If hating what someone has to say but defending their right to say it isn't a form of sincere empathy, then I don't know what is.
If hating what someone has to say but defending their right to say it isn't a form of sincere empathy, then I don't know what is.
Everyone is a click away from broadcasting to the planet whatever is flitting through their head.
And everyone is encouraged to broadcast thanks to Zuckerberg & Co inventing the likes/clicks/views engagement feedback loop.
In the past, if one was ignorant (lacked knowledge or access to knowledge), stupid (lacked the capacity to understand knowledge even with access to it), misguided (had access to the knowledge with errors) the cost and energy required to broadcast was much higher. And there were only finite number of people and groups who could pull it off. That put an upper limit on how much energy society had to expend in dealing with issues thanks to broadcast of free speech.
Countering the issues takes energy. And that is finite.
It's not complicated to understand the change. Take the best, most compassionate, patient, empathetic teacher you have and put him in a classroom with 10 misbehaving kids (all incentivized to misbehave) You will still see good teachers having a positive effect on all of them. Make it 30 misbehaving kids and things get trickier. Make it 500 and you will have the building burning down. Some magic process will have to generate more teachers to counteract the increase.
Social media and the news media have given us scale to Broadcast and rigged the game to prop up whoever/whatever gets engagement, without giving us a proportionate increase to respond to all the issues that also scale up.
We haven't invented empathy at scale yet. And it doesn't make sense to try while social media/news media rewards all kinds of bullshit. Likes/clicks/views counts need to be hidden otherwise the misbehaving kid gets mixed signals even if you apply empathy.
> "I'll never agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
The key points are not agreeing, and defending. I'd argue if you can empathize with them, you could agree with them (were you them), so that's not happening here. What matters is that you're both being attacked by a much more powerful entity, so powerful that it requires an alliance of enemies to successfully defend against. Of course that is government (or now corporate) censorship.
So I think you can hate someone and still defend a shared right against a common aggressor. And you can empathize with them enough to understand why they'd say the thing you disagree with. It's hard for me to imagine both hating and empathizing with the same person at the same time though.
And it seems this instability is real, as we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech.
In what sense? Legally, for example, we don't.
Sure, the gov part seems easy, but then people call on FB to filter lies in political ads, and again people want laws to mandate social networks to do this, and so on.
(I don't necessarily share his very individualized approach/view.)
You have to at least listen to them.