Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
From my perspective, I am the one that cares about results more than feelings, and “blue no matter who” voters are the opposite. The results of democrat leadership have been a horror show of ghoulish support for genocide. The current administrations policies have directly resulted in tens of thousands of deaths (at least) in Gaza. I see a lot of democrats expressing feelings about how Biden and Kamala are actually good people, and are working hard towards a ceasefire. Let me know when to expect another result.
Trump has to say things that differentiate him from democrats. He wants to look ‘tougher’. This is a fucked up result of democrats moving right on things like this and “border security”. Democrat leadership is already doing everything it can to support Israel. Can you think of anything more they could do, that Trump would say “good job, no notes”? Trump talks a lot of shit, but he hasn’t said he would send US troops (Biden already has, BTW).
Trump is an infamous liar. You feel like he would be worse for Palestinians, because you feel like Trump is bad (he is) and that Biden/Harris/Walz are good (they aren’t). The results from the dem leadership have been total support for genocide that is still ongoing.
To be clear, I voted Harris because of the many groups of people being threatened, here, not just one. Palestinians are at risk. Ukrainians are at risk. Immigrants are at risk. Minorities are at risk. Women are at risk. The entire LGBTQIA+ community is at risk.
No, you feeling better about your vote isn’t worth more than all of their lives.
I’m looking at results: full throated political, and unlimited material support for genocide. Currently. Ongoing. You have a feeling that Trump will be worse ‘somehow’. There is no result to indicate this. Only the campaign bluster of a famous liar.
Your moral standards matter more than the lives of people
My moral standards are that peoples’ lives are important, so killing them is wrong. That’s why I don’t accept that there is a good reason to bomb civilians.
My moral standards are not that you can say “well, killing people is wrong, but I prefer these people, so I will sacrifice others”. If killing people is wrong, you do not accept sacrifice.
And my level of understanding of reality is that the trolley problem is a thought experiment which does not exist, and it’s not a zero sum either/or game where the safety of people in America is only ensured by sacrificing people in the Middle East.
Source: medium
In 1976, Judith J. Thomson expanded the problem into the classic version that most of us know today.
Would you push a fat man off a bridge to stop a runaway trolley from killing 5 workers on the tracks?
This version is not just about switching tracks, but brings the moral issue much closer to home by saying if you want to save 5 people, you yourself have to push someone off a bridge.
To make matters worse, these are also the only two choices that you have. There is nothing else you can do; there is no escaping the problem.
[…]
Like many philosophy instructors, I have given this thought experiment to my students many times. In my philosophy classes, Students of all levels and ages are repulsed by the experiment. They think that it is stupid that there are only two choices and that there is nothing else they can do.
[…]
But something I have never seen given much consideration is the initial response that my students and so many others have to the problem.
[…]
Our intuition is that if we are in a lose-lose moral situation where the right moral action does not feel satisfactory, then someone else made a bad moral decision already; leaving us holding the bag.
You are free to dislike me because I don’t rationalise myself into supporting something I, in the same sentence, say I do not agree with.
I am a very straightforward person, being autistic. If it is wrong to kill innocent people, it is wrong to kill innocent people. No amount of rationalising that can change that obvious fact.
You are a slave to a practical human world wherein, to be good, some humans must die. ‘Le shrug, oh well, it is the price of being practical.’
Yes, the system sucks, and we should do what we can to fix it.
What is also important is Order of Operations. It will be much harder (if not impossible) to effect any positive change on the systems that be if the orange orangutan wins the election, while those changes will be at least possible under the leadership of the blue candidate.
I like to think that people who are not able to figure this out are victims of republican/russian propaganda. To think otherwise would be both depressing and enraging and I have too much of my own shit going on to deal with any of that.
I don’t think you can end up anywhere good by bargaining with genocide. “Sucks” doesn’t even come close to describing such a system. The order of operations you’re talking about sounds to me like: 1- elect the more decorous monster 2- go back to ignoring all the suffering. I’ll definitely agree that it’s depressing, but it doesn’t require any foreign propaganda to be that.
So you admit that the options are literally “get worse slowly” or “burn it all,” and you would rather see everyone suffer? Cool. No wonder everyone loves far-leftists.
And you actually believe that not participating pushes towards that goal? Or can we live in reality and admit that it just makes you feel better while having the opposite effect?
Sure, but one side seems to be advocating for more of the same shittiness we’ve had for decades, and the other side for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. It’s not like the choices are equal.
At what point during that poem would you consider a genocide underway? Would it be when they started murdering all of the communists? Or maybe after they eliminated all of the trade unionists?
Let’s extend that poem to include all of the categories of people that the Nazis killed:
They started with trans people, was it a genocide yet? How about after they started including homosexuals?
Maybe it becomes a genocide when they go after the mentally and physically disabled?
Or does it only become a genocide when they go after the Jews?
Obviously, the answer is all of the fucking above.
Guess what: Genocide very much can and does get worse. Much much worse. This concept that it is all or nothing is completely ahistorical and illogical.
The genocide will continue no matter who wins. The argument is dumb.
Sounds like a hell of a system.
Campaign locally to change the system - we need more places to use preferential voting like ranked choice before third parties will matter.
Until that happens, you can either work within the system that does exist or decide that your feelings matter more than the results 🤷♂️
From my perspective, I am the one that cares about results more than feelings, and “blue no matter who” voters are the opposite. The results of democrat leadership have been a horror show of ghoulish support for genocide. The current administrations policies have directly resulted in tens of thousands of deaths (at least) in Gaza. I see a lot of democrats expressing feelings about how Biden and Kamala are actually good people, and are working hard towards a ceasefire. Let me know when to expect another result.
That’s easy - when Trump is elected and he fully opens our arsenal and actually provides troops instead of maintaining current levels of support.
He has explicitly said that we aren’t doing enough and that Israel isn’t doing enoughevery single time he has spoken on the topic. Believe him.
You’re saying killing innocent people is wrong?
I agree! We should stop doing that.
Trump has to say things that differentiate him from democrats. He wants to look ‘tougher’. This is a fucked up result of democrats moving right on things like this and “border security”. Democrat leadership is already doing everything it can to support Israel. Can you think of anything more they could do, that Trump would say “good job, no notes”? Trump talks a lot of shit, but he hasn’t said he would send US troops (Biden already has, BTW).
Wait, so who’s arguing on feelings instead of the issues and results, again? 🤔
You.
Trump is an infamous liar. You feel like he would be worse for Palestinians, because you feel like Trump is bad (he is) and that Biden/Harris/Walz are good (they aren’t). The results from the dem leadership have been total support for genocide that is still ongoing.
To be clear, I voted Harris because of the many groups of people being threatened, here, not just one. Palestinians are at risk. Ukrainians are at risk. Immigrants are at risk. Minorities are at risk. Women are at risk. The entire LGBTQIA+ community is at risk.
No, you feeling better about your vote isn’t worth more than all of their lives.
I’m looking at results: full throated political, and unlimited material support for genocide. Currently. Ongoing. You have a feeling that Trump will be worse ‘somehow’. There is no result to indicate this. Only the campaign bluster of a famous liar.
My moral standards do matter more than the human world, yes.
Your moral standards matter more than the lives of people actually affected by the results. Yes, we all know how selfish you are, don’t worry.
My moral standards are that peoples’ lives are important, so killing them is wrong. That’s why I don’t accept that there is a good reason to bomb civilians.
My moral standards are not that you can say “well, killing people is wrong, but I prefer these people, so I will sacrifice others”. If killing people is wrong, you do not accept sacrifice.
And my level of understanding of reality is that the trolley problem is a thought experiment which does not exist, and it’s not a zero sum either/or game where the safety of people in America is only ensured by sacrificing people in the Middle East.
Source: medium
You are free to dislike me because I don’t rationalise myself into supporting something I, in the same sentence, say I do not agree with.
I am a very straightforward person, being autistic. If it is wrong to kill innocent people, it is wrong to kill innocent people. No amount of rationalising that can change that obvious fact.
You are a slave to a practical human world wherein, to be good, some humans must die. ‘Le shrug, oh well, it is the price of being practical.’
Yes, the system sucks, and we should do what we can to fix it.
What is also important is Order of Operations. It will be much harder (if not impossible) to effect any positive change on the systems that be if the orange orangutan wins the election, while those changes will be at least possible under the leadership of the blue candidate.
I like to think that people who are not able to figure this out are victims of republican/russian propaganda. To think otherwise would be both depressing and enraging and I have too much of my own shit going on to deal with any of that.
I don’t think you can end up anywhere good by bargaining with genocide. “Sucks” doesn’t even come close to describing such a system. The order of operations you’re talking about sounds to me like: 1- elect the more decorous monster 2- go back to ignoring all the suffering. I’ll definitely agree that it’s depressing, but it doesn’t require any foreign propaganda to be that.
Thank you for saying this. If we keep choosing the ‘lesser of two evils’, we just keep allowing things to get worse, albeit more slowly.
So you admit that the options are literally “get worse slowly” or “burn it all,” and you would rather see everyone suffer? Cool. No wonder everyone loves far-leftists.
I would rather not see innocent people die.
And you actually believe that not participating pushes towards that goal? Or can we live in reality and admit that it just makes you feel better while having the opposite effect?
Not participating in a system which murders the innocent is, indeed, the moral choice.
Everyone loves civilians in the Middle East too, so much they send them explosive gifts.
Sure, but one side seems to be advocating for more of the same shittiness we’ve had for decades, and the other side for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. It’s not like the choices are equal.
I’ve got a question for you… I’m sure you are familiar with the famous, “First They Came” sermon/poem/whatever by Martin Niemöller? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
At what point during that poem would you consider a genocide underway? Would it be when they started murdering all of the communists? Or maybe after they eliminated all of the trade unionists?
Let’s extend that poem to include all of the categories of people that the Nazis killed:
They started with trans people, was it a genocide yet? How about after they started including homosexuals?
Maybe it becomes a genocide when they go after the mentally and physically disabled?
Or does it only become a genocide when they go after the Jews?
Obviously, the answer is all of the fucking above.
Guess what: Genocide very much can and does get worse. Much much worse. This concept that it is all or nothing is completely ahistorical and illogical.
Sounds like you agree it’s bad enough now to want to stop it.
Bad enough to do what is in my power to reduce it. Which means voting for Harris.