Aug 28, Year 1 of Publication
My dear fellows, it is hard to overstate the strength of Boomer and Buster sympathy for others. Even some of the Younx share the trait, and it led them to do some of the most antisocial things they ever did, both monumental and trivial.
"Suicidal empathy" is the term psychonomers use to describe the phenomenon where an action that seems kind on the surface does more harm than the corresponding selfish option.
I've spoken with many Busters, and while these examples may seem far-fetched today, they assure me these were common in the Teens and Twenties.
Examples include waiting for someone to exit a parking lot when the traffic light in front of you has turned green already five cars ahead of you; sending someone in prison money to make their stay easier; letting someone merge too far back from the constriction; handing someone money at an intersection; insisting that the other person go through the door first; paying someone's water bill when they spent all their money on drugs; and agreeing with someone's statement publicly, even though you know it's inaccurate.
These have varying degrees of detriment, but each of them was stupidity hiding in the garb of helpfulness, each of them was detrimental despite an intention of generosity, and most of them have been significantly diminished, thanks to the efforts of the rational sovereignists and--to a lesser extent--the PCs.
We'll leave aside for the moment the value of adjusting your compassion with pragmatism and adding compassion to your practicality, instead focusing on the great value of the concept of individual sovereignty, sovereign rationality, and unfettered intelligence.
The rational sovereignists largely wanted simply to be left alone. It was the pressure from an ever-growing list of interest groups to conform to their view of social behavior that ultimately led them to take the stand they did. A good example of the Increment Corollary to the Streisand Effect. They codified their stand in the form of their maxim, verbalized in various forms but essentially saying: "You're welcome to want and seek whatever, as long as you're willing to earn it." In other words, you don't get to outsource your dream or demand that others build it for you.
They took it further. One of the core tenets of rational sovereignism was that any demand of belief or thought was a violation of the person's sovereignty. So another of their sayings was, "You can believe anything as long as you respect my right to differ."
This disgust for being dictated to was also a major factor in their political activities. Both of the major parties in the Twenties had vocal proponents demanding people agree with them on everything or be hounded with derogatory comments about their beliefs. The Swingers said, "I won't vote for either of you!" And in answer to cries of spoiling by third party candidates, they made a brilliant reply: "We will find a fourth."
Something unthinkable only twenty years before was the norm within two election cycles: a party becoming viable in elections. An entire generation refusing to vote for a major party catapulted two new parties into prominence. They were the Modern Repeal Party and the Liberty Alliance Party.
With four parties in play, nobody could afford to play the lesser of two evils-- they had to focus on articulation of the benefits their policies would have to everyone-- and when the Swingers swept the senate, election reforms that would have made this sea change possible as a gradual tide were sent to the president, ensuring that the four-party system would continue to this day.
Other societal changes followed this pushback against suicidal empathy. One of the points of the rational sovereignists was responsibility. Violating someone's rational sovereignty was, in essence, asking them to cede their responsibility in order to accede to your wishes or beliefs. They watched for opportunities to discourage the abandonment of responsibilities. Not taking care of your family, so others have to? Maybe we don't want to hire you or give you a promotion, since your responsibilities get neglected. Nobody said it outright very much, but it became a strong trend. Not fulfilling your promises? Anyone in hearing who knows that could contradict your statement.
The whole generation took interest in responsibility. Older generations hadn't fulfilled it, they saw how they suffered, so they took it up as a mantle they could wear to feel more grown up, and more grown up than those who were older than themselves.
They demanded officials take up the mantle, too, and where they couldn't find a champion, they became one.
And they did it largely because a lot of people before them thought they could substitute actions that felt generous for actions that fulfilled a promised role. Some people will never understand: satisfaction comes from doing something important, not from pretending to do something generous.