1151
Follow me for more deep political analysis
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
1151 points (90.9% liked)
Memes
51785 readers
1724 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It's nice to see that some people will morally compromise for "just a little genocide", either enacted or enabled (which is functionally the exact same). Must be so convenient and freeing to be so absent the weight of a conscience.
It must be so freeing to live a life so simple and ignorant that you think your little world can be zero harm and morally perfect while living a lifestyle that would be remotely sustainable for the world. The world is a big and scary place and a democracy is made up of a myriad of perspectives on the world. We all do the best we can with the choices we have. To pretend that we can accomplish anything by refusing to participate in an imperfect system is absurd fantasy.
By all means protest, organize etc toward noble goals. But don't act like "both candidates bad, myeh" is a real stance.
If both candidates support genocide then my moral line in the sand is crossed, no reasonable person who's against genocide can vote for either. But if genocide is on your list of ok things, then I'm sure it's a very complicated issue for you.
Don't worry, your mother and I will teach you about the basics about morality when you're an adult.
This is pretty fundamental trolley problem stuff. If one choice kills 10 million and the other choice kills 5 million but protects the other 5 million, you refusing to participate entirely isn't a noble stand, it's saying you don't give a shit about the other 5 million.
I care too much about these vulnerable people to help these other vulnerable people while not actually helping the other vulnerable people is just being an idiot.