1196
submitted 4 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like a hell of a system.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

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 🤷‍♂️

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

You're saying killing innocent people is wrong?

I agree! We should stop doing that.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago

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).

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Wait, so who's arguing on feelings instead of the issues and results, again? 🤔

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago

Well, you've done your part then. Pat yourself on the back, and go back to pretending Harris is a caring and competent leader.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 weeks ago

decide that your feelings matter more than the results 🤷‍♂️

My moral standards do matter more than the human world, yes.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.'

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago

I would rather not see innocent people die.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

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?

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago

And you actually believe that not participating pushes towards that goal?

Not participating in a system which murders the innocent is, indeed, the moral choice.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Prevent fewer deaths or witness more deaths. Not participating is a choice but still a choice at the end of the day with blood still on your hands. So get the fuck off your high horse.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Not participating is a choice

Yes, I agree, not participating in killing innocent people is a choice. It's also the only choice.

The interactions I've had with people labelling themselves as 'progressive' have tended towards being negative. What do you want to progress towards? A world built on sacrificing innocent people, I imagine?

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I want fewer people to die, but people like you believe that your feelings matter more than their lives. Of course your interactions with people like me have been negative: you're fighting for death through inaction.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago

but people like you believe that your feelings matter more than their lives

I believe the lives of the people being killed matter.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

So you're ensuring that it happens faster? Weird flex, but OK.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago

So you’re ensuring that it happens faster?

How so?

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Not participating is still contributing to the genocide, champ. Hence still having blood on your hands.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago

No wonder everyone loves far-leftists.

Everyone loves civilians in the Middle East too, so much they send them explosive gifts.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1196 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers
1906 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS