| > Association certainly breeds empathy, but what if that association is forced by a third party? Its not like everyone feels 'forced', its only a few people (just like I don't feel forced to drive within lanes or not kill people - these don't register for me). But the impact of their attitudes is potentially much greater. Lets say there are 3 groups of people - (M)inority group, (P)rejudiced people who have businesses, and (E)veryone else. In this instance, the forced interaction is only forced on P, which is a small number. P's actions would have broader impact though. The M's would find themselves less welcome in certain areas, and over time (justifiably) choose to go elsewhere. Less M's mean E's would have less interaction with M's. P's unchecked actions would also begin to normalize P's behavior, and embolden their stance. Normalization would potentially increase the number of E's becoming P's. Over a long time, this could create an environment where M's choose to leave entirely, E's simply lose out on the opportunity to interact with M's, and increase the likelihood E's turn in to P's through osmosis of P's normalized behavior, and because of lack of personal experience with M's. The P/E community get segregated from the M community, and whenever there are struggles between those communities (which always happen between communities, e.g. resources, culture, etc), empathy is not there to keep things civil. All due to a few Prejudiced individuals not liking being 'forced' to interact with others during the course of their personal choice to engage in (government regulated) economic activity. Basically, a few rotten apples spoils the lot. |