The "religion of peace", 2025 edition, and its leftist enablers in the West

So not a serious concept? Unless there is another Gaad Saad who is a serious person and not a clown.

The concept of "suicidal empathy" can be used by any oppressor justifying their oppression. A Americans colonial general clearing out native Americans for settler expansion could say empathy towards the Natives is suicidal empathy.

A German Nazi in 1930s Germany could say that empathy towards Jews is suicide for the Aryan people.

A Israeli settlers today could say empathy towards Palestinians is suicide for Jews.

 

Actually, the concept may not have originated with him, but he has been popularizing it lately it seems. Edited my post.

The concept seems pretty common sensical. Actions based on empathy should be moderated by reason.

 

If it's been used before I'm sure it's been used to justify some form of oppression. I'm sure it's used to demonize the concept of feeling bad for a oppressed group of people.

 

OK. And I’m sure the concept of “oppression” has been used to justify terrorism. That people can use a concept to rationalize bad behavior isn’t a good reason in itself to dismiss the concept.

 

Is "suicidal empathy" a expression used to condemn the .0000001% of people who defend terrorists like in New Orleans or is it used to gaslight people into feeling bad about expressing empathy towards groups of people like Palestinians?

When you say stuff like this it makes me think you don't approach humans with charitably in the sense that they value innocent life like you do.

Do you think you and I both value innocent life? If so then we can actually discuss why "suicidal empathy" to me is a propaganda term and not a serious term

 

Yes, though we may disagree on what counts as innocent life in some cases. What makes it not a serious term? What is your criteria for treating something as serious?

Again, you providing examples of people using the concept to justify harmful behavior is not a compelling argument to me, because I could do the same with "oppression" (which, I think, we both agree is a "serious term").

 

My criteria for taking something serious is when the initial editorial control class of people push a story out of bad faith propaganda to push a narrative that helps maintain the status quo vs genuine sincere intellectual curiosity being the initial editorial reason for spreading a term or narrative.

"Suicidal empathy" is a term created from a motivation of the former... To maintain a status quo class dynamic. Dehumanization of certain groups is beneficial to that cause.

 

Is it intellectual curiosity, or lack thereof, when you refuse to engage with a concept because your starting point is that the people who are using it are bad faith actors?

 

I am open to having my mind changed but seeing as you already in a earlier used a phrase that suggests to me you will not succeed when you use the term "justify terrorism". I have a good hunch that doing something as much as for example... saying that a leader of Hamas lost family members as a teenager and that is a large part of how his world views are shaped is the type of statement you are referring to when you say something like "when people justify terrorism". I'm not justifying genocide if I bring up Bibi's childhood idolization of his older brother and his death being a traumatic episode that can instill hatred and bigotry.

It's the ol' normative vs positive claim issue. When MLK says "riots are the language of the unheard" he isn't morally justifying rioting.

Show me a systemic case of a group of humans having empathy for a group of people "suiciding" themselves because of said empathy to justify that a term should be coined for it. That is the very baseline of how I would consider that term's existence useful in any sense outside of propaganda to downplay oppression as it's used I'm pretty sure 99% of the time when it's utilized in context.

 

The concept of oppression has been used by people to justify terrorism. This is simply a fact. Doesn’t mean oppression is an invalid concept, and that was the point. I never said that anyone who cares about oppression is justifying terrorism, my point was just the opposite, so I don’t understand why you think you need to defend yourself against such a charge.

Acting with empathy and good intentions can sometimes be counter-productive and it’s worth examining that, if we’re being serious about doing the right thing. I don’t think Gaad Saad talking it up on podcasts or social media is a reason to dismiss it as “not serious”. Just because I may have sharp ideological differences with someone, that doesn’t mean I would treat all aspects of their worldview to be baseless.

 

"The concept of oppression" created people who want to do terrorism. Either severe mental health issues or severe PTSD is what leads people to do things that go against basic self preservation instincts.peole just don't magically wake up and want to do terrorism. Imagine your desire to preserve your life and freedom. And imagine what it would take to go against those base instincts. You treat terrorism as a group of humans who just magically show up out of the blue with nothing preceding it. Terrorism is bad. Its bad because it harms innocent civilians. Empathy is a toll to understand terrorism and prevent further acts of terrorism.

Its a term that is only useful for propaganda purposes to dismiss oppression unless you can find a utility for that term that applies to historical case studies of empathy resulting in civil suicide.

 

I disagree that the concept of “suicidal empathy” is only useful as a means to downplay oppression. Do you think it’s a good idea to give money to panhandlers on the street? A highly empathetic person is likely to do so, but is that good for society as a whole? Asking that question and maybe concluding that it’s generally a bad idea to give money to them (even if it makes us feel good about ourselves) is not equal to being dismissive about oppression or the conditions of the destitute.

 

Using the term "suicidal empathy" is an attempt to shut down discussion and is a form of extremism in itself. Trying to reduce intellectual discussion and conversation is always from the weak and wrong side of an argument. You should always do root cause analysis, anything less is for the members of society who have an agenda or want to shut down the other side from discussion.

The New Orleans suicidal actor was looking for death due to his financial and personal circumstances and wanted to die for any cause that would give him some sort of rationality for his end goal.

For example, a poster named @AroundTheWorld who posts 100+ posts a day on a basketball forum no less about Muslims is likely a failed member of society. If he commits a mass killing of Muslims the root cause is that he is lonely and has no friends or family to grow as a human being. People like this need to be identified and assisted.

We have ~8 billion people and their information platform can now become echo chambers for certain beliefs that can be false/true and they have no way of escaping it or knowing they are in one.

 

I wonder if this guy was muslim? Any idea from the right wing white supremacist German @AroundTheWorld

 

It seems to me that saying the use of such a term is a “form of extremism” is in itself a way to shut down discussion.

Is connecting “empathy” with “suicide” what makes the term offensive to you? Is it that the term seems to be critiquing the feeling of empathy itself, rather than actions based on empathy that might be misguided or self-destructive (for which it is easy to find examples)?