How Dare You?

Weaponizing Empathy and the Forced Morality Binary

If your eyes glaze over when seeing a subject like “Weaponizing Empathy and the Forced Morality Binary,” I have a simple question for you: Has someone inferred or even outright accused you of being a terrible human being because you hold an opinion or belief?

Continuing in the direction of my previous posts about “The Woke Mind Virus” and “The Grievance Engine,” this is a further look at the tactics of using a forced morality binary and weaponized empathy to shut down discussions and dismiss opinions. Once able to spot the tactics, it’s easier to avoid being manipulated.

“If you know something is wrong but have to club your way through an internal wall of conditioning and fear of social censure to speak up, very probably you really need to speak up. And other people need you to speak up, too.”

- Barbara O’Brien, Buddhists Don’t Have to Be Nice: Avoiding Idiot Compassion.

In today's media, both corporate and social, legitimate questions and criticisms are too often met with responses like “how dare you?” How dare you question or criticize the motives or experiences of (insert any one of the many so-called “protected groups”)?

Intersectionality Theory allows a convenient crossover of differing levels and categories of victimization status leading to “protected groups.”

What Is a Forced Morality Binary?

A forced morality binary is a circumstance or issue where a manufactured narrative is presented as having only two valid choices, only one being consistent with an inferred moral imperative. This often involves a motte and bailey fallacy,” a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation disingenuously crafted to avoid nuanced discussion by framing a narrative to be seen as a binary choice. One side is held up to appear “absolutely good” while the other appears “unequivocally bad,” creating a false representation of perceived consensus from which there can be no nuance, skepticism, or dissent.

Example of a Forced Morality Binary:

“Socialism is merely sharing resources, so everyone truly has a fair chance. Don’t you believe every human deserves a shot at success?”

What Is Weaponized Empathy?

Many people scoff at the concept of weaponized empathy and ask, “how can empathy possibly be a bad thing?"

Using empathy as a weapon: exploiting or taking advantage of someone’s kindness to manipulate or silence them.

These are tactics to control, manipulate, and ultimately shut people up. That's the bottom line. It's an emotional plea. Unfortunately, it works most of the time. No conscientious person wants to be perceived as lacking empathy and compassion.

Recognize and refuse to willingly participate in the manipulation.

Examples of Weaponized Empathy:

“A stringent immigration policy is inhumane, puts kids in cages like animals, and lets potential immigrant families starve.”

“By supporting an American citizen’s right to own guns, you are literally killing children. Only a monster would do that.”

Further Examples of Weaponized Empathy and the Forced Morality Binary

• Crime

  • Desiring government to be tough on crime, you don’t care about the plight of criminals (mostly assumed to be unfairly convicted or unjustly punished).

  • Generally supporting law enforcement, you don’t care about victims of police brutality.

• Foreign Policy

  • Forcing an imperative and moral binary where one does not necessarily exist.

  • Questioning Ukraine policy makes you a Putin sympathizer that supports Russia.

• Immigration

  • Believing immigration should be done through proper legal channels, you don’t care about immigrants.

  • “Immigrants are being whipped at the border.”

• Family

  • Asking about the decay of the nuclear family and the rise in fatherless homes, shows you don’t care about single parents or want to eliminate “alternative families.”

• Individual Rights - 1st and 2nd Amendments

  • Believing in the 2nd Amendment, you don’t care about school shootings.

  • Caring about essential freedom of speech and association, you don’t care about victims of “hate speech.”

• Intersectionality - “Protected Groups” are beyond reproach.

  • Honduran illegal aliens killed bald eagle, but the government is reluctant to prosecute them.

  • Destroying statues is OK. Tire marks on a “pride” flag painted on the street is not.

  • Gender theory - If you question whether children should be given so-called “gender-affirming treatments,” you support the genocide of trans-identifying people.

• Race

  • All white people are racist, even those that aren’t actually racially white.

  • “Black Lives Matter” phrase vs. the Marxist organization.

  • “BYU students yelled racial slurs at a Duke volleyball player.” There is zero corroboration that this even happened.

• Government and Media Censorship

  • Dissent = domestic terrorist threat vs. “saving democracy.”

  • Being concerned about “The Twitter Files,” you don’t care about the welfare of an ex-Twitter executive (whose sexuality makes them part of a so-called “protected identity group”).

• Elections

  • Asking about election integrity and voter ID, you want to disenfranchise minority groups (Georgia and “Jim Crow 2.0”).

  • If you ask even the most logical questions about the 2020 Presidential election, you are an “election denier” despite a history of democrats denying the results of elections.

• Abortion

  • Discussing unborn children means you hate women.

• Homelessness

  • Believing it’s inhumane to allow and enable people to live on the streets, you want to exterminate homeless people.

• Education

  • Questioning the merits of teaching through the lens of Critical Theory, you don’t care about “honest history.”

  • Parents questioning what is taught to children in schools is hate speech against LGBTQ+.

• Trump

  • Russiagate

  • Steele Dossier

  • It’s possible to like some things Trump does/says without liking everything

• Politics

  • Supreme Court - Court is illegitimate when it rules in a way contrary to a desired narrative.

  • January 6th - “It was an armed violent insurrection that almost overturned our democracy.”

  • John Fetterman - Questioning his fitness for the job is ableist. Expecting Senators to be healthy, able, and capable is discriminatory.

• COVID

  • COVID lab-leak theory is “racist.”

  • Vaccines / Masks / Mandates / Natural Immunity - Public health prioritized a narrative over the truth, and if you questioned anything, you were “causing more COVID deaths.”

• Climate

  • “Climate Justice” - asking real questions means you don’t care enough about the planet.

These examples involve shaping and promoting a desired narrative, obfuscating the truth, and shutting down discussion.

Refuse to be manipulated, and don’t let them pretend you don’t care.