I don't see a lack of compassion on either side. This speaks to the problem I often bring up in threads that tend to go off the rails:

State your goals first. Otherwise, nothing is clear.

If you state your goals first, one can assess whether your policies are likely to achieve the goal. This is a practical consideration.

But the goals, and the understanding of each other's goals, requires both empathy and compassion. It is highly unlikely there is a lack of either within the goal-setting habits of either side. Its compassion for whom that gets people's nickers in a twist: Vulnerable young British women, or illegal economic migrants? You can see how these phrase angry up the blood. But the goal can be compassion, or practicality, themselves, imo.

This says to me 'progressive' is not based on compassion, but liberality as a concept. "allow" is essentially the mode until one doesn't like something. That's another discussion.

It also seems that conservatives are either marginally, or largely depending on sex, more tolerate of opposing views than progressives. In the last 24 months, that seems obviously true. Perhaps even the last five years. BLM was certainly not, in any sense of the word, a compassionate movement.

Vulnerable young British women — AmadeusD

Was somebody trying to be compassionate toward vulnerable British women?

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? Whether they actually succeed in helping such people, it does seem that there is a sense in which the concept of compassion is especially operative within such ideologies.

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? — Leontiskos

That's a good question. Strictly speaking, Marx was an apocalyptic prophet, not advising about how things should be, but predicting what will be. The proletariat are weaponized against the bourgeoisie with little regard for whether they're actually capable of running the world.

Maybe Marxism could be valued by someone who has compassion, but is it really based on compassion?

at some point, I assume lol.

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? — Leontiskos

No. All you need do is read their texts to note the 'person' is not, at any point, the driving force behind policies. Its concepts. That is (somewhat uniquely) anti-human. It can be framed that way, but misleadingly.

I agree. True Marxism is about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that is, everything we've done up to now has served its purpose and we're on our way to a new world.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” — Revelations 21:4

Note "the new heaven and new earth" is a quote from Isaiah.

Maybe Marxism could be valued by someone who has compassion, but is it really based on compassion? — frank

Certainly not. An ideology that depicts a "class enemy", with Marxism the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, and preaches about a violent revolution to overthrow these, is certainly not compassionate. One has to understand that there's a huge void between the socialism that Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) and modern social-democracy talks about.

Anyway, I would pool together all ideologies that start from the reasoning that societal problems are being caused by a certain group of people, be they jews, muslims, the liberal-elites or capitalists, and then continue to argue on that the eradiction of these people is the answer to build a better world, to be extremely dangerous ideologies that just create more problems. They all should be resisted at all costs, be they from the left or from the right. One should judge individuals if the commit wrongdoing, but not accuse groups like ethnic minorities altogether. These ideologies and movements don't have any amount of compassion in them.