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.
While you’re not wrong about the double standard, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason. Consider pranks; just because you do something harmless, like the old cliche of a whoopie cushion, doesn’t mean it’s okay or inevitable to escalate until you’re harassing people on YouTube or endangering people because “it’s just a prank bro.”
Some of us heard our own parents use the phrase to dismiss innocent childhood shenanigans. If people have been using it to dismiss assault since the 80s (which is possible, I’m not doubting that), there were still plenty of people through the 90s and 00s that didn’t use it that way.
What I don’t understand is, if OP wasn’t exposed to that use of the term and/or didn’t realize it at the time (perhaps due to being a child), how does that make them a “shit human being”? Is everyone who doesn’t know everything a “shit human being”? Because if so, I’ve got some bad news.
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.)
But I didn’t say or imply that. I mean, a bit of a pull to the left isn’t a bad thing. Drfinately not toxic. I’d rather have untetherd people drift towards political or economic leftism than the alternative, which is cruel stuff like fascism etc…
Extremism exists on all sides. I shouldn’t have to cite a source for you to understand that making absolute statements is naive and more often than not, incorrect.
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.
deleted by creator
While you’re not wrong about the double standard, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason. Consider pranks; just because you do something harmless, like the old cliche of a whoopie cushion, doesn’t mean it’s okay or inevitable to escalate until you’re harassing people on YouTube or endangering people because “it’s just a prank bro.”
That’s puberty for you! 🤷🏻♂️
deleted by creator
That’s a bit much. I think you’re scolding the wrong person.
Some of us heard our own parents use the phrase to dismiss innocent childhood shenanigans. If people have been using it to dismiss assault since the 80s (which is possible, I’m not doubting that), there were still plenty of people through the 90s and 00s that didn’t use it that way.
What I don’t understand is, if OP wasn’t exposed to that use of the term and/or didn’t realize it at the time (perhaps due to being a child), how does that make them a “shit human being”? Is everyone who doesn’t know everything a “shit human being”? Because if so, I’ve got some bad news.
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.
Oh believe me, I know firsthand. But empathy isn’t the problem
But I didn’t say or imply that. I mean, a bit of a pull to the left isn’t a bad thing. Drfinately not toxic. I’d rather have untetherd people drift towards political or economic leftism than the alternative, which is cruel stuff like fascism etc…
deleted by creator
Extremism exists on all sides. I shouldn’t have to cite a source for you to understand that making absolute statements is naive and more often than not, incorrect.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’ve been called a name! Oh no…
There’s this article about the UK Socialist Workers party trying to hush it up when one of their leaders was accused by multiple women of rape and sexual harassment.