From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:32:52 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/19/2026 8:05 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> NY Times,   
   >>   
   >> February 19, 2026   
   >>   
   >> The idea that compassion is toxic has damaged us   
   >> By David French   
   >>   
   >What planet are you on, Sombrero?   
   >   
   >David French, a columnist for The New York Times, strongly believes in   
   >and frequently advocates for inalienable human rights. He grounds this   
   >belief in the conviction that individuals are endowed by their creator   
   >with rights such as life, liberty, and due process, which are essential   
   >to human dignity.   
   > >   
      
   So you accuse.  I'll let him tell me about it.  I have been reading   
   him regularly for several years.   
      
   >> There’s a scene from a movie I can’t get out of my head.   
   >> It’s from a 2021 film called “Don’t Look Up,” not my idea of a   
   >> cinematic classic. It’s a dark comedy about the end of the world, an   
   >> allegory intended to skewer those who are in denial about climate   
   >> change, but in this film people are in denial about a comet that’s   
   >> about to hit the earth.   
   >>   
   >> The movie is equal parts funny and preachy, but the ending is   
   >> poignant. The main characters of the film are gathered around a dinner   
   >> table, eating one last meal as they face the end. They’re trying to   
   >> have a casual conversation as the table starts to rattle.   
   >> In that moment — as we watch images of the beauty of earth flashing in   
   >> front of us — the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio interrupts the   
   >> small talk with these words:   
   >>   
   >> “The thing of it is, we really did have everything, didn’t we?”   
   >>   
   >> I don’t want to compare the second Trump term to a comet hitting the   
   >> earth (or maybe I do), but it is absolutely true that we often can’t   
   >> grasp what we had until we no longer have it. Tragedy and loss adjust   
   >> our frame, and the disputes and arguments that once seemed so urgent   
   >> can pale in comparison to new and terrible realities.   
   >>   
   >> Now let’s talk about empathy.   
   >>   
   >> A year ago this month, I wrote a newsletter warning about a new trend   
   >> on the MAGA Christian right. Christian theologians and influencers had   
   >> begun warning about the “sin of empathy” or “toxic empathy.”   
   >> In books, essays, podcasts and speeches, prominent Christian   
   >> influencers, ministers and theologians sounded the alarm that secular   
   >> progressives were leading Christians astray by appealing to their   
   >> emotions at the expense of their reason.   
   >>   
   >> The steel man version of their case goes like this:   
   >> Progressives have turned Christians’ soft hearts against hard truths.   
   >> Progressives have persuaded all too many Christians that the suffering   
   >> of, say, undocumented immigrants or women facing unwanted pregnancies   
   >> should override their concerns about the economic and social costs of   
   >> large-scale immigration, or their compassion for victims of crimes   
   >> committed by immigrants, or their concerns about the plight of the   
   >> unborn child.   
   >>   
   >> Sometimes, as the argument goes, you have to do tough, hard things.   
   >> That means mass deportation. That means cutting off aid to the poor   
   >> and vulnerable in the developing world. That means ending gay marriage   
   >> even if it breaks up families. And that means the strictest possible   
   >> pro-life laws, even when the life or physical health of the mother   
   >> might be at stake, or sending mothers to jail for aborting their   
   >> child.   
   >>   
   >> And so, Christians, you have to steel yourselves to stand up for truth   
   >> and righteousness, and accept the condemnation of a world that will   
   >> call you cruel.   
   >>   
   >> As with many bad ideas, the attack on empathy is rooted in something   
   >> real. Partisans tend to be terrible at showing the slightest empathy   
   >> for “them,” the people on the other side.   
   >>   
   >> Immigration activists can be very good at highlighting the plight of   
   >> migrants, for example, while ignoring or paying little attention to   
   >> the costs of uncontrolled migration.   
   >>   
   >> Pro-choice activists are very effective at highlighting the   
   >> difficulties facing pregnant women while downplaying the humanity of   
   >> the baby emerging in the womb.   
   >>   
   >> During the pandemic, I was shocked at the lack of concern or outright   
   >> mockery in some quarters for the deaths of unvaccinated Americans.   
   >> The converse is true as well. Immigration restrictionists are very   
   >> good at highlighting the costs of mass migration — including the   
   >> victims of violence committed by immigrants — without demonstrating   
   >> much concern at all for the immigrants themselves.   
   >>   
   >> And while many pro-life activists care deeply for mother and child,   
   >> that sentiment isn’t universal. A Republican candidate for governor in   
   >> Tennessee, for example, has let the world know that he’s open to the   
   >> idea of imposing the death penalty on women who get abortions.   
   >> Arguments about the Middle East are sometimes the worst of all — it   
   >> can be difficult to find anyone who prioritizes every life at stake in   
   >> the seemingly endless wars between Israel and its foes.   
   >> The problem in those cases isn’t with empathy, which is a vital human   
   >> virtue, but rather in its selective application. Just as we wouldn’t   
   >> call love a sin because we might be stingy in our love, empathy isn’t   
   >> a sin because its application is incomplete.   
   >>   
   >> Or, put another way, our problem isn’t with too much empathy, but too   
   >> little. We’re unwilling to place ourselves in other people’s shoes, to   
   >> try to understand who they are and what their lives are like.   
   >> It’s hard to talk about this issue without recognizing a fundamental   
   >> truth of the moment: The attack on empathy would have gained very   
   >> little traction in the church if Donald Trump weren’t president. He   
   >> delights in vengeance, and he owes his presidency to the evangelical   
   >> church.   
   >>   
   >> I’ve shared this statistic before, but if you look at 2024 exit   
   >> polling, you’ll see that Trump won white evangelical and born-again   
   >> voters by a 65-point margin, 82 percent to 17 percent. He lost   
   >> everyone else by 18 points, 58 percent to 40 percent.   
   >> Given the sharp differences between Trump and every other Republican   
   >> president of the modern era, in my experience evangelicals are   
   >> desperate to to rationalize their support for a man who gratuitously   
   >> and intentionally inflicts unnecessary suffering on his opponents.   
   >> And that’s exactly how empathy becomes a sin.   
   >>   
   >> And because empathy is a sin, virtually any appeal to consider the   
   >> suffering of Trump’s opponents becomes yet more proof that Christians   
   >> are being manipulated, that their emotions are used against them.   
   >> Are you concerned about children who might die because we gratuitously   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)