spread messages of social justice and equality and were violently murdered for it.) “Civility” in the face of literally homicidal or genocidal rhetoric and ideology is not “empathy”, and “being civil” to someone who literally thinks other people should die, purely based on their religion, skin color, gender identity, sexuality, or any other innate thing, is not “empathetic.” It’s sanctimony; where you believe that your own beliefs or actions are morally superior to others, based on pretty much nothing. It’s capitulation. It’s literally telling the people being put in danger by that person’s ideology that their lives and safety don’t matter to you, so long as you are comfortable and protected.
The main takeaway I want everyone to have is this: Empathy has limits. Empathy needs limits. If you’re asking people to have “empathy” for someone who not only refused to have it, but actively scorned the concept and told people they were “evil” or “sinful” for having it, and someone whose words incited violent actions, you’re not being empathetic at all. You’re asking other people to not have boundaries, because boundaries make you uncomfortable. And, full offense: That’s what a boundary is supposed to do! A boundary is a line an individual draws around themself, to protect themself from people who would try to harm them. Any time you are uncomfortable with, or actively trying to break down, someone else’s boundaries, those boundaries are entirely correct and you’re a complete asshole. Just because you don’t have boundaries doesn’t mean no one else should, and again, if you actually believe that, that is entirely YOUR problem.
I said it last entry, and I’ll say it again: As a Jewish-ish person, I have no duty of empathy to any Nazi. Ever. At any point. Because they want me dead, just because I have “Jewish blood”. Their ideology is inherently violent towards me; I don’t have to meet their violence (but if they bring it to me, I absolutely will), but I do not have to “empathize” with them or act like their ideology doesn’t directly endanger me or others like me. To once again quote Benjamin Faye, “And asking me too is violence, too.”
Did I want Upchuck to die? Was I wishing death on him in the days before he caught the bullet and ended up leaning left? No; believe it or not, I don’t think anyone deserves to be murdered. I’m firmly against the death penalty, so how could I possibly wish or hope death on anybody? But he thought I deserved to die, and Benjamin Faye, the author of those skeets //grinds teeth we need a better name for BlueSky posts!//, just because I’m half-Jewish and Benjamin is Black. Upchuck thought Jews and Black people deserve to die, just because they are Jewish and/or Black. He thought immigrants deserve to die, and people with mental illness (and hey, is now a good time to remind everyone that I’ve struggled with depression, anxiety, and ADHD and possibly autism for, oh, my entire life?), and leftists, and women who don’t want to be “tradwives” and have these things called “self-worth” and “self-respect.” So even though I didn’t wish death on him or think he “deserved” to die, I’m still not going to pretend like I’m sad he did. Violence he asked for, and violence he got. I didn’t ask for that violence, but he did. Just like I don’t have to feel “empathy” for someone who pisses on an electric fence after being told the fence was electric, I don’t have to feel “empathy” for someone who thinks gun violence is “the price” of the Second Amendment and then gets gunned down.
If you’re going to sit there and tell me I should have “empathy” for someone who literally wants me dead, just because my sperm donor is Jewish and they think my blood is now “tainted”? Then shove me in the gas chamber and throw the switch yourself, you GIFT-afflicted coward. You might as well tell me, “Well, sure, Hitler killed a few people, but he was a vegetarian! Are you a vegetarian? No? Then you’re just as bad as he is!”
And yes, there are people who defend Hitler against the people who aren’t particularly sorry he died, using those very arguments. I cannot even begin to fathom how stupid and lacking in genuine empathy someone has to be, to believe, and say out loud, that eating pork chops is “literally as bad” as murdering six million Jews just because they were Jews, along with how many millions of Catholics, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people, Romani, European ethnic minorities, and political dissisents.
Oh, and Upchuck cheered on the genocide in Gaza. He literally said Palestinians should be wiped off the map. I can’t think of any Palestinian person, in Palestine or in the diaspora, who’s sorry he caught a bullet with his neck, nor do I think they’re bad people for thinking that. Again, he wanted Palestinians dead, just because they’re “not white” and he thought all non-white people deserve to die, just because they’re not white.
And! He lit’rally said, “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.” Why should we have empathy for this person, when he, himself, thought it was a “made-up, new age term that […] does a lot of damage”? If you or I died, Upchuck would have celebrated it. He wouldn’t have had “empathy” for us. He certainly had none for the literal children in Palestine who are being bombed and starved. He had none for the children who were killed in school shootings; he actually thought their deaths were “worth it”, to “protect our God-given right to own guns.” (Fact Check: God had fuck-all to do with the Second Amendment! That was the work of mortal men! Our right to own guns is not, in any way or by any definition, “God-given”; it is, in fact, manufactured! …That’s your joke for this post.)
And, there’s the itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie, yellow polka-dot issue of something Upchuck’s ilk like to say, which is: “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” The difference between me and them is that I understand that phrase to be both a lament and a warning: Those who choose to be violent for no reason will, themselves, die violently and for no reason. The “groypers” and Upchuck’s crowd think “those who live by the sword, die by the sword” is aspirational. They believe that white, straight, cisgender, born in the USA, Christian Nationalist men are the only people worth being and knowing (and white, straight, cisgender, born in the USA, Christian Nationalist women are good for pumping out more white, straight, cisgender, born in the USA, babies, to groom to be Christian Nationalists), and that they are in a “war” to “defeat” anyone who isn’t them. Unless you catch this early, and unless that person has already had the seeds of “you shouldn’t hate anyone just because they’re different from you,” or “women are not subservient to men,” planted in their minds already, there’s virtually no hope of saving that person, because at the end of the day, this is an End Times death cult (yes, like the People’s Temple and Heaven’s Gate), and they consider it an honor to kill and be killed for these fucked-up beliefs. They’ll both be made martyrs by their groups, no lessons will be learned, none of these boys will see the light, and we, the innocent people on the sidelines, are going to suffer for it.
And you want me to have “empathy” for these people? Because you are too comfortable and protected by your privilege to understand that “having empathy” for white nationalists upholds systems of white supremacy, antisemitism, ableism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, and colonialism? Because you know that, if the worse comes to the worst, you will be okay. You don’t have anything to lose, if the US should go to war with itself or the rest of the world, or if Christian Nationalists declare Christian Sharia law.
But I am not protected by those same privileges. I’m half-Jewish. I’m a democratic socialist; a political dissident, something that’s becoming increasingly scary to be in this country, by the way. I am not a Christian and I’m not affiliated with any religion (and, pray tell, how long do you think it’ll be before whoever’s Weekend at Bernie’s-ing the Orange Shitgibbon demands that all Americans declare their religion, just so they can put anyone who isn’t Christian on a watchlist?). I’m a woman. I’m bisexual. I’m neurodivergent. I cannot begin to explain, especially to people who don’t care because of their own layers of protective privilege, just how dangerous it is for people like me to even exist right now. All of the privileges that nominally protect me -being white, being cis, being educated, being literate, being able to work a full-time job, having family that supports me- may not be enough to get me through the next few years. I’ll be honest with you guys, I don’t know if I’ll survive the next few years, unless I can get out of the country. And again, that’s a huge privilege; by and large, disabled people can’t leave the US and just “wait out” this current wave of fascism. (Because yes, this too shall pass; like the biggest fuckin’ kidney stone ever, but it will pass.)
Hey, remember when Morrissey, the worst member of The Smiths by far, proclaimed that eating meat was just like being a pedophile? What he actually said was, “I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia. They are both rape, violence, murder.” And you know, at that time, I saw a lot of vegans denouncing Morrissey for that statement; in fact, I can’t remember coming across a single vegan who defended him. And do you know why they did that? Because there is no similarity between eating meat and animal products and being a pedophile! A lot of the people condemning Morrissey’s statements refused to eat meat, dairy products, eggs, or wear anything made from wool, silk, or leather. I’ve met vegans who make an argument that there’s a direct line between misogyny and eating animals (I have read the book the argument is based on (The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams), and she does make some good points; I just don’t agree with her argument, overall). I’ve met vegans who won’t date someone who eats meat, and won’t use the same check-out lane at the store as someone who’s buying meat. And yet, I cannot recall a single vegan who defended Morrissey, or even said, “Well, he’s entitled to his opinion!” Because (a) anyone who conflates eating meat with pedophilia is making a confession, and (b) it’s an inherently indefensible statement made by someone who likes to say inflammatory things to get a reaction out of people. (He’s also a die-hard transphobe, so yeah; fuck Morrissey.) Vegans are empathetic people, and they didn’t have empathy for Morrissey, because his statement was so anti-empathy that they would have been ridiculous for trying to empathize with it. Again, empathy has, and needs, limits, or else it becomes sanctimony.
Part 5: Conclusion
If you’re demanding “empathy” for people who died cheering on the violence that took them out, especially from the people who have been, for many years, the victims of that same violence? You do not have empathy. You are sanctimonious. You can change that; as I said earlier, it is possible to learn true empathy. But only if you are willing to put aside your own ego and privilege and listen to people, without becoming defensive or “what-if”ing their experiences, or using “whataboutism” on them. Developing empathy is not easy; it’s painful. It’s heartbreaking. It involves many long, dark nights of the soul. It involves understanding how your former lack of empathy hurt other people and yourself. You’ll cry. A lot. You’ll feel like a terrible person. but remember, if you’re making the effort to become more empathetic, you’re already a better person than you believe. Truly empathetic people want to understand why people think and feel the way they do, regardless of whether we agree with them.
And is there a connection between empathy and anger? YES! I have found that the most empathetic people on the planet are often very, very angry. They’re angry because they see the injustice that masquerades as “empathy”. They see the systems of oppression that are upheld by public figures’ decrying and perverting “empathy” for their own, selfish gain. They see the suffering that “both sides”-ing violence brings, and understand how “both sides”-ing hate speech and bigoted hate mongers engenders more violence against marginalized people. They see the people who suffer most from this perversion of “empathy” being told how cruel and “unempathetic” they are, for understanding that empathy needs limits and boundaries, and know that, because most people don’t understand what empathy really is, or allow their own empathy to atrophy from misuse, they’ll be shouted down and called “just as bad” as the people whose words and actions incite idiots to violence. Anger is often born of empathy. To bring back an old chestnut, from Jim Butcher’s White Night:
“Anger is just anger. It isn’t good. It isn’t bad. It just is. What you do with it is what matters. It’s like anything else. You can use it to build or to destroy. You just have to make the choice.”
Constructive anger,” the demon said, her voice dripping sarcasm.
Also known as passion,” I said quietly. “Passion has overthrown tyrants and freed prisoners and slaves. Passion has brought justice where there was savagery. Passion has created freedom where there was nothing but fear. Passion has helped souls rise from the ashes of their horrible lives and build something better, stronger, more beautiful.”
To use the Holocaust as an example again: There was Jewish resistance to the Nazis, and very often, it was violent. Sanctimony says “well, the Nazis were bad, but why did the Jews have to fight back? Fighting back makes them just as bad!” And the unspoken implication of that message is that Jews who fought back against the Nazis deserved to die, because they fought back. Now, if you think along those lines, you might be horrified at that message, because it probably never occurred to you that that was the silent part. But it is. Any time you say that a victim of oppression fighting back against their oppressor is “just as bad”, what you’re saying is that victim of oppression, especially those who fight it, deserve to die, because they didn’t stay in their place.
If you read that above paragraph and are now thinking that you’re a horrible person: No, you’re not. You were ignorant; again, not knowing or being wrong isn’t the mark of a bad person. Everyone is wrong and ignorant from time to time. But a truly good person acknowledges their wrongness and lack of information and works on remedying those things, so they know better going forward. Bad and indifferent people don’t care about being or doing better; they think they’re doing fine already, and anything that brushes up against that is an “attack.”
To quote a Reddit post about Dave Grohl’s cheating on his wife: “We are not called to be perfect. We are called to do better.” None of us are ever going to be perfect, but none of us needs to be perfect. We just need to be and do better than in the past. That, ultimately, is the result of empathy: Doing and knowing better.
And if you made it all the way through this? You should have some cookies. You want some? I know some banger recipes; leave me a private note, if you want me to bake and send you some, because seriously? You fuckin’ deserve it!
¹Other kind, gentle, empathetic characters my psycho ass “shouldn’t” like but does: Johnny Nolan from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Metatron from Dogma (my favorite movie, bee tee dubs), Trillian from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series, Barbie from Barbie (the 2023 movie), Black Beauty from the novel and every non-Disney movie (i.e., movies that follow the book and don’t turn the title character into a racehorse), Miss Honeychurch and Matilda from Matilda, Marge and Lisa from The Simpsons (and Homer; yes, he’s definitely a jerkass a lot of the time, but he’s also a kind person at his core, and almost always, his kindness wins out over his jerkass-ness), Belle from Beauty and the Beast (all the Disney Princesses, come to that), Death from Discworld, Tiffany Aching from the Tiffany Aching series (Discworld-adjacent), Orpheus, Euridyce, Persephone, and Hades from Hadestown, and the Big J-C himself, Jesus, the Christ. Funny, I should hate all these characters, not like, love, or even agree with them, or, in the case of J-C, really be pissed off that so many of his fans pervert his teachings for their own, selfish ends. Dang, I really am a monster.
²Seriously, in the book, the Tin Woodsman kills so many creatures. That’s why I firmly believe that the “Tin Woodsman” is L. Frank Baum’s creation, while the “Tin Man” was created by Noel Langley, Victor Fleming, and Jack Haley, and that Haley was absolutely correct in saying, many years later, that he and the other actors should have been entitled to a cut of the merchandising profits from the movie, because, as he put it, “it’s my face people associate with the character.” And he didn’t necessarily just want money for himself; in his autobiography, he points out, right after saying the line about it being his face on the character, that the lives of many of the little people who played the Munchkins could have been transformed by seeing some of that merchandising money. (Yes, I’m sure Mel Brooks was thinking of how much money actors got screwed out of when he made the “Moichandising! Where the real money from the movie is made!” joke in Spaceballs.)
Loading comments...