I think some of these people have to be trolls. We’re basically in the trolley problem where the trolley is headed for 100,000 people, and if you pull the lever it will only kill 1. You can’t abstain from pulling the lever and act like you’re completely innocent of the deaths of the masses.
the trolley problem tests you ethical framework, it does not have a prescribed solution. your answer to it helps you understand your own approach. deontologists never pull the lever.
If your morality prioritizes staunch adherence to standards over harm reduction, you have a stupid sense of morality.
It’s the kind of morality where someone would rather let a child die than push them out of the way of a speeding car, simply because pushing them would harm them.
Your morality should lead you to making decisions that result in the least harm. Look at it this way: if all of the people who voted third party instead of Hillary because Hillary wasn’t [insert moral standard here] enough had sucked it up and voted for Hillary, access to abortion would still be legal nationwide. (This assumes enough people to get her elected voted third party over moral objections.)
Trump is the worst president in my life time, by a huge margin, and he’s even more in favor of genocide than Biden, demonstrably. So if your sense of morality causes you to help put him in charge of our country again, in my mind, you’re a fucking moron.
Rebellion? I don’t like hearing such a word from you," Ivan said with feeling. “One cannot live by rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me straight out, I call on you–answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears–would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth.”
“No, I would not agree,” Alyosha said softly.
“And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?”
"No, I cannot admit it.
Ok cool. Your choice is between genocide, and genocide but worse. You can proclaim how righteous and moral you are that all the pain everyone around you is feeling is not your fault, because you merely threw your vote away, but that won’t change the outcome, and it won’t make you anything but a moron.
“And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?”
I’m not talking about drug harm reduction. I’m talking about the reduction of harm. Put another way, aiming to reduce the amount of harm your actions lead to.
That’s a nice platitude, but there are only two outcomes, no matter how much you might wish there was a third. Your options are to help, abstain, or hurt. Abstaining means you’d rather not help, so again, in my mind, you’re a moron.
Third party candidates are only viable when one of the major parties collapses, and the major parties only collapse when they consistently lose. So, if you actually want a viable third party, you should vote for the major party you dislike the least. Otherwise, you’re just perpetuating both.
I’ve asked folks who aren’t voting for Biden what they think the odds of their vote reducing genocide in the real world is, and all I’ve gotten is crickets.
Given that there doesn’t seem to be much confidence there, the real world results are likely trump or biden.
Trump has folks in his party alluding to nukes when saying Palestine has to be ended quickly, even trump himself has stated that Israel has to end the war quickly. Therefore I suggest that Trump will result in far more lives lost than Biden.
Folks on Lemmy are typically left-leaning.
This means that a Lemmy user voting third party could’ve been a vote for Biden, which in a binary choice results in less lives lost. Yes, I know, Biden centrist, etc etc, but he’s to the left of the absolute insanity that is the republican party.
However instead some folks value a clean conscience over real world results, and vote third party/abstain. If these votes would’ve otherwise gone to Biden, then they have made a trump presidency more likely, which has the real world effect of resulting in more lives lost.
I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.
So, you’re okay with not having a clean conscience? Or, other voters should be okay with not having a clear conscience? If Biden winning is more important to you than having a clean conscience. Vote for him. But don’t pressure people that choose to have a clear conscience.
From my perspective, they are implying that your belief that voting third party or abstaining gives you a clear conscience makes you a self-centered, arrogant fool. Because the result of your action (or inaction) will increase the likelihood of the more bad thing happening.
To me, that’s not a clear conscience. That’s ignorance. That’s explicitly choosing to ignore the consequences of your (in)action. That’s short-sightedness to the degree that someone would expect of a preschooler. One with behavioral problems.
That’s a lot of words to say you are okay with genocide. I’m not gonna castigate voters for voting against a candidate that enables it. Maybe I’ll change my mind once I get to middle school. It depends on how long recess is.
Our choices this election are genocide with a side of an untoppped baked potato, or genocide with a side of radioactive flaming diarrhea.
There is no third option. The third option is that the waiter brings you one of the two and you have to accept it.
At least one way, we get a bland potato. It sucks, but that’s the way this restaurant is run. We can’t just get up and go to another restaurant. But, maybe if we can just find it to ignore the genocide (which, by the way, the chef is really limited in what they can do without the support of the rôtisseur, especially when he gets a couple line cooks to side with him), we might be able to have no genocide next time we come back. Otherwise, we’re all gonna get sick being close to all the radioactive diarrhea and the whole place is gonna get shut down.
You’re implying that asking people what they think the real world results of their choices are is being the thought police? That seems a little… diluted.
If you’re okay with people voting their conscience, then you can’t be upset when they do that. If you are upset when they don’t vote your way, that’s the policing of thought.
I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.
I’m not upset if they do, nor do I expect them to vote my way. I just want to encourage them to discuss the real world effects of their choice. I just want to make sure they’re internally consistent in their reasoning. For example, another commentor said they’ve voted for third party since 2008, and my response was for them to simply carry on doing so.
You can label discourse as “thought policing”, but then that casts an extremely wide net that cheapens the term as used by Orwell.
I should’ve been more explicit - what I posted is focused on folks who are single issue voting here.
EDIT: If Palestine is the only thing someone cares about, voting third party is likely actually hurting their cause. However you are choosing who to vote for based on many additional issues, which is why this doesn’t really apply to you.
Voting third party right now also just perpetuates both parties. There are enough people in this country to elect anyone from the major parties, so a third party can’t win unless one of those parties collapses. The only way a party collapses is when it consistently loses elections.
The republicans won’t consistently lose elections as long as progressives don’t vote for democrats, so both parties will continue on. The majority of the people in this country are left of center, so the only way republicans win is by suppressing votes, and one of the ways they do that is by propping up progressive third party candidates.
If we truly want a progressive party, making sure republicans never win elections is the way to do it. Then either the Democratic Party will shift left and republicans will regroup under a new less extreme conservative party, or the Democratic Party will shift right as it absorbs all the republicans and a new progressive left party will rise. Both ways result in a more progressive set of major parties.
You have an abysmally stupid sense of morality.
I think some of these people have to be trolls. We’re basically in the trolley problem where the trolley is headed for 100,000 people, and if you pull the lever it will only kill 1. You can’t abstain from pulling the lever and act like you’re completely innocent of the deaths of the masses.
the trolley problem tests you ethical framework, it does not have a prescribed solution. your answer to it helps you understand your own approach. deontologists never pull the lever.
That’s an awful lot of trolls.
If you truly oppose genocide. You should be plotting a coup against the US executive branch.
We don’t know they aren’t.
How is being against a genocide immoral?
If your morality prioritizes staunch adherence to standards over harm reduction, you have a stupid sense of morality.
It’s the kind of morality where someone would rather let a child die than push them out of the way of a speeding car, simply because pushing them would harm them.
Your morality should lead you to making decisions that result in the least harm. Look at it this way: if all of the people who voted third party instead of Hillary because Hillary wasn’t [insert moral standard here] enough had sucked it up and voted for Hillary, access to abortion would still be legal nationwide. (This assumes enough people to get her elected voted third party over moral objections.)
Trump is the worst president in my life time, by a huge margin, and he’s even more in favor of genocide than Biden, demonstrably. So if your sense of morality causes you to help put him in charge of our country again, in my mind, you’re a fucking moron.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky — The Brothers Karamazov
Ok cool. Your choice is between genocide, and genocide but worse. You can proclaim how righteous and moral you are that all the pain everyone around you is feeling is not your fault, because you merely threw your vote away, but that won’t change the outcome, and it won’t make you anything but a moron.
It’s my fault Biden won’t declare his intentions to stop the genocide. I’m to blame everybody. My vote has doomed us all. The horror.
Dostoevsky never met American liberals lol.
voting isn’t harm reduction
I’m not talking about drug harm reduction. I’m talking about the reduction of harm. Put another way, aiming to reduce the amount of harm your actions lead to.
well the good news is you can vote for anyone you actually want to take office, since only votes for bad people cause them to be elected.
That’s a nice platitude, but there are only two outcomes, no matter how much you might wish there was a third. Your options are to help, abstain, or hurt. Abstaining means you’d rather not help, so again, in my mind, you’re a moron.
Third party candidates are only viable when one of the major parties collapses, and the major parties only collapse when they consistently lose. So, if you actually want a viable third party, you should vote for the major party you dislike the least. Otherwise, you’re just perpetuating both.
voting for biden helps corporations and the war machine. it doesn’t help stop fascism.
Trump is literally a fascist. A vote for Biden is a vote against fascism. You’ve got to be a troll.
no, it’s a fact
i don’t need to choose either of them. neither is acceptable.
I’ve asked folks who aren’t voting for Biden what they think the odds of their vote reducing genocide in the real world is, and all I’ve gotten is crickets.
Given that there doesn’t seem to be much confidence there, the real world results are likely trump or biden.
Trump has folks in his party alluding to nukes when saying Palestine has to be ended quickly, even trump himself has stated that Israel has to end the war quickly. Therefore I suggest that Trump will result in far more lives lost than Biden.
Folks on Lemmy are typically left-leaning.
This means that a Lemmy user voting third party could’ve been a vote for Biden, which in a binary choice results in less lives lost. Yes, I know, Biden centrist, etc etc, but he’s to the left of the absolute insanity that is the republican party.
However instead some folks value a clean conscience over real world results, and vote third party/abstain. If these votes would’ve otherwise gone to Biden, then they have made a trump presidency more likely, which has the real world effect of resulting in more lives lost.
I’m fine with people voting with their conscience, but I just want folks to acknowledge whether or not their vote makes a trump presidency (therefore more genocide) more likely. Most people just seem to think “I’m not voting for genocide so my hands are clean and I’m good!” and stick their head in the sand.
So, you’re okay with not having a clean conscience? Or, other voters should be okay with not having a clear conscience? If Biden winning is more important to you than having a clean conscience. Vote for him. But don’t pressure people that choose to have a clear conscience.
Unless thought police is on your bucket list.
From my perspective, they are implying that your belief that voting third party or abstaining gives you a clear conscience makes you a self-centered, arrogant fool. Because the result of your action (or inaction) will increase the likelihood of the more bad thing happening.
To me, that’s not a clear conscience. That’s ignorance. That’s explicitly choosing to ignore the consequences of your (in)action. That’s short-sightedness to the degree that someone would expect of a preschooler. One with behavioral problems.
That’s a lot of words to say you are okay with genocide. I’m not gonna castigate voters for voting against a candidate that enables it. Maybe I’ll change my mind once I get to middle school. It depends on how long recess is.
I did not say I’m okay with genocide.
Our choices this election are genocide with a side of an untoppped baked potato, or genocide with a side of radioactive flaming diarrhea.
There is no third option. The third option is that the waiter brings you one of the two and you have to accept it.
At least one way, we get a bland potato. It sucks, but that’s the way this restaurant is run. We can’t just get up and go to another restaurant. But, maybe if we can just find it to ignore the genocide (which, by the way, the chef is really limited in what they can do without the support of the rôtisseur, especially when he gets a couple line cooks to side with him), we might be able to have no genocide next time we come back. Otherwise, we’re all gonna get sick being close to all the radioactive diarrhea and the whole place is gonna get shut down.
I only eat happy meals.
You’re implying that asking people what they think the real world results of their choices are is being the thought police? That seems a little… diluted.
Then you shouldn’t care how people vote.
I’m not getting how you got to that conclusion, can you flesh it out a little more?
If you’re okay with people voting their conscience, then you can’t be upset when they do that. If you are upset when they don’t vote your way, that’s the policing of thought.
I’m not upset if they do, nor do I expect them to vote my way. I just want to encourage them to discuss the real world effects of their choice. I just want to make sure they’re internally consistent in their reasoning. For example, another commentor said they’ve voted for third party since 2008, and my response was for them to simply carry on doing so.
You can label discourse as “thought policing”, but then that casts an extremely wide net that cheapens the term as used by Orwell.
if he wanted to earn it
What’d he have to do to earn it? It’s hard to think about Lemmy users as a whole, what about you in particular?
adopt cornel west’s platform. or claudia de la cruz’. or jill stein’s.
Ah, it sounds like you’d typically vote third party to begin with.
If that’s the case, then your vote was never going to go to Biden to begin with, so all of the above doesn’t really apply.
i haven’t voted for a democrat for president since 2008, but it’s not as though they don’t know how to earn it. they don’t want it.
And that is fair.
I should’ve been more explicit - what I posted is focused on folks who are single issue voting here.
EDIT: If Palestine is the only thing someone cares about, voting third party is likely actually hurting their cause. However you are choosing who to vote for based on many additional issues, which is why this doesn’t really apply to you.
Voting third party right now also just perpetuates both parties. There are enough people in this country to elect anyone from the major parties, so a third party can’t win unless one of those parties collapses. The only way a party collapses is when it consistently loses elections.
The republicans won’t consistently lose elections as long as progressives don’t vote for democrats, so both parties will continue on. The majority of the people in this country are left of center, so the only way republicans win is by suppressing votes, and one of the ways they do that is by propping up progressive third party candidates.
If we truly want a progressive party, making sure republicans never win elections is the way to do it. Then either the Democratic Party will shift left and republicans will regroup under a new less extreme conservative party, or the Democratic Party will shift right as it absorbs all the republicans and a new progressive left party will rise. Both ways result in a more progressive set of major parties.