That just seems like more classic patriarchy.
Calling it psychopatriarchy makes it seem badass and gives it subversive appeal.
I could easily imagine right-wing social media running with it and squawking "pSyChOpAtRiArChY!!" with gusto like dumbass Beavises going "fire! fire! FIRE!".
Not sure what that'll do for public discourse.
Calling it before it happens.

The way people talk about empathy on the fediverse while denouncing and haranguing people they claim to lack it tells me they haven't really internalized it, and they maybe talk it up for social currency.
Empathy can only approach fair & impartial judgement when we apply it equally by extending it to those we don't relate to—when we seriously try.
I have (and probably everyone has) observed enough people rush to judgement with a great deal of empathy for those they can relate to while making 0 effort for people they don't understand.
They're assholes with empathy.

Empathy is trendy to invoke, especially in social media.
The popular premise seems to be that we can solve the moral failings in society if we'd all just develop our psychological health to better contemplate how others feel.
While that may help, it's incredibly reductive.

Feeling is a very low bar that doesn't set a standard.
Empathy doesn't stop someone from being an asshole.
It doesn't imply proper action or duty.
A subjective feeling prone to error, misjudgment, and uneven results is not a reliable basis of moral judgment & conduct.

Plus, it seems like a reversion to a type of virtue ethics that suggests morality simply amounts to having empathy.
Isn't it a bit more than that, and aren't there systems of ethics to better model it?

I remember a time when instead of talking about empathy, people talked way more about acting & treating everyone with basic decency and standards.
They might have even brought up a social contract or the golden rule.
They'd imply society has or ought to have rights, duties, and universal principles to judge moral conduct.
Those quaint ideas at least affirm some objective, external standard unlike empathy, and I think it's overdue to restore those ideas to prominence in popular discourse.

See?
Like right there: I explain that there's way more to morality & ethics than empathy (whose flaws are obvious enough to motivate philosophers to base systems of ethics on universal principles instead), and someone too superficial to bear the thought that their sacred cow has legitimate issues goes downvoting instead.
Empathy at the fediverse is performative.
Purporting to care about empathy, however, is very popular.
The survey may just reflect that superficiality when serious ethicists & philosophers wouldn't consider empathy a great foundation either.

The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.

It's literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn't make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.

There's a Wikipedia article quoting part of it

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.

The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general "suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies" as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

background: book promotes intellectual freedom

The book's thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism.
They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength

Only democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters

and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.

Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage.
Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine

How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?

They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don't try to impose them with force.

Unsurprisingly, you shouldn't expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn't the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn't tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.

Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren't winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that's flat out wrong unless that argument is "How dumb is social media? Very."

Because you're absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.

1. It's a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
2. They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems.
   Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
3. The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.

Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.

To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama's son into juvie.

Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they're completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.

1. The paradox of intolerance is a paradox, not a conclusion.
2. The reductive conclusion social media dumbasses insinuate by invoking it is entirely wrong according to the philosopher who articulated the paradox.
3. Intolerant carries a more technical meaning in philosophy (at least to that philosopher) than a mere disagreement with other ways: it includes the element of imposing (by unjustified force) on society to literally prohibit other ways. People who do not force us to comply with their position are tolerant.

From the article (you didn't read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general "suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies" as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

background: book promotes intellectual freedom

The quote comes from a footnote in the book The Open Society and Its Enemies, whose thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism. They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength

Only democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters

and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.

Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage. Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine

How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?

They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don't try to impose them with force.

Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that "solves the problem" from people we disagree with. It's pretty much accepting charity and doesn't imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.

checks alt text

Peter Singer

OP can start with a proper text alternative.
No way someone unable to read an image will get the content, and search engines won't find it by missing text, either.

Not cheating accessibility & editing a post to correct that is definitely in OP's power.
Nothing of comparable moral importance is lost by doing so.

Explain what the disabled did to you to deserve shitty conduct from you.
Same for whomever upvotes you.

If you want to be an asshole, keep in mind whom you're taking it out on, because it's definitely not your critic.
Moreover, no one is immune to disability, and you could find yourself screwed over by that arrogant inconsideration you embrace.
I'll gloat over the idiocy regardless, champ.

Anyone who purports to be leftist yet downvotes accessibility is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.
They're all talk, but when it comes to concrete action here and now, that's all they are: all talk, no action, hollow words, fake.

Bold to contradict the rash flights of popular judgement.
People hate the burden of questioning their own flawed, unreliable intuition when they can downvote instead to ease the burden right away.

Gotta admire that indifference to downvotes.

notice image full of text\
check alt text\
find

Oh, referring to you?

That is wholly inadequate for an image full of text.
Ain't no way someone unable to read the image is going to get the whole thing.
Search engines won't find anything by the "text" either.

Don't cheat accessibility.
Do the text alternative properly.

A spokesperson for Cornell said in a statement on Tuesday that “the second-hand account of the question asked by President Kotlikoff in a January 2025 meeting in the letter is incorrect, based on a documented first-hand account.”

“The question ‘why did it take so long for the assault to be reported’ was directed at bystanders who did not use Cornell’s anonymous tip line, despite ongoing social media activity about the incident in October 2024,” the spokesperson said. “He was not questioning Jane Doe’s reporting.”

It's a cheap relinquishment of control to authority under the guise of "public good & safety" of youths whose fundamental rights society is carelessly bargaining away. The goal is less personal responsibility, less autonomy and more control by authority to suppress liberty to access information openly, safely, anonymously.

The article mentions a record of legal decisions I also quoted showing lawmakers had commissioned enough legislative studies to know that more effective & less restrictive legal alternatives exist than these irredeemably flawed laws that obstruct everyone's participation.

Everyone conveniently seems to forget it's just information on screens of devices parents voluntarily give their children. Control is entirely within grasp of the individuals if realized and supported. As those justices had argued (before the new ones ruined it), government could facilitate & empower parents to realize their parental discretion & responsibility by legislating programs to educate parents & children & provide them the resources. Such legislation would empower parents without imposing on everyone else or sacrificing freedoms. Despite being told that solution, lawmakers never bothered to pass it in the decades since.

Oddly, the children didn't seem to matter anymore until shitheads waited long enough for the Supreme Court (with enough right-wing appointments) to change their tune.

Even more incredibly, the Eleventh Circuit literally seems to suggest that states can regulate all sorts of speech that might make people more interested in content as “features” rather than speech. CCIA had pointed out that the law is not at all content neutral because it puts rules on internet speech that doesn’t apply to speech in other mediums, and uses “cliffhangers” in books as an example.

In particular, CCIA emphasizes that HB3 prohibits addictive features only on websites, not on other “services that disseminate speech”—like, for instance, “books that end in cliffhangers.”

The Eleventh Circuit dismisses this in a footnote… suggesting that cliffhangers and other tricks to get people to read more in books can be regulated because they’re “features” not “speech.”

Further, the analogy to literary devices that make books more engaging—like cliffhangers, shorter chapters, or serialization—simply reinforces Florida’s contention that it’s not focused on speech and the accompanying ideas, topics, and messages, but rather on features that in and of themselves are agnostic as to content.

I am… flummoxed by this. Cliffhangers are features, not speech? Have any of these judges ever read a book? Short chapters are features not speech? What? Under the logic of this ruling, a state could issue a ban on short chapters and cliffhangers as being too “addictive” and the Eleventh Circuit says that would pass intermediate scrutiny and be just fine.