# On Empathy & Xenophobia, a Tangent

> Theoretically, would a society where people who are unable to understand memes and internet culture are killed by being stoned to death lead to a better, more boomer free world? I dunno, I'm just the guy doing the math, but think about it.

This is my ideal society, if there's one thing I've learned wrangling people with a specific online subculture, it's that extreme xenophobia and in-group nepotism is the strongest immune system. Anything less and the culture will die.

People talk about empathy like it is meant to extend to all people, with the assumption that ALL people are part of one big clan. If you didn't grow up with similar circumstances and can't laugh at the same things, you're an outsider to me, and I to you. We should be separate.

Assimilate or die; it's the truly empathetic thing to do.

## On Empathy, a Tangent 

I've never understood mainstream confusion to this concept. When used in media it is a universal dogma, empathy for all. But in practice you will always show more empathy to those closest to you

This isn't exactly a grand observation but what irks me is that every single person I've ever spoken to has a slightly different understanding of empathy, and will conflate them entirely with ideas like sympathy, pity, compassion etc.

I'm guilty of this too and it took me until my teen years to really understand what empathy was instead of a synonym for sympathy.

On this topic, I find it very odd how many people do not know the difference between the two types of empathy Cognitive and Affective. This is extremely important if you ever hope to understand those around you, and I think people have varying levels of both.

I would say cognitive empathy is best for people of tribal societies, warlike societies select for cognitive empathy. All predator mammals possess high levels of cognitive empathy, it's with this sense that they know what weakest link to kill when hunting (K selected).

Affective empathy on the other hand is best for people in neolithic societies, settled societies best select for these traits. All grazing herd animals possess high levels of affective empathy, it's how they start together in such big groups (r selected).

People always act like predators such as cheetahs cannot feel empathy by virtue of being a carnivore, again proclaiming empathy as a universal principle. If we quantify what empathy really means, then predator animals have the HIGHEST amount of cognitive empathy of all animals.

Try and abuse a cheetah or a wolf or kill it and throw it to them, tell me these animals don't feel extreme empathy for their tribe. Have you ever seen a dog howl in pain at a dead brother, while just the other day ripping the throat out of a rabbit?

Duality from Abrahamism has really poisoned our understanding of ourselves as animals and made it impossible to know who we really are.

Settled societies are much more affectively empathetic, non-settled societies are much more cognitively empathetic. Most politics can be reduced down to farmer genes competing with hunter genes.

We live in a farmer society though, and only through colonisation and white flight to faraway savage lands have we been able to select for hunter genes, now we are cornered with no where to go. This is why certain people crave ragnarok, they lust for the vast endless frontiers

Is this a black pill though? Probably not, it only really shows the tenacity of man. I truly don't think the Indo-European steppe spirit will never die, and the fact that our genes push us so to fight on is a saving grace.

I'll tell you one thing though, those Amish are K selected with very high cognitive empathy, low affective empathy, they're safe from subversion and if the world collapses you bet you hope your ass you reincarnate as one of them if current trends truly do continue!