Ok with genocide. Otherwise relatively progressive. Has passed major important legislation.
Ok with genocide. Wants to be a dictator. Appointed half of the Supreme Court majority that took away women’s right to abortion. Will probably strip more rights if elected. Cut taxes on the wealthy and will probably do it again.
You can throw away your vote, but come inauguration, you will have a president who is ok with genocide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So… What do you think are the odds that your third party vote improves the situation in Palestine?
If your third party vote makes it more likely that Trump wins and results in more bloodshed, that is a choice you contributed to, and blood is still on your hands.
But then if Trump wins because you didn’t vote for either, then you’re ok with Genocide+ rather than Genocide light. Meaning you have to vote for the lesser of the two evils if no matter what you do the majority are voting for the only two who are likely to win.
You’re either incredibly stupid, a troll, or are being obstinate on purpose.
Small problem. A person who is against genocide would not be okay with a genocide under Trump either, so why should they be okay with a genocide under Biden?
The outcome of the election is going to be Trump or Biden. NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO WIN.
So given that you have to choose the person less likely to escalate the situation, the saner one of the two.
I’m not saying it’s good I think it’s fucking abhorrent, but there is no choice.
To be abundantly clear about my stance on Palestine. I am out every weekend protesting in solidarity with Palestine. I am spreading awareness of the issue wherever I can and I am taking direct action against the companies that support the genocide.
Let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen if you don’t vote?
If a genocide is going to occur regardless of the vote, then the vote doesn’t matter.
Let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen if you don’t vote?
In regards to what? The genocide? Project 2025? Healthcare?
If people want to vote for Joe Biden to preserve LGBT and minority rights, that’s their choice. If someone wants to not vote for Biden because he is aiding in a genocide, that’s their choice.
It’s egotistical to think that my priorities are more important than others.
Dude people ain’t voting for Biden for any reason. They’re voting against the lunatic that tried to incite an insurrection. The dude that has the mentality of a child.
That’s it. Trump is a sociopath and people don’t want him in charge of nuclear weapons.
As to the rest of your comment. Yes you can do what you want but alls people are saying is Trump would far worse in every regard and not voting against him is basically saying your cool with that.
Does that make sense? I don’t mean that in a condescending way, I’m really wanting to know if you understand my point of view and the consensus of this thread. And the majority of people.
If you’re not voting Biden who are you voting for?
Genocide light? Seriously?!? If the other guy is stupid, you are stupid+
There is no democracy if you are supporting genocide. There is no election worth voting on if the outcome is same fucking fascist, just with different colored flags. And don’t give me the lie how you’re gonna do something about a ‘genocide light’ if your guy is elected. Fuck off
This whole country needs to stop sucking Kissinger’s dick and change this bloodthirsty, greedy fascist system.
Ask the people in Gaza what they think about “Roe got overturned”.
After all said and nothing done, we are paying for those bullets that murder their children by accepting and even promoting a system that gives us braindead mouthpieces for weapon manufacturers to vote for.
The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grounds that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the United States against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the United States, the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the “Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.” isreview
virtue-signalling
: the act or practice of conspicuously displaying one’s awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action
This is a make-or-break moment – we must pressure the Democrats to change their position on Gaza before the elections in November. While we should all be doing absolutely everything we can to stop the genocide, the bare minimum right now is demanding that a presidential hopeful, in need of our votes, commits to ending US funds to Israel. It is not that complicated. source
A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Cool, I’ll give you a pass on the genocide, but you will still be as responsible as anyone who voted for Trump for all the other terrible things he said he will do that you are doing nothing to prevent.
Sure, but if you can and don’t vote for Biden it means you’re at least ok with Trump.
No, it means I’m not ok with genocide but you are.
You have two options:
You can throw away your vote, but come inauguration, you will have a president who is ok with genocide.
But I will not have voted for one of them. But you will have and the blood will be on your hands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
If you truly oppose genocide. You should be plotting a coup against the US executive branch.
We don’t know they aren’t.
So… What do you think are the odds that your third party vote improves the situation in Palestine?
If your third party vote makes it more likely that Trump wins and results in more bloodshed, that is a choice you contributed to, and blood is still on your hands.
But then if Trump wins because you didn’t vote for either, then you’re ok with Genocide+ rather than Genocide light. Meaning you have to vote for the lesser of the two evils if no matter what you do the majority are voting for the only two who are likely to win.
You’re either incredibly stupid, a troll, or are being obstinate on purpose.
Small problem. A person who is against genocide would not be okay with a genocide under Trump either, so why should they be okay with a genocide under Biden?
Did you even read anything I wrote.
The outcome of the election is going to be Trump or Biden. NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO WIN.
So given that you have to choose the person less likely to escalate the situation, the saner one of the two.
I’m not saying it’s good I think it’s fucking abhorrent, but there is no choice.
To be abundantly clear about my stance on Palestine. I am out every weekend protesting in solidarity with Palestine. I am spreading awareness of the issue wherever I can and I am taking direct action against the companies that support the genocide.
Let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen if you don’t vote?
If a genocide is going to occur regardless of the vote, then the vote doesn’t matter.
In regards to what? The genocide? Project 2025? Healthcare?
If people want to vote for Joe Biden to preserve LGBT and minority rights, that’s their choice. If someone wants to not vote for Biden because he is aiding in a genocide, that’s their choice.
It’s egotistical to think that my priorities are more important than others.
Do you think that more people in Palestine will suffer if trump is elected?
Dude people ain’t voting for Biden for any reason. They’re voting against the lunatic that tried to incite an insurrection. The dude that has the mentality of a child.
That’s it. Trump is a sociopath and people don’t want him in charge of nuclear weapons.
As to the rest of your comment. Yes you can do what you want but alls people are saying is Trump would far worse in every regard and not voting against him is basically saying your cool with that.
Does that make sense? I don’t mean that in a condescending way, I’m really wanting to know if you understand my point of view and the consensus of this thread. And the majority of people.
If you’re not voting Biden who are you voting for?
Genocide light? Seriously?!? If the other guy is stupid, you are stupid+
There is no democracy if you are supporting genocide. There is no election worth voting on if the outcome is same fucking fascist, just with different colored flags. And don’t give me the lie how you’re gonna do something about a ‘genocide light’ if your guy is elected. Fuck off
This whole country needs to stop sucking Kissinger’s dick and change this bloodthirsty, greedy fascist system.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Or republican politicans calling to end Palestine “as if” we nuked it.
Ask the people in Gaza what they think about “Roe got overturned”.
After all said and nothing done, we are paying for those bullets that murder their children by accepting and even promoting a system that gives us braindead mouthpieces for weapon manufacturers to vote for.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
If you don’t vote against fascism, you allowed fascism.
Not voting is a vote for Trump.
That’s not logical. So, if my choices are pizza or nuggies, and I choose neither. Then I chose nuggies? Make it make sense.
I may be intermittent fasting to lose weight, or rejecting imperialist capitalism.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Seems like more from the other Groups should have voted with C, or C shouldn’t have been given the option to find a better source for food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Cool, I’ll give you a pass on the genocide, but you will still be as responsible as anyone who voted for Trump for all the other terrible things he said he will do that you are doing nothing to prevent.
If you’re not ok with genocide you should vote against Donald “just nuke them” Trump.
I am going to. Who said I’m not?
Voting for anyone but Biden is the same as voting for Trump.