Does Urban living discourage empathy?

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Registrado
17 de Dic, 2019
Empathy is overall a pretty good trait in a human since you can understand and thus cooperate with your fellow men in order to improve on your current state. But it seems to me that a good chunk of humanity basically lost that ability: Whether it's Chinese not helping victims of accidents out of fear of being sued, black people just murdering random people for no reason and the (((media))) creaming its pants whenever a right winged person dies of Corona. Empaphy seems to be relegated into an accusation of you not supporting the people up on the victim ladder rather than actual feeling something for average people in our position that's not contempt.

Personally I think it's the move to cities - the near inability to have community connections in such environment makes empathy a weakness rather than strength. A weakness that will gladly be used by psychopaths to take advantage of you.

So what do you think, are there different reasons for loss of empathy, or are we just as empathic as we've always been?
 
I believe it depends heavily on your company. My mother used to live in a council house estate in England in the mid-60's/70's, and the community spirit was extremely strong. It was all lower-middle-class (for the 60's/70's) working folks who had kids and stay-at-home moms.

Then the council had the GENIUS idea of moving one singular low-income 'problem' family into the estate, so that the community spirit would 'rub off' on them. It went to shit within months, and now those estates are the lowest of the low, criminal infested scum-pits.

If you have 'clean water' then you can add and mix barrels together freely. But one tablespoon of crude oil will poison the whole barrel.
 
Yes. So much shit goes on in a major city, like NYC, that you generally just have to not give a shit about anything else going on in order to function, because on any given block, 100 different things are happening that might require empathy, and if you let it, it will drain you completely. This is not taking the internet into account, which tries to drain your empathy as well. You have to pick and choose your battles in order to survive in a major city.

A good example is some homeless guy begging for change. It's bullshit. The dude has enough cognitive capacity to beg for money, he can get plenty of help from any number of organizations in a major city so he doesn't have to be sitting in his own filth. He obviously chooses to live that way. Why would I fund that lifestyle? Now a kitten or puppy wandering down the street crying for help, I'd stop, pick them up, and get them the help they need. They are just vulnerable animals that are pure victims of circumstance in the city. Plus, I'm a fucking sucker for animals, so that is how I would choose to use my empathy in a city.
 
Previous house I lived at, the neighbour was telling me about the community spirit in the street. Just before she then went on a homophobic rant about the other neighbour, who had pissed of the neighbours previously, by working on bike engines and shit. And her neighbour was a loony. But yeah, really nice people.

There is a saying about how to be a good neighbour from the states.

"Don't say anything more than hello to me if I'm going somewhere, keep your music down and don't walk on my lawn".
 
Having lived in urban and relatively rural areas, I'm pretty confident in saying that being surrounded by meth addicts and morbidly obese homeless people does indeed negatively affect a person's ability to empathize.
 
I believe it depends heavily on your company. My mother used to live in a council house estate in England in the mid-60's/70's, and the community spirit was extremely strong. It was all lower-middle-class (for the 60's/70's) working folks who had kids and stay-at-home moms.

Then the council had the GENIUS idea of moving one singular low-income 'problem' family into the estate, so that the community spirit would 'rub off' on them. It went to shit within months, and now those estates are the lowest of the low, criminal infested scum-pits.

If you have 'clean water' then you can add and mix barrels together freely. But one tablespoon of crude oil will poison the whole barrel.
this story in my opinion is quite emblematic of why many urban contexts are unmanageable or difficult to live: the chances of being close to a "problem family" are very high and the number of these families is even more.
in my experience, these situations are easier to handle in small towns.

Having said that, whether or not to develop empathy depends very much on the environment and the frequentations. as much as I hated living in the city, I must admit that I have never encountered that coldness and detachment that many speak of. however, I realize that I have lived in a more or less privileged neighborhood.
 
Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are the least such rebels as their earlier generations might themselves seem.

Today’s population dense society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way.

For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin.

We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people.

One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred.

The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him.

In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human being inflict on one another. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism.
Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.

Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.

Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics as well. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable.
Hence the collectivism of the leftist.

By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.

The leftist is anti-individualistic & pro-collectivist.

He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative.

It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior).

The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

And if you are wondering who 'We' are, well.. The asst. Professor Theodore John 'Unabomber' Kaczynski at UC Berkeley, An Asian Man haunted by his baby brother, A wizard, and myself Peter Axel William Locke King, 5th Earl of Lovelace
Young_theodore_kaczynski.jpeg IMG_7405.JPG IMG_7413.JPG IMG_7442.PNG
(The Unabomber's Manifesto was literally just about your question and he thought his answer was so important for the world to see he plotted horror to compel people to take it seriously)
 
Última edición:
This is a real nu/b/ tier thread, where you ask a question with an obvious answer. Yes, of fucking course it does. I can think of three places I've lived in that have at one point proclaimed themselves as the "Loneliest Place on Earth".

Why anyone would ever elect to be that close in proximity to their neighbor is far beyond me. Or, for that matter, why anyone would move to a major city when the past 50 years of cinema has been about crime in major cities. They're not cultural melting pots, you fucking retards!
 
Yes, absolutely, but not really.

Imagine walking through the streets in a city everyday. Would you ever notice if one day someone you don't know was gone from the crowd of people moving around? You might read in the paper that someone in your city died gruesomely as a victim of a vicious serial killer, but you will never know if that person is missing from your surroundings.
 
This is a real nu/b/ tier thread, where you ask a question with an obvious answer. Yes, of fucking course it does. I can think of three places I've lived in that have at one point proclaimed themselves as the "Loneliest Place on Earth".

Why anyone would ever elect to be that close in proximity to their neighbor is far beyond me. Or, for that matter, why anyone would move to a major city when the past 50 years of cinema has been about crime in major cities. They're not cultural melting pots, you fucking retards!
Humans are like dogs, but not all dogs are the same. Some want a big territory with a shady spot to lie, others just want to be as close as possible to their caregiver and the treats they bestow. Conservatives are lazy yard dogs, progressives are yappy lapdogs. Diogenes says we should be like the stray dog, free from all shame. I believe we should be like coyotes, helping brown people get where they want to go in life.
 
I believe it depends heavily on your company. My mother used to live in a council house estate in England in the mid-60's/70's, and the community spirit was extremely strong. It was all lower-middle-class (for the 60's/70's) working folks who had kids and stay-at-home moms.

Then the council had the GENIUS idea of moving one singular low-income 'problem' family into the estate, so that the community spirit would 'rub off' on them. It went to shit within months, and now those estates are the lowest of the low, criminal infested scum-pits.

If you have 'clean water' then you can add and mix barrels together freely. But one tablespoon of crude oil will poison the whole barrel.
That reminds me of an ancient article (which has probably since been memory-holed) about how the Section 8 housing project in the US ultimately did nothing to lessen crime rates, but merely pushed the crime out of urban centers, into the surrounding suburban areas.

I do not understand why anyone thinks that putting shitty, dysfunctional people around normal, well-adjusted people will somehow “purify” them and solve their problems. It’s like taking somebody with a personality disorder and believing that simply putting them in the company of healthy people for a while will cure them of it.
 
They're not cultural melting pots, you fucking retards!
Every major modern city seems to be just like every other major modern city. A "machine rat race"...

Same boxy glass architecture, same sounds of traffic and an occasional siren, same anonymous crowds.

Consumerism and crime are pretty much the only "culture", with any real ways and traditions diluted.

(Though at least there can be far less crime in East Asian cities, but the other stuff is the same.)
 
Sperghetti dijo:
That reminds me of an ancient article (which has probably since been memory-holed) about how the Section 8 housing project in the US ultimately did nothing to lessen crime rates, but merely pushed the crime out of urban centers, into the surrounding suburban areas.
The article's still up. It was originally from The Atlantic - can you imagine something like this getting published there today?

Absolutely worth a read for those who haven't seen it before.
 
I think when living in a smaller town it's easier to feel connected to your neighbors mostly cause you recognize them more easily and they're just there all the time so it feels like they're closer to you. You can keep seeing the same familiar faces around town and feel like that recognition means you're all closer together.

In cities you can also have communities, but it takes actually socializing with others which is something many really fucking despise. Some people can do great with this chatting with their neighbors and whoever else, while plenty others will happily live fairly secluded lives never wanting to exchange a word with anyone outside their household or workplace.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo