In slave and master roles, the sub usually takes in the pleasure and is the receiver. While the Dominant one is usually the one that gets pleasure from giving it to said person as it is more co-dependant and reciprocal.
People say a tyrant is not empathetic, but I disagree. A leaders role is dominant, which is dependent on co-existing with their subjects and giving attention to the people, like in slave and master, the subjects of the tyrant are people who just receive and consume. People from higher castes are more empathetic from generations of their family members being in charge and overseeing the population, making them proficient communicators, than someone from a peasant class, whose mind is adapted around surviving and making ends meet, causing a centric viewpoint.
Which begs the question, are subhumans not empathetic for this reason? A lot of their social ties are tribal and are often how the boondocks called "nigga synthesis" of very superficial connections. While those from noble families have deeper connections, like philosophy and personality.
Keep in mind, the modern rich family aren't from noble bloodlines, it has been bastardized through capitalism/communism, by claiming we have equal opportunity. Allowing people that mentally live in survival mode to be at the top. (ei: hustle culture being an example)
My point is, if they lack empathy. Then what moral stance do they have when it comes to calling a tyrant "evil"?
People say a tyrant is not empathetic, but I disagree. A leaders role is dominant, which is dependent on co-existing with their subjects and giving attention to the people, like in slave and master, the subjects of the tyrant are people who just receive and consume. People from higher castes are more empathetic from generations of their family members being in charge and overseeing the population, making them proficient communicators, than someone from a peasant class, whose mind is adapted around surviving and making ends meet, causing a centric viewpoint.
Which begs the question, are subhumans not empathetic for this reason? A lot of their social ties are tribal and are often how the boondocks called "nigga synthesis" of very superficial connections. While those from noble families have deeper connections, like philosophy and personality.
Keep in mind, the modern rich family aren't from noble bloodlines, it has been bastardized through capitalism/communism, by claiming we have equal opportunity. Allowing people that mentally live in survival mode to be at the top. (ei: hustle culture being an example)
My point is, if they lack empathy. Then what moral stance do they have when it comes to calling a tyrant "evil"?
