[pmichaud]

It's not a stupid question.

One thing to say here is that empathy is basically putting yourself in another person's shoes. Often when you do that you also find room in your heart to forgive them, ie. when you see the way their behavior makes sense from the inside, most of the time there's less blame and more "that makes sense, if I look at it that way."

And I guess you're right that by having a policy of caring about people's feelings and acting on that care, you're "taking responsibility" in a broad sense. But there is a difference between acting out of obligation or coersion vs acting out intrinsic care or even out of even-handed consequentialist reasoning (ie. "what communication will cause the outcome I want?").

There's a lot to say about what that difference is, but--just in terms of outcome--"empathizing" out of obligation almost never works. It's because that obligation is kind of lurking within our motivations and comes through in various ways that disrupt the process of actually, really, understanding what's going on with the other person. Plus it disrupts communicating that understanding in a way that comes through to them.

If there's unspoken blame and contempt in the interaction, it'll almost always come through and make the communication fraught.