You're viewing a single thread.
It's pretty simple actually, I'm not voting for him.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing." But hey, I'm sure those good men felt the same way you do.
That quote is such a funny thing. My mom once quoted it to me as a reason to support the Iraq War. I didn't even know how to respond to that because it was so completely backwards. The way I saw it, the invasion of Iraq was evil triumphing because good people did nothing to stop it.
That's how I feel about you saying it to me now. Evil is triumphing in Gaza precisely because people aren't willing to take a stand on it.
The Iraq war protests were huge. But the protests didnt matter.
I am doing something. I'm voting for the issues at my doorstep. I have a gay child, and a non-binary child. I have another that is autistic.
If Trump wins, there's a non-zero chance that my children will be in danger.
I'm also an advocate for the homeless (don't correct me. I used to be homeless, and we hate "unhoused"),.
I advocate for foster youth, a sector no politician cares about.
All you do is complain about one issue. There's scores of issues. Jill Stein isn't happening. Vote in reality, and for reproductive rights, non-cis rights, rights for the homeless, and for someone that will actually win.
I won't say a vote for Jill is a vote for Trump.
A vote for Jill is the same as not voting. I tell people that didn't vote "you don't vote, you don't have a right to bitch"
tell people that didn’t vote “you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to bitch”
I don't believe in rights at all but I'll say anything I like
I respect your decision. But I'm not going to do the same. If Palestinians can be sacrificed today, I can be sacrificed tomorrow. If a line cannot be drawn somewhere, then we will all be fucked, and this is where I have drawn mine.
That's your decision. In my opinion, it means your not voting. Your line helps nobody.
We will be stuck voting for the lesser evil until the end of time unless things change, and they cannot be changed if we don't try to change them.
I've explained myself in many different ways in this thread, but honestly, that's what it comes down to.
I don't live in a swing state regardless.
Ahhh yes, the oh so helpful stand of not voting for a party that could win.
Like, you do understand that Harris likely means fewer dead Palestinians than trump, yes? This isn't complicated.
Harris is vice president. There's a genocide ongoing under her and Biden's approval. End of the story. She has also repeatedly expressed her lack of will to change the current situation.
Ahhh yes, as VP she shouls strike out and create her own foreign policy while under another administration!
The irony is I don't imagine you understand how ridiculously silly that statement was.
Though I'm curious how helping trump will somehow help the Palestineans.
I understand your feelings, and sometimes I feel the same way. But what you didn't tell us is the steps you've taken to make life better for people in Palestine and neighboring countries who are dying now.
If you want to argue that Harris is the lesser of two evils and that you're also working to prevent her from being as evil as she has been in the past, you actually have to say that. Or don't say it, and we'll assume that you're doing nothing because you don't care, and the future is going to be just like the past, which is not acceptable.
I don't feel the need to get into a pissing contest over who is doing more. Nor do I think it's particularly helpful to demand everyone live like I do. That being said, if you are curious:
I have taken a 25 or 35% pay cut (40 if the last headhunter is to be believed) so I can work for a non profit and get underprivileged kids a post secondary education, haven't bought sweatshop clothes in a decade etc. I door knock for every election for the party furthest left that can win. I'm Canadian and relatively support my Leftist party's positions but generally write in where possible.
Were I American, I'd be door knocking, volunteering and everything else for every damned primary as that's how we move things.
I don't believe in the ideology of lesser evilism. The refusal to hold politicians to any sort of standard whatsoever is a part of why we're in this situation in the first place.
I don’t believe in the ideology of lesser evilism
That's a very easy view to hold when you aren't one of the Palestinians who will die because of people like you making the same choice.
Small comfort to the people whom you pretend to care about.
Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza believe in applying lesser-evilism to the US election? I think it's the opposite, it's a very easy view to hold when the people dying under the lesser evil are kept safely out of sight and out of mind. It's much harder to cradle a dead child in your arms and say, "Well, it could be worse."
I imagine they'd like fewer bombs as opposed to more bombs, yes.
The best would be zero bombs but nothing you are doing is getting them anywhere closer to that.
But you are, through your choice, helping there be more bombs and more dead.
Gazans do not support the people whose bombs are dropping on them right now, no.
I am not helping there be more bombs and more dead.
I enjoy your confidence to speak on behalf of Gazans, especially in a "more bombs on them is fine!" context.
If there are two options, one leading to fewer dead Palestineans and one leading to more, not helping get us to fewer is an immoral choice, which you are making. That's exactly what the evil prevailing quote is about.
I can't make this any more simple for you. You can choose to disregard the reality and consequences of your choices but you should at least have the decency to admit them.
No matter what you say, or how well you say it… they will either make up some bullshit reductive nonsense, or they’ll side-step the entire point as if you never made it.
They’re here in bad faith. They’re a troll. This is evident in their refusal to even acknowledge the facts being laid out before them.
When one refutes common sense, there’s no longer a reason to respect their point of view.
Just bag on them and move on.
Only if you ascribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, which is a ridiculous ideology.
Suppose someone has rounded up 10 people, and they say, "I'll kill all of these people, unless you kill one of them for me." Is it moral to do that? How about if you do it and he says, "You work for me now, go round up 10 more people for me so I can do this again, or else I'll kill 20." Still moral?
Sitting on your hands isn’t as effective as you think it is bud. Hate to break it to you.
But for funzies…. How about you go ahead and find a moment in history where doing nothing at all created the best outcome for anyone or anything.
EDIT: two days later and nothing as I expected.
Does everyone see how this person offers nothing but contrarian nonsense disguised as ethics lessons?
Please call them out and move on. Don’t waste time on this.
No one said you’re voting for him, but not voting against him is absolutely enabling him while simultaneously saying that you’re completely fine with either outcome.
Only in the sense that I am "enabling" every single event happening in the world right now.
Yeah. I’m not arguing with your sarcasm. Have a good day.
👍
If you had to vote for Trump or Kamala, which would you choose?
Don’t waste your time with this person. They’re only interested in giving smug ethics lessons that don’t even apply to the situation. Maybe it makes them feel superior to everyone? Who knows, but it’s a waste of time either way.
Trust me, I'm well aware of Objection.
I wouldn't. I'd stay home.
Not an option in this hypothetical.
Can you answer the simple question?
Why isn't it an option in this hypothetical? Is there a gun to my head?
I guess I'd either try to spoil my ballot, or just sit there with the pen in my hand until they either shoot me or leave me alone.
Again, the question is Kamala or Trump, no other options.
Can you answer this very simple question?
I just did. My answer is neither.
You'll have to elaborate on why that isn't an option in your hypothetical if you don't accept that.
Do you just not understand what a hypothetical is?
For those reading, the reason Objection won't answer this very simple question is because they're smart enough to know exactly where I'm going with it, and they know that it reveals their position as indefensible.
This is the Lemmy Lefty playbook to a T.
Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with. You don't accept that answer for some arbitrary reason, but you won't explain why it wouldn't be an option.
My position is perfectly defensible. This is like asking a vegan "Would you rather eat pork or beef?" and when they reject both options, you claim that it means their position is indefensible.
Let me make this simple for the people that might be swayed by your rhetoric.
When you throw away your vote, you will still be forced to have either Kamala or Trump as your president after the election. That's a simple fact.
But as a vegan, you will continue to have the option of not eating any meat.
Again, you're not stupid enough to actually try and make that comparison. I'm just appalled that you're so disingenuous that you'd do it anyways.
Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with.
No, you created your own hypothetical and answered based on that. My hypothetical has only 2 possible answers, and you refuse to answer it because you know it dismantles your stance.
The hypothetical you presented about asking a vegan if they'd eat pork or beef is perfectly valid by the way. If they answered "neither" they would also not be answering the question. But that wouldn't make veganism indefensible, don't put words in my mouth.
Both options are fundamentally unacceptable to me. There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.
If you're somehow compelling me to act against my will, then, I don't know, I might pick one randomly, or I might pick the one you don't like out of spite, or I might pick the one you do like out of the hope you'll be merciful to me in the future, since in this universe you can apparently control my body against my will.
I was going to have a witty exchange with you and have an example of what you're doing, but frankly I'm tired.
I'm tired of everything about you people.
So, I'm just going to block you.
Why do people feel the need to publicly announce blocks?
Block me as well. Don't forget to chant the blocking user hymn in a reply to me!
Bye, Felicia.
Apparently not voting for the Diet Fascist party means you automatically voted for the Fascist party. The mental gymnastics of these election meme spammers are wild to behold.
Remember, voting is not the same as support. But also, voting third party is supporting Trump.
Voting third party, or not voting, is choosing inaction. It's still a choice. The basic trolley problem of the trolley will kill 10 people if you don't pull the lever but 1 if you do is analogous to this. Choosing to not divert the trolley is still a choice. However, you're not culpable for the fact that people are tied to the rails in general. You're only accountable for the thing you had power over.
We don't have the ability to have a third candidate elected, or to change the candidates who are running. We can only elect one of the two. It's really very simple. It's the absolute basic thing you'll learn in probably the first day of an ethics course. If you can't understand the bare minimum, we'll I don't know what to say except that I'm sorry. It is pretty weird to argue you have the moral high ground and to struggle with basic ethics though.
Edit to add: There are also other actions you can take outside of voting to try to change opinion and create action that agrees with you. Do those. However, I promise one of the two candidates will never listen to you, and most likely will make it hard to impossible to take these other actions.
Ah yes, the first day in ethics they tell you how the Trolley Problem famously has one objective answer that everyone agrees with. You have clearly, definitely attended an ethics class.
Dunning-Kruger in full effect here.
The trolley problem famously has a near infinite number of variations to tease out people's ethical boundaries. The first basic one is the starting point. It's a point pretty much everyone agrees on. Theoretically you could disagree, but I've never seen it. Everyone almost always understands that more people dying is bad, and that pulling a lever is a minimal action that you should feel obligated to pull if it saves lives.
The variation where you push someone onto the tracks to stop the trolley? There are lots of disagreements about that, because you're actively killing someone to save lives. That's not so with the lever.
Edit to add: Yes, I have taken ethics courses. I had a professor who was in the CIA, which led to some interesting discussions of ethics, as I'm sure you can imagine.
It's not something "pretty much everyone agrees on." There's an entire branch of moral philosophy, deontology, that completely disagrees with pulling the lever in the original problem, but there's also plenty of other philosophies that could say the same, such as rule utilitarianism. Do not try to tell me I don't know basic ethics when you've never even heard of a major school of thought.
The entire purpose of the trolley problem is to highlight disagreements between different branches of moral philosophy, and to interrogate our moral intuitions. The fact that it seems better to pull the lever doesn't necessarily mean that it is better, especially when, as you mentioned, there are follow up to the thought experiment where the intuitive answer is the opposite.
No offense but an ethics professor who was in the CIA sounds like the setup to a bad joke, and I'd ask you to appreciate my restraint in not clowning on that. But if you were taught about the trolley problem in an ethics class, and the things I just said weren't mentioned, then you were taught poorly. The purpose of such a class is not to give you objective right-or-wrong answers, it's to inform you about a variety of perspectives and encourage you to identify and question your preconceived beliefs.
Do not try to tell me I don't know basic ethics when you've never even heard of a major school of thought.
OK buddy, I have. Thanks. So I'll continue.
The entire purpose of the trolley problem is to highlight disagreements between different branches of moral philosophy, and to interrogate our moral intuitions.
As I said. Right. We start with a basic problem and diverge from there to see where the point you decide to not divert the trolley appears. If you don't ever want to divert the trolley then there's no point.
No offense but an ethics professor who was in the CIA sounds like the setup to a bad joke, and I'd ask you to appreciate my restraint in not clowning on that.
Which is why I mentioned it... You're a strange one. It was interesting because he had knowledge of some pretty controversial ethical decisions that actually made for good lessons. Basically the trolley problem in real life, and where the actions were pretty fucked up.
But if you were taught about the trolley problem in an ethics class, and the things I just said weren't mentioned, then you were taught poorly.
I brought them up... What?
The purpose of such a class is not to give you objective right-or-wrong answers, it's to inform you about a variety of perspectives and encourage you to identify and question your preconceived beliefs.
Correct. However, we start from a position that we generally all agree on or we don't get anywhere. We can ignore the people who want people to die because they aren't really thinking about ethics, at least not in a sense almost anyone else would agree with. The basic trolley problem is the starting point because the vast majority of people will agree with pulling the lever because it's the only reasonable option.
If you don’t ever want to divert the trolley then there’s no point.
That is incredibly untrue. There's plenty of point to the problem highlighting differences between moral frameworks that tell you to pull the lever and those that don't. Again, you were taught about this incorrectly. Doubling down on "deontology doesn't exist" just makes you look even more ignorant.
Which is why I mentioned it… You’re a strange one. It was interesting because he had knowledge of some pretty controversial ethical decisions that actually made for good lessons. Basically the trolley problem in real life, and where the actions were pretty fucked up.
Are you trying to self-own? The CIA has done all sorts of obviously unethical stuff (often justifying it with the framework you just presented) and working for the CIA is inherently unethical. It's like saying you studied ethics under Sauron. It's no surprise that he would teach you all sorts of wrong ideas and bad ways of thinking about things.
I brought them up… What?
You brought up deontology, did you?
You got wrecked on your own ethics lessons! That had to hurt a bit!
Dude… your spend all day smearing the walls of lemmy with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric! How can you sit there all smug and sarcastically accuse others of attending an ethics class.
In five days, Everyone knows you are going to vanish from here. Frankly, I’m amazed anyone is taking you seriously at all.
I don't see how my internet addiction has anything to do with the fact that y'all possess complete ignorance of basic ethics while accusing everyone you disagree with of the same.
y'all possess complete ignorance of basic ethics while accusing everyone you disagree with of the same.
The irony in this statement is nothing short of heaven manifested through words! Thank you so much for having said it! It’s fucking beautiful!
You're welcome! Not sure what about it is ironic but I'm glad you enjoyed it so much!