This essay actually touches on several different blackpills, and while it's quite a decent read overall, the part want to focus on indirectly implies a lot about the nature of empathy. Specifically, this.
If ten times as many people suffer from disease X than disease Y, then there should be about ten times as much lobbying for funding and research on disease X. And if disease A causes about twice as much pain per person as disease B, we might also expect around twice as much lobbying against disease A, because more people who experienced A will be motivated to do something about it compared with B.
Alas, this doesn't always work perfectly; for instance, breast cancer receives more funding than its proportional disease burden.
I suspect this could almost certainly be extrapolated to inceldom, specifically that people don't care about the very real problem of a total lack of physical/sexual intimacy unless they've experienced it themselves. Also, notice the bit about the exception being made for when the problem affects females? Empathy is unconditional only when it comes to concern for females, and following from that, ensuring their protection.
While this is stuff that we should already know, it's nice to see these ideas being talked about within other communities.
In "Letter to a Young Matt," Matt Ball explains how his experience with a chronic disease and enduring "times when I thought I was going to die, times when I wished I would die" showed him that reducing suffering was overwhelmingly important compared with the lofty ideological views to which he subscribed previously.
Jordan Ross wrote regarding a traumatizing ordeal: "That suffering that I experienced on that one night, and the effects of that trauma that linger on in my life to this day, was in some ways a humbling and wakeful experience. I made the connection. A few months later, I stopped eating meat, then a few months later stopped consuming animal products altogether."
A 2015 study found that "increasing severity of past adversity predicts increased empathy, which in turn, is linked to a stable tendency to feel compassion for others in need." Another 2015 study found "that ice-induced physical pain facilitated higher self-assessments of empathy, which motivated participants to be more sympathetic in their moral judgments."
Regardless as to how you feel about their solutions, the point I'm(and presumably the author is) trying to make is that these people never cared about others in anything close to the same manner before having experienced a large degree of pain themselves. Not necessarily out of cruelty, but this kind of visceral suffering simply didn't exist to them. It's the same reason as to why people in the west don't care about the 3rd world(NSFW), it's just not part of their reality, they haven't been directly exposed to the situation.
To me it's both funny and sad how normies(and especially foids) dismiss our problems because they have no concept of them, they simply can't fully understand what we're saying because they lack most of the experiences necessary to understand our pain.
If ten times as many people suffer from disease X than disease Y, then there should be about ten times as much lobbying for funding and research on disease X. And if disease A causes about twice as much pain per person as disease B, we might also expect around twice as much lobbying against disease A, because more people who experienced A will be motivated to do something about it compared with B.
Alas, this doesn't always work perfectly; for instance, breast cancer receives more funding than its proportional disease burden.
I suspect this could almost certainly be extrapolated to inceldom, specifically that people don't care about the very real problem of a total lack of physical/sexual intimacy unless they've experienced it themselves. Also, notice the bit about the exception being made for when the problem affects females? Empathy is unconditional only when it comes to concern for females, and following from that, ensuring their protection.
While this is stuff that we should already know, it's nice to see these ideas being talked about within other communities.
In "Letter to a Young Matt," Matt Ball explains how his experience with a chronic disease and enduring "times when I thought I was going to die, times when I wished I would die" showed him that reducing suffering was overwhelmingly important compared with the lofty ideological views to which he subscribed previously.
Jordan Ross wrote regarding a traumatizing ordeal: "That suffering that I experienced on that one night, and the effects of that trauma that linger on in my life to this day, was in some ways a humbling and wakeful experience. I made the connection. A few months later, I stopped eating meat, then a few months later stopped consuming animal products altogether."
A 2015 study found that "increasing severity of past adversity predicts increased empathy, which in turn, is linked to a stable tendency to feel compassion for others in need." Another 2015 study found "that ice-induced physical pain facilitated higher self-assessments of empathy, which motivated participants to be more sympathetic in their moral judgments."
Regardless as to how you feel about their solutions, the point I'm(and presumably the author is) trying to make is that these people never cared about others in anything close to the same manner before having experienced a large degree of pain themselves. Not necessarily out of cruelty, but this kind of visceral suffering simply didn't exist to them. It's the same reason as to why people in the west don't care about the 3rd world(NSFW), it's just not part of their reality, they haven't been directly exposed to the situation.
To me it's both funny and sad how normies(and especially foids) dismiss our problems because they have no concept of them, they simply can't fully understand what we're saying because they lack most of the experiences necessary to understand our pain.
