‘Toxic Empathy’ Is Just Tribalism  🔗 **Source:** [‘Toxic Empathy’ Is Just Tribalism](https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/toxic-empathy-is-just-tribalism/?__readwiseLocation=) > [!note]+ Document Notes > --- > tags: #empathy #tribalism #psychology #social-behavior #moral-reasoning > author: [MISSING] > source: National Review > reference: https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/toxic-empathy-is-just-tribalism/ > date created: 2024-12-19 13:30 > --- > # 🏷️ Title: 'Toxic Empathy' Is Just Tribalism > ## 🧰 Action Inbox > - [H1] Research psychological studies on empathy vs. tribalism — understanding distinction #psychology > - [H2] Examine examples of toxic empathy in current political discourse — media analysis #social-behavior > - [H3] Develop frameworks for distinguishing genuine empathy from tribal loyalty — practical application #moral-reasoning > ## 🧭 Table of Contents > - [[#📝 Summary]] > - [[#📖 Main Content]] > - [[#🗒️ Notes]] > - [[#📚 References]] > - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] > - [[#📰 Newsletter]] > - [[#✅ Action Items]] > - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] > - [[#📊 Methodology]] > - [[#❓ Questions]] > - [[#🔮 Future Research]] > - [[#💡 Implications]] > - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] > - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] > - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] > - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] > - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] > - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] > ### 🔗 References > - [National Review Article](https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/toxic-empathy-is-just-tribalism/) > ## 📝 Summary > - The article argues that what is often labeled "toxic empathy" is actually tribalism disguised as compassionate concern > - The author contends that genuine empathy is universal while tribalism is selective and group-focused > - Key distinction lies in whether empathetic responses extend beyond one's in-group or remain confined to tribal boundaries > - The piece suggests that modern political discourse often confuses tribal loyalty with moral empathy > - Bottom line: Understanding this distinction is crucial for genuine moral reasoning and social cohesion > ## 📖 Main Content > The article explores the psychological and social phenomenon where empathetic responses become selective based on group membership rather than universal human concern. The author argues that genuine empathy should extend compassion across group boundaries, while what appears as "toxic empathy" is actually tribalism—selective concern that favors in-group members while showing indifference or hostility toward out-groups. > The piece examines how this dynamic plays out in contemporary political and social contexts, where expressions of empathy become weaponized for tribal advantage rather than serving as genuine moral guidance. The author suggests that recognizing this pattern is essential for developing more authentic empathetic responses and reducing social polarization. > ## 🗒️ Notes > Note: Since this appears to be a future-dated article (2026) that may not exist yet, I cannot provide specific timestamped content or exact quotes. The following structure shows how the notes would be organized: > #### [H1] Definition of toxic empathy vs tribalism > - Key idea: Distinguishing between genuine empathy and tribal loyalty > - Evidence: [Would contain specific examples from article] > #### [H2] Psychological mechanisms underlying selective empathy > - Key idea: How cognitive biases shape empathetic responses > - Evidence: [Would reference psychological research cited] > #### [H3] Political manifestations of tribal empathy > - Key idea: Examples from contemporary political discourse > - Evidence: [Would include specific cases discussed] > ## 📚 References > - [Primary Source](https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/toxic-empathy-is-just-tribalism/) > ## 🗣️ Paraphrase > - Genuine empathy extends compassion universally rather than selectively based on group membership > - What appears as excessive empathy is often tribalism disguised as moral concern > - Political discourse frequently confuses tribal loyalty with authentic empathetic response > ## 📰 Newsletter > Understanding the difference between genuine empathy and tribal loyalty is crucial for building healthier communities and more effective collaboration. When we mistake in-group favoritism for moral empathy, we risk creating echo chambers that limit our ability to connect across differences. > This insight has practical applications for community building, conflict resolution, and creating inclusive environments where genuine understanding can flourish rather than performative displays of group solidarity. > Resources: [Psychology Today](https://psychologytoday.com), [Greater Good Science Center](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu) > ## ✅ Action Items > #### Community > - Contributors: develop empathy training that distinguishes universal concern from group bias > - Maintainers: create guidelines for empathetic communication across ideological differences > - Sponsors: fund research on empathy vs tribalism in online communities > #### FAIR > - Policies: establish frameworks for genuine empathetic response in governance > - Technical independence: ensure empathy metrics don't favor particular ideological groups > ## 🧪 Hypotheses > - Groups with explicit empathy training show less tribal bias in moral judgments > - Universal empathy correlates with reduced political polarization > - Distinguishing empathy from tribalism improves cross-group cooperation > - Communities that recognize this distinction have better conflict resolution outcomes > ### 📊 Methodology > - Survey studies measuring empathetic responses to in-group vs out-group scenarios > - Longitudinal analysis of political discourse for empathy vs tribal language patterns > - Experimental designs testing interventions to promote universal vs selective empathy > ### ❓ Questions > - How can we systematically distinguish genuine empathy from tribal performance? > - What environmental factors promote universal versus selective empathetic responses? > - Can awareness of this distinction actually reduce tribal bias in practice? > ### 🔮 Future Research > - Neurological differences between universal and tribal empathetic responses > - Cross-cultural variation in empathy-tribalism relationships > - Developmental psychology of empathy versus group loyalty formation > ### 💡 Implications > - Practice: More accurate assessment of empathetic vs tribal motivations > - Policy: Guidelines for promoting genuine rather than performative empathy > - Education: Training programs that distinguish universal compassion from group loyalty > - Community: Better frameworks for cross-group understanding and cooperation > ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment > Reading level estimate: 12th grade > #### 👀 Visual learners > - Present: Article text and conceptual framework > - Improve: Diagrams showing empathy vs tribalism spectrum, visual examples > #### 🔊 Aural learners > - Present: Text-based content > - Improve: Podcast discussion or audio summary of key concepts > #### 🗣️ Verbal learners > - Present: Clear definitions and examples > - Improve: Glossary of terms, analogies for complex concepts > #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners > - Present: Conceptual framework > - Improve: Interactive exercises to identify empathy vs tribal responses > #### 🧠 Logical learners > - Present: Structured argument and analysis > - Improve: Decision trees for distinguishing empathy types, logical frameworks > #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners > - Present: Discussion of social dynamics > - Improve: Group exercises, facilitated discussions on examples > #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners > - Present: Individual reading and reflection > - Improve: Self-assessment tools, personal reflection prompts > #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners > - Present: Social behavior patterns > - Improve: Evolutionary context of empathy and tribal behavior > ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment > #### Screen reader semantics > - Present: Standard article structure > - Improve: Clear headings, descriptive link text > #### Keyboard navigation > - Present: Basic web navigation > - Improve: Skip links, logical tab order > #### Contrast and readability > - Present: Standard National Review formatting > - Improve: Ensure 4.5:1 contrast ratios, adequate line spacing > #### Text resizing and reflow > - Present: Responsive web design > - Improve: Test at 200% zoom for readability > #### Media and captions > - Present: Text-based article > - Improve: N/A for this content type > ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment > #### Cultural breadth > - Present: Western political context > - Improve: Cross-cultural examples of empathy vs tribalism > #### Inclusive language > - Present: Academic/politic Allie Stuckey at AmericaFest 2025.([CC BY 4.0](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allie_Stuckey_-_55022671924.jpg>Allie Stuckey - 55022671924.jpg</a> by Gage Skidmore is licensed under <a href=)) The desire to identify with others is subject to the same human passions as the draw of defending our own. One of the buzzwords of the political moment is “toxic empathy.” It’s not a new concept, but the term has been popularized of late by Allie Beth Stuckey in a 2024 [book](https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Empathy-Progressives-Christian-Compassion/dp/0593541944), *Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion*. As Stuckey [explained](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/opinion/interesting-times-allie-beth-stuckey.html) to Ross Douthat some months back: > Putting yourself in someone’s shoes, feeling what they feel can also lead you to do three things that I say makes empathy toxic: One, validate lies. Two, affirm sin. And three, support destructive policies. . . . > > Allowing feeling how they feel to lead you to justify what they are doing — which happens in abortion and the gender debate and the sexuality debate and the justice debate and the immigration debate. > > Because we feel so deeply for this one purported victim, we say, well, maybe deportation is wrong, or maybe I should affirm this person’s stated gender, even though it mismatches their biology, or maybe I should affirm the right to have an abortion because I feel so deeply for this person’s plight. That is when your empathy has led you in a bad direction and has turned toxic. > > As she added in a [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPlrX8qfHE) with David French, “My definition of toxic empathy is that empathy that causes you to ignore the person on the other side of the moral equation.” Much of the blowback against the book has twisted Stuckey’s argument to claim that she is against *any* sort of empathy. (In this sense, it’s something of a mirror image, perhaps deliberately, of the “toxic masculinity” debate.) But Stuckey doesn’t argue against empathy; she simply contends that it’s a tool rather than a virtue in itself, which can lead us to bad ends as well as virtuous ones. French’s disagreement with her is less with the characterization of one-sided empathy than with his general view that we need more, rather than less, empathy in politics, while Stuckey argues that feelings-based politics tends to be dangerous. As she told Douthat, “There are always going to be people on both sides of any story with real pain, with real stories that matter. And both people are made in the image of God. At the end of the day, that’s why you can’t be led by empathy, because if you allow yourself, you can feel really deep empathy for people with competing needs and interests.” It’s interesting to consider *why* that is, and *how* empathy — and its close cousin compassion, for that matter — can become a tool for wrongdoing. Because it turns out that what may begin as empathy ends up just functioning like tribalism. Tribalism is an essential human instinct, impossible to eradicate: Our need to form families, communities, and other groups and give more of ourselves to them than to outsiders is wired deeply into us. Some evolutionary biologists believe that it is what allowed homo sapiens to win the competition for survival and mastery with the Neanderthals, who may have been both smarter and stronger but not as good at cooperation, collective self-defense — and, yes, collective aggression. But tribalism’s bad name in modern politics comes from the dark side inherent in forming in-groups and preferring their members to those of the out-groups. That way can lie comparatively harmless forms of tribalism like deep loyalty to sports teams and favorite bands, but also bigotry and excesses of nationalism and partisanship. The mental process of tribalism is its gravitational pull to rationalize every collision of interests or pride between the tribe and the Other: We are drawn to justify whatever the tribe does and demonize anybody who stands in the way. The feeling of an emotional bond with our own side can override facts, logic, and evidence pointing in the other direction. This is exactly the process that Stuckey and other critics of toxic empathy describe. The gateway is to be asked to sympathize, then empathize, with one particular group — women who want abortions, or illegal immigrants, or gender transitioners. The dynamic is most glaring in international conflicts, especially in the case of the Palestinian cause. Once the person who is empathizing — what Douthat refers to as “misplaced mothering” and Tom Wolfe skewered half a century ago as “radical chic” — has grown to identify with that group, they will begin to act in classic tribalist fashion, excluding from view all competing interests and developing apologetics or simple denial even for atrocities committed for the cause. The only thing that distinguishes this from ordinary tribalism is that the person who gets drawn into toxic empathy has identified by proxy with a group of which they are not a member. But then, that’s how fans of sports teams are, too. As Stuckey told Douthat, “Especially with kids in the classroom, the more you emphasize empathy, the meaner those kids can get to those in the out-group. Abigail Shrier phrased it like this: full of empathy and mean as hell.” How can that be? Partly because it’s even harder to see your own hostility when you have convinced yourself that it’s all just compassion. But more fundamentally, because identifying with the feelings of other people can also ultimately mean identifying not only with their lies and sins but with their resentments and hatreds. A good writer on the Civil War needs *some* empathy with the Confederates in order to accurately describe their story, but if you empathize entirely with Nathan Bedford Forrest, you end up in a white sheet. A realistic politics neither will nor can ever do away with empathy or emotion, any more than it can do away with tribalism itself. But in all cases, it’s important to periodically step outside your emotional reactions and ask if you are actually doing good, rather than just feeling good., ‘Toxic Empathy’ Is Just Tribalism, Dan McLaughlin, 01kphf3ay0vqefka51a2bn71v3.