this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
946 points (96.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8131 readers
248 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but the definition is about putting yourself in others shoes. If someone said "let's lock up all (ethnicity)" and you can't imagine how shitty it is to be locked up due to ethnicity, then you got a problem
Sure, but let me give you the same example but in a different context.
Let's suppose that instead of "let's lock up everyone from this ethnic group", a politician says "let's stop illegal immigration". Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly rational, reasonable, moral stance to have. If someone hears the latter phrasing, they might take it at face value even if the politician really means the former. Thus, this individual has come to indirectly support the former even though they think they're supporting the latter. The end result is the same because the politician's intentions never changed, however, the morality of this individual is no longer as black and white as in your example.
And if said person can see what is happening, for example with ICE, and they don't question what is going on, after gaining an understanding, then its right back to being as black and white
But you're making the assumption that it's inevitable to gain an understanding. I think you're underestimating the sheer levels of ignorance that people like this live under. Some people are so ignorant that their only sources of information are Facebook and Fox News, and so they only ever see one perspective, and that perspective is their truth. Their perspective, their truth, is basically whatever Trump says taken at face value and regurgitated by right wing media.
And there is a certain level of responsibility that everyone has when it comes to educating oneself. It doesn't absolve them
I can agree with that, but being ignorant or uneducated doesn't mean someone lacks empathy.
Yes that is true, but it's besides the point
How is it besides the point? It is the point. These people are genuinely ignorant and uneducated, and their sources for information are very narrow and distorted. Their perceptive can only change when they're directly affected because that experience is what gives them the change necessary to learn and grow. You're implying that they're all malicious and evil, but I disagree with that view. I don't they all lack empathy, I think they're good people who have been brainwashed by a handful of genuinely vile people who seek to manipulate them for their own personal gain by keeping them blind, poor, miserable, scared, and angry. Do I think this of all MAGA? No, but I do think it applies to a significant chunk.
I appreciate your point, and this conversation, however I think we are at an impass. I wish you well!