In May 2020, George Floyd's death at the hands of a police officer sparked massive international outrage, with images circulating on social media igniting protests and riots across the United States.
Exactly. And just like a narcissist, if you challenge them with the truth, show them their hypocrisy, demonstrate that they’re wrong or ridiculous, ( in other words, peel away the mask) they lash out with rage and violence.
Brilliant! I agree with 99%, apart from them suffering ‘white guilt’. Only because, in their smug, self satisfied sense of moral superiority, they believe they are absolved of this because they are ‘clever’ enough to recognise it. Being the perpetual victim means they think they don’t have to take any responsibility for their own lives, “I would love to have done X but I couldn’t because of Y”. That’s why they adopt the oppression of others. Deep down they realise they are better off than 99.9% of the world and are scared of the responsibility that comes with that.
This is a stunningly lucid explanation of one of the most pervasive self-contradictions of modern society. The usual counter-argument is that progressive ire is directed at injustices of the Western "empire" (primarily the USA and Israel), not those of other nations, because it only makes sense to protest your own government's policies, not the policies of some other government. How would you rebut that argument?
Mic drop. Every. Time. I don’t know how you do it, but you are sharp and fierce, Maral. Yet another strong woman with Iranian background. 👏🏻🙌🏻 Survivors!!!
Your essay made me think some more about the difference between empathy and morality. As human beings, we are all capable of empathy. We may commit stunning acts of selflessness stimulated by empathy for another’s suffering. It’s one of our best qualities, and worth appreciating. Most of us can feel at least some empathy for almost anyone when we regard their suffering. However, empathy alone cannot inform a person’s entire course of action in life. Why? Because everyone suffers to some degree and extent. There is no life without suffering. Likewise, one cannot respond to all crises of suffering, else one would explode. Nothing coherent can come of it. In fact, one may be empathetic to two wholly incompatible cases of suffering, where to alleviate one would be to increase suffering in another. Empathy, alone, as a way of life, is no way of life at all. The fact of our individual lives also, to some degree, may add to another’s suffering.
Morality, on the other hand, is a systemic, disciplined approach to living the highest values in everyday life. Morality encompasses and recognizes our urges toward empathy, but it enables life by showing a hierarchy of values and goals for attainment, and calls on us to see ourselves as actors over time. We are all involved in the immense saga of overcoming suffering. Morality and ethics gives us a way to think about that; a path through the forest of suffering and the requirement for empathy.
One way to illustrate the difference between empathy and morality is in the bombing of Berlin at the end of WWII. If the purpose of life is to minimize suffering, then our empathy for German citizens would have led us to a cease fire treaty with the Germans. How much additional, future suffering would that have caused? It was morality that led the Allies to defeat the Germans, not merely to back them out of the countries they had occupied. This example is open to arguments in favor and against the actions of the Allies in the face of a dedicated enemy who refused to surrender unconditionally. But I think it illustrates the difference between empathy and morality. Morality is the result of reasoned course of conduct that applies equally to everyone. We are all agents of our own actions, and may be held to account.
The “Free Palestine” movement, however, is unmoored by morality. They have consumed a great bolus of propaganda which appeals powerfully to their sense of empathy, as if Palestinians were innocent babes whose reality must be protected at all costs. They would be wholly appeased only if Israel ceased to exist. The suffering that would ensue is unaccounted for in this vision. All that matters is the honor of the Palestinians, and, by extrapolation, the honor of Islam in conquering Judaism.
You put it so straight forward and succinctly. Thank you for your clarity of thought.
"This inconsistency is a manifestation of white supremacy disguised as tolerance—a form of racism that infantilizes entire cultures by denying them the opportunity to evolve."
And they believe they are fighting White Supremacy when they implement their vision. Thank you for highlighting the contradictions.
Exactly. And just like a narcissist, if you challenge them with the truth, show them their hypocrisy, demonstrate that they’re wrong or ridiculous, ( in other words, peel away the mask) they lash out with rage and violence.
Brilliant! I agree with 99%, apart from them suffering ‘white guilt’. Only because, in their smug, self satisfied sense of moral superiority, they believe they are absolved of this because they are ‘clever’ enough to recognise it. Being the perpetual victim means they think they don’t have to take any responsibility for their own lives, “I would love to have done X but I couldn’t because of Y”. That’s why they adopt the oppression of others. Deep down they realise they are better off than 99.9% of the world and are scared of the responsibility that comes with that.
This is a stunningly lucid explanation of one of the most pervasive self-contradictions of modern society. The usual counter-argument is that progressive ire is directed at injustices of the Western "empire" (primarily the USA and Israel), not those of other nations, because it only makes sense to protest your own government's policies, not the policies of some other government. How would you rebut that argument?
Clarity 🙌 it blows my little brain how deluded people are to think otherwise
Mic drop. Every. Time. I don’t know how you do it, but you are sharp and fierce, Maral. Yet another strong woman with Iranian background. 👏🏻🙌🏻 Survivors!!!
Your essay made me think some more about the difference between empathy and morality. As human beings, we are all capable of empathy. We may commit stunning acts of selflessness stimulated by empathy for another’s suffering. It’s one of our best qualities, and worth appreciating. Most of us can feel at least some empathy for almost anyone when we regard their suffering. However, empathy alone cannot inform a person’s entire course of action in life. Why? Because everyone suffers to some degree and extent. There is no life without suffering. Likewise, one cannot respond to all crises of suffering, else one would explode. Nothing coherent can come of it. In fact, one may be empathetic to two wholly incompatible cases of suffering, where to alleviate one would be to increase suffering in another. Empathy, alone, as a way of life, is no way of life at all. The fact of our individual lives also, to some degree, may add to another’s suffering.
Morality, on the other hand, is a systemic, disciplined approach to living the highest values in everyday life. Morality encompasses and recognizes our urges toward empathy, but it enables life by showing a hierarchy of values and goals for attainment, and calls on us to see ourselves as actors over time. We are all involved in the immense saga of overcoming suffering. Morality and ethics gives us a way to think about that; a path through the forest of suffering and the requirement for empathy.
One way to illustrate the difference between empathy and morality is in the bombing of Berlin at the end of WWII. If the purpose of life is to minimize suffering, then our empathy for German citizens would have led us to a cease fire treaty with the Germans. How much additional, future suffering would that have caused? It was morality that led the Allies to defeat the Germans, not merely to back them out of the countries they had occupied. This example is open to arguments in favor and against the actions of the Allies in the face of a dedicated enemy who refused to surrender unconditionally. But I think it illustrates the difference between empathy and morality. Morality is the result of reasoned course of conduct that applies equally to everyone. We are all agents of our own actions, and may be held to account.
The “Free Palestine” movement, however, is unmoored by morality. They have consumed a great bolus of propaganda which appeals powerfully to their sense of empathy, as if Palestinians were innocent babes whose reality must be protected at all costs. They would be wholly appeased only if Israel ceased to exist. The suffering that would ensue is unaccounted for in this vision. All that matters is the honor of the Palestinians, and, by extrapolation, the honor of Islam in conquering Judaism.
You put it so straight forward and succinctly. Thank you for your clarity of thought.
"This inconsistency is a manifestation of white supremacy disguised as tolerance—a form of racism that infantilizes entire cultures by denying them the opportunity to evolve."
And they believe they are fighting White Supremacy when they implement their vision. Thank you for highlighting the contradictions.
Floyd died BY HIS OWN HAND DUE TO THE DRUGS HE HAD CONSUMED!!!!
GET THE FACTS RIGHT!!!!
Brilliant. Thank you.
Can no one help this Substacker?!