Redistribution of Empathy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
''We have to be compassionate about all that, but we can't take compassion away from everyone else. And that's a message to both the Left and the Right. Stop saying there are only two sexes. It's offensive. And stop forcing people to say something so simplistic because you're threatening their children. | ''We have to be compassionate about all that, but we can't take compassion away from everyone else. And that's a message to both the Left and the Right. Stop saying there are only two sexes. It's offensive. And stop forcing people to say something so simplistic because you're threatening their children. | ||
- '''Eric Weinstein''' on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_swB_KS8Hw&t= | - '''Eric Weinstein''' on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_swB_KS8Hw&t=9163s Modern Wisdom] | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 16:19, 9 September 2025
The concept of "Redistribution of Empathy," as articulated by Eric Weinstein, refers to a process in which empathy is selectively reallocated or directed away from certain individuals or groups experiencing harm, toward others who may be perpetrators of harm, claimants of victimhood for ideological reasons, or figures aligned with specific narratives. This reallocation is observed in cultural, social, and ideological contexts where empathy becomes a tool for social signaling, moral competition, or ideological enforcement rather than a balanced response to suffering.
In Weinstein's framework, this phenomenon distorts justice and rational discourse by prioritizing empathy for those responsible for wrongdoing, thereby diminishing attention to or support for actual victims. Examples include redirecting empathy from groups such as Europeans, straight individuals, Christians, conservatives, Israelis, cis-gendered people, Ahmadis, police, or the wealthy, while emphasizing it for others in a manner that appears selective or politicized.
Weinstein contrasts this with authentic empathy, which he describes as thoughtful, comprehensive, and guided by responsibility, rather than manipulated for purposes like cult-like behaviors, appeals to authority, or revolutionary ideologies disguised as progressive movements. He illustrates this in discussions of movements like "Abolish the Police," "No Justice No Peace," Anti-Racism, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, suggesting they operate in a "dreamworld" where their stated goals mask a redistribution that withdraws empathy from certain parties.
Description
Weinstein defines redistribution of empathy as a cultural trend where empathy is misused to favor those committing harm or claiming victimhood ideologically, at the expense of genuine victims. This creates a competitive dynamic for moral superiority, overshadowing actual suffering and eroding rational discourse. He contrasts this with authentic empathy, which should be comprehensive and not weaponized for social or ideological purposes.
In podcast discussions, Weinstein describes it as a false "expansion of empathy," where empathy is withdrawn from traditional recipients and reassigned, contributing to societal divisions. He ties it to "revolutionary thinking" perceived as pro-empathy but actually selective, confined excesses to campuses, and misconceptions about progressive goals.
There's a point about sanctimony and appearing to do good while doing evil. That is different from the need to parent and protect. Part of what's going on is a redistribution of empathy, which is being called an expansion of empathy, right? So the idea is we are going to be extra specially sympathetic with some groups and empathic with their trauma, their pain. And we are going to take away compassion from other groups. So, for example, if you look at suicide statistics in the United States, from all of the rhetoric, you would think that young Black, Asian females would be at the top of the suicide statistics. But it's really middle aged white men who are killing themselves in incredible numbers. And you bring up the statistic, and there's an exchange rate in terms of human misery that is measured in suicide. It's a pretty unfudgable thing when you kill yourself, you're probably in an extremely negative state of personal trauma. So what does the compassion group think about the fact that the group most likely to end their own lives is exactly the group that is faulted, you know, for the patriarchy? It's astounding. "Oh, poor little white men in the Midwest had their privilege taken away." What the hell are you talking about? You're talking about people killing themselves. You're talking about fathers and grandfathers dying. What we're talking about is a redistribution of compassion. We're talking about taking compassion away from people of European descent. We're talking about taking compassion away from men. We're talking about taking compassion away from a business person like Steve Jobs, who might have pancreatic cancer and be dying from it in his 50s because he had the privilege of building billion dollar companies.
Who the hell are you? What is your problem? Come out of the shadows and admit to what you want. You want a redistribution of compassion. You're calling this empathy. It is anything but empathy. Empathy would be an expansion of our understanding of each other's problems and woes. This is basically saying that these people are worthy of compassion, and these people aren't. The child who might have been wronged for not having a clear gender identityāand that would have happened under any era in any circumstanceāthat's one life, and then you have a bunch of lives over here that are children who are pushed toward sexual reassignment surgery and are sexually mutilated for no reason at all because of developmental, you know, reasons that they got bad advice from adults while they were trying to assemble themselves. And you're compassionate about this and you're not compassionate about that? I don't want you anywhere near a school. If you're not willing to deal with type one and type two error, you don't belong around our children. If you don't understand that human development is important and that it is very hard to improve on the gender binary that is, even if there are edge cases, the gender binary is there for a reason and you don't have a clue how complicated the gender binary is. You probably haven't even studied sexuality in different species that assign gender. You know, flatworms assign it based on a contest. The winner is male and the loser is female. You don't like that? Tough luck. You know, bedbugs only practice traumatic insemination. You don't like that? I'm sorry. How are you going to engineer the entire world around your crazy theories of gender and sexuality? We need these people away from children. They're working out their own stuff. We need to recognize that homosexuality, particularly among men in an obligate fashion, is a normal, conserved part of the human experience. Basically there is a gender binary, there is a small number of edge cases at a hardware level, there's a small number of cases meant at a software level.
We have to be compassionate about all that, but we can't take compassion away from everyone else. And that's a message to both the Left and the Right. Stop saying there are only two sexes. It's offensive. And stop forcing people to say something so simplistic because you're threatening their children.
- Eric Weinstein on Modern Wisdom
On YouTube
On X
European lives donāt.
Straight lives donāt.
Christian lives donāt.
Conservative lives donāt.
Israeli lives donāt.
Cis-gendered lives donāt.
Ahmadi lives donāt.
Police lives donāt.
Wealthy lives donāt.
Etc. Etc.
This isnāt empathy.
Itās redistribution of empathy.
People die because of what Twitter, Facebook and Google do when censoring truth. So we arenāt going to stop. Even if itās futile.
@jack is a brilliant interesting soul. One of these days heās going to wake up like @ggreenwald, @mattyglesias and others who realized their errors.
Thatās not a dig at @jack, @ggreenwald or @mattyglesias. There seems to be some dreamworld where you think āAbolish the police isnāt really a thing.ā or āThey donāt really mean no justice no peace.ā In the dream You think TheLancet is objective. That Peer Review is pro-science.
In the dreamworld you think revolutionary thinking is a pro empathy movement rather than a redistribution of empathy away from others. You imagine excesses are confined to college campuses and that people grow out of it when they get mortgages. That progressives want progress.
Inside the dream, anti-racism is anti racist rather than a form of racism. Antifa is simply against fascism. Black Lives Matter is about nothing more than Black Lives Mattering.
Sooner or later everyone wakes up. I donāt give up on any friends. And we need our top folks to wake.
I donāt like to block people I disagree with. But here are common reasons i block:
A) Personal attacks.
B) Deliberate misportrayal
C) Misuse of ridicule
D) Trying to get to @joerogan.
E) I canāt afford to get the person therapy.
F) Desire to spar from an anonymous account.
G) The account is trying to drag me towards reputational quicksand.
H) The account is focused on āpick a sideā level analysis
I) Repeated appeals to authorities.
J) Use of invariant phrases (e.g. āIām going to invite you to sit in your own discomfortā) associated with cults.
K) Someone pretends to be pro empathy when they are trying to redistribute empathy away from some people in pain.
L) I could program an Eliza program to deliver the level of challenge.
M) The account makes arguments where Refutation requires divulging personal details.
Etc...
The basic point is this: if youāre absolutely determined to get blocked there are many ways to do it, but It wonāt happen lightly or by accident. And if that means that you have triumphed in your own mind, I feel sad for who you could have become.
But Iāll now gift you your win.
Summary
Eric Weinstein argues that empathy, a crucial social and moral tool, is being misused or "redistributed" in ways that distort and erode justice, rational discourse, and the ability to make real societal progress. He sees this as part of a larger cultural and ideological trend where empathy is redirected toward individuals who commit harm or who claim victimhood for ideological purposes, often at the expense of actual victims or those who are genuinely suffering. This redistribution creates a competitive atmosphere in which individuals and groups vie for moral superiority by demonstrating excessive empathy toward those who are responsible for harm or criminality, thereby overshadowing the legitimate needs and suffering of the actual victims.
Eric's core concern is not with empathy itself but with how it is redistributed, misused, and manipulated. True empathy, in his view, should be thoughtful, broad, and informed by a sense of responsibility, not a tool for social signaling or a weapon of ideological coercion.