I somehow doubt the concern means much more than they better not slow you down. Compassion that is selective shows an tendency to put in a dividing line where some are cared and the rest can go fuk themselves. Most often it is skin color or financial status or in this living example a common core belief that your side is moral and upstanding and if you have any flaws they are overshadowed by the good you do.
Really? What a very telling phrase and it certainly shows that you support one part of society where you care about what happens to them and a flat-line for everyone else. That trait usually includes that your actions against 'them' is always fully justified while anything they do is usually condemned as it will invariably impact your world where you have to stop a certain practice and replace it by another one. It doesn't work that way, even you own side would pressure you to remain just as selective as you have admitted to.
You can't spread around what you don't have in the first place. Your version of compassion is a safety net where you feel accepted and not in danger of being abandoned and in return you reward 'the group' by accepting what they accept and rejecting what they reject while you and much of the group do what you are told because you follow policy you do not make it or influence it in any way shape or form.
Emotional detachment: Common Related Medical Conditions
Emotional detachment
WebMD Symptom Checker helps you find the most common medical conditions indicated by the symptoms emotional detachment including Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Obsessive compulsive personality disorder.
There are 2 conditions associated with emotional detachment. The links below will provide you with more detailed information on these medical conditions from the WebMD Symptom Checker and help provide a better understanding of causes and treatment of these related conditions.
These are not option side-effects theu come with the detachment package and it is a leaned behaviour meaning it can be unlearned but then the sheeple become thinking, caring people and the State doesn't want that to come after all their hard work of making the changes.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/work-matters/201007/the-fine-art-emotional-detachment
"Passion can make you too close to something. We all need to be able to step back and disconnect. In order to see flaws in the plan, respect the input of others, and maintain an open mind, a little indifference can go a long way. One other thing, too many disrespectful actions are explained away by passion. It’s as if passion can be the get-out-of-being-called-a-jerk-free card. Passion is NOT a license to steam roll everyone in your path!"
Passion is the only thing that lets you get close to something. It also calls for expressing whatever emotion it inspires. Currently the elite are allowed to feel and express outrage at whatever they want, a right that is condemned when others express it as a reaction to what the elite are doing that affects their lives.
(from link)
"The first reason stems from human
cognitive limits. As we all know, and as modern psychology has shown in gory detail, human beings can do a limited number of things at once, and even the best "multi-taskers" in the world are doomed to fail if they try to do too many things at once.
So if you try to put all your emotional and physical effort into everything you do, you will end do everything badly. Indifference is a key survival skill as there are some things you may need to do, but are so unimportant that not caring as you travel through them is the best answer. And indifference can also help you sidestep things that seem important, but really aren't, allowing you to focus on the few things that really matter."
Start at the bolded part and every word after that is bull**** as far as having a thinking person as the end result. You are told to care about nothing but what you are told is important. Wow, no wonder the West is so fuked.
The West Is Incapable of Taking Responsibility for Its Errors - Russia Insider
The West Is Incapable of Taking Responsibility for Its Errors
The inflated self-worth of Western states makes theme particularly prone to blame their failures on external factors
The Fundamental Attribution Error describes our tendency to attribute our own practical and moral failures to external factors while attributing other people’s failures to their personal character. Conversely, we attribute our successes and good deeds to our own character, and others’ successes to some external factor.
If we succeed, it is because we are skillful, and if we do good, it is because we are good people. If we do something wrong, it is because something outside our control, and which we could not have predicted, intervened to prevent our otherwise sensible and good plan from succeeding.
By contrast, if others succeed, it is because they are lucky, and if they fail, it is because they are incompetent or evil.
For instance, once it became clear that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had gone disastrously wrong, its supporters did not acknowledge their aggressive instincts, bad judgment, or any other internal characteristic, but rather blamed external factors for their mistake:
- ‘Saddam lied about weapons of mass destruction, and so it was perfectly reasonable for us to be mistaken about them’;
- ‘Nobody could have known that those in charge of the operation would have been so incompetent’;
- 'Iraq turned out to be in a much worse state than we could possibly have predicted’; and so on.
By contrast, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we attributed its actions to the evil character of Saddam Hussein. We dismissed as irrelevant external factors which might help to explain Saddam’s actions, such as misinterpreting American signals about what was permissible, or
genuine grievances about Kuwait’s behaviour.
That bolded part is about the slant drilling charges that get buried when the West's version is considered.
