I already shared that I was beaten up in school, by a group of seven, and later by two older african-American girls. I didn't even have any contact before the harassment started and no one cared then and it seems you don't care now.
But your entire post is a screech.
There are two ways of handling lack of empathy, your touchy feely, walk on eggshells and be really, really careful not to do something that is a micro-aggression that will trigger the hurt feelings of someone who has only one layer of really thin and sensitive skin and has to stay in the dark lest they get instantly sunburned. So you can't really say anything. They might be doing wrong things in their code or the workflow, but you have to spend 15 minutes calming and praising and awkwardly and indirectly suggest a better way of doing things lest they clutch their pearls and swoon onto the fainting couch.
The other way is to develop a thicker skin and let the insults, slights, annoyances, and even threats bounce off. That is what I had to learn and am better for it. Courage, fortitude, perseverance.
Do I have empathy? Yes, but it is for actual victims of real violence. Speakers are being shouted down. Right now in the EU there is too much empathy for Muslims when they actually are raping women (http://humanevents.com/2014/08/27/the-rotherham-horror/ - We can't hurt the feeling of Muslim men so we must cover up rape; then there's female genital mutilation, but we have to have empathy for those doing the mutilating).
It is a far greater defect today that someone can screech "Hurt Feelz" and cut off all debate and get someone who had no evil intent excommunicated (shirt-gate, Richard Dawkins and others v.s. Atheism Plus). I already mentioned Brendan Eich.
That is what is wrong with your post and entire line of thinking. Empathy can either conform with objective morality or reality, or contrary to it. Why do muslim rapists get empathy but there is none for their victims? Why do campus speakers of the alt-right get no empathy but those who interrupt and screech and even call in bomb threats do? Why does the fraternity who was the actual victim of vandalism in the "Rolling Stone Rape" article get no empathy yet the fraudulent "Jackie" must be empathized with?
The reason is because you and those like you are "Men without Chests" as CS Lewis used the term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5e6eSkaMc - Your post is "The Green Book", but one step worse. You are trying to program empathy in a very specific direction and with a very specific end while hiding your call in general "lets be more empathetic". It isn't really what you want. If it were so, you would show me MORE, not less empathy than others.
This is my point - you are calling for the case we all have an inordinate and even poisonous empathy and in the direction of a set of selected victim classes, not to have both ordinate empathy and sensitivity directed at proper things.
The worse vices are the excess or corruption of a virtue. That is how I see your post. As another hammer trying to drive another crack in the wall of Western Civilization so we can all be "nice" barbarians. But barbarians aren't nice and show no empathy. And I can simply point to what having "empathy" for refugees has wrought - Death. Even in San Bernadino, the deaths could have been averted if someone would have been willing to hurt the feelings of the terrorists by simply reporting the excess of guns and pipe-bombs. But maybe the "teach men not to rape" will work in Sweden and Germany.
If you are wondering why I bother to respond, I should note I consider you and many here a lost cause. You won't deal with reality and nature has no empathy nor forgiveness. And there are far worse people than me that lack empathy and are going to do a great deal of harm to many people. Chamberlain had empathy for the Nazis. But there are others who may be on the edge, thinking "If I'm just nice to a snake it won't bite me", or worse, "If I wish hard enough, the snake will turn into a cuddly rabbit". I am trying to help those reject your call for empathy regardless of the facts and situation, and rather have them form their passions so that they can be sensitive without experiencing pain, and be correctly empathetic to those who are really hurt by being real victims. I am arguing for men (and women) to keep or reinstall their chests, to have properly ordered passions so the emotion of pity will result in proper empathy instead of emotional blackmail. But equally that they should develop the courage and fortitude necessary to determine what is right and wrong, good and evil, and to eventually be able to fight real enemies instead of living in a pretend illusion.
Empathy is a female virtue, though men require it too. There are masculine virtues, and I advocate equally for them and one of them is true tolerance and thick skin - to not engage or complain or get upset over minutiae. It is a masculine virtue but women require it too. If you were to advocate for tolerance (not acceptance, but to say I disagree or am annoyed, but I will not try to change it), you would do better, but I've never seen it here. Yet if you could build more tolerance, your advocacy of empathy would then be proportional and meaningful.