This shit is getting annoying because it’s such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the trolley problem tries to tell you. You cannot use the trolley problem to prove that utilitarianism is better. The entire point is to show the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. It’s just tiring to watch.
Good meme that angered everyone.
Let me fix that for you.
TLDR If you care about the Palestinians then vote for Harris because her being president is useful for reaching a ceasefire.
The other post about this topic got locked as I was typing a reply. I feel like my comment is relevant to this discussion so I would like to leave it here. I would think this reply, the original comment, and this post are tightly related and are all about the same thing.
One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.
There is utilitarianism the ethical philosophy and there is utility. Utilitarianism is still a form a moral reasoning as it subjectively elevates the maximization of happiness and well-being. And what constitutes happiness and well-being is not universal. Utility is a method of analysis used to determine how effectively a stated action advances a stated goal. Utility relies on empirical evidence, observation and math, and is goal agnostic.
For many people on Lemmy, their goals are probably roughly summarized by wanting to end Israel’s genocide, Palestinian statehood, and general prosperity for the Palestinian people. Harris has stated multiple times that she wants a ceasefire. Trump has stated he thinks Israel needs to be allowed to finish what they started. Trump has also stated he’s going to be a dictator on day one and that his followers are never going to have to vote again.
Moral reasoning that is consistent with our goals paralyzes us in this case. Voting for a candidate whose administration oversaw and contributed to a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Voting for a candidate who is threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Not voting or voting third party when the candidate threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is favored by the electoral college in a FPTP system is subjectively immoral. We can subjectively state one of these options to be the lesser evil, but we have no empirical way to measure evil. Thus in theory, there is no way to form a consensus with subjective moral reasoning alone.
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire is a useful step to actually getting a ceasefire. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete it’s genocide and end our democracy. This would allow Israel to continue it’s genocide indefinitely without US citizens ever being able to influence US foreign policy again.
Everyone is prone to moral reasoning. It’s intuitive and philosophers have been doing it since ancient times. In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people. But any given moral reasoning derived from our goal doesn’t necessarily lead us to a course of action that can help them. With a clear goal in mind, utility provides a clear-cut and consistent answer in the form of voting for Harris. edit: typo
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
That’s not even an argument against Harris per say. But this insistence in a double-super secret pro-Palestinian insider movement insider her staff is delusional. Harris has been outspoken in her defense of “Israel’s right to defend itself” time and time and time again. She’s backed every effort to send more weapons of war to Netanyahu. She’s defended the UN ambassador’s decision to vote against sanctions for Israel or an end to hostilities or a future legitimized Palestinian state. She’s directly fundraising from AIPAC. At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people.
There is a relatively broad national consensus. But we are devoid of a political class reflective of those views. Hell, two of the most outspoken pro-Palestinian advocates in the US House - Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush - got kicked out of their seats in primaries fueled by AIPAC lobbyists. Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib nearly lost their jobs in the same manner.
The internal institutions of the Democratic Party are openly in favor of the genocide of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and of the people of Lebanon, and of Iran. If this shit keeps up, we could see the war spread to Jordan and Syria and Iraq as well. Certainly, there’s no love lost by Americans for two of those states.
The political consensus is in favor of more killing, an escalation of the scope of the war, and free rein for the Israeli leadership in its mission to subjugate the surrounding territories. With continued US support, its very possible that the Israelis will get exactly what they desire, and we’ll be looking at a permanent occupation and continuous holocaust of native peoples on a scale not seen since the genocide of First Nations people in the US.
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
Here’s a user’s comment that listed three sources:
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
If you’re sitting on the October Surprise please share it. All the evidence we have suggests that Harris wants a ceasefire. While Trump wants a christo-fascist dictatorship and is content to watch Israel complete its genocide. The candidates have distinct positions despite your argument’s attempt to conflate the two.
Problem is that public statements are one thing, actions are another. And politicians are known to make great many statements they then contradict by their actions.
What actions would you have a vice president take? What exactly do you think she has the power to do right now?
- She could have publicly renounced the Israeli government instead of defending it.
- She could have voted against and started voting initiatives to stop weapon sales and military aid.
- She could have went to court to sue the government if Biden was reluctant. The arms sales are illegal by US law, as Israel is known to attack US and international humanotaroan aid
- She could have made a point of opposing Netanyahu when he was in congress instead of just not being there.
- She could have threatened to step down as VP and followed through with it, once she became candidate.
- She could have let Palestinian Americans speak at the DNC convention instead of silencing them, while giving Families of Israeli hostages a place to speak. This was the bare minimum to do, unless clearly picking the side of Zionism.
Then the party establishment had two options:
- Either they would have fallen in line, winning the election and accepting that genocide is a no go for Harris.
- Or they could have tried to oust her, knowing that it would cost them the election, or create so much push back that she remains as candidate and gets to toss them out.
From just your second line I can see that you have no idea what powers the vice president has.
Where and when was she supposed to vote against or for those things?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
Senate presidency
When Harris took office the 117th Congress’s Senate was divided 50–50 between Republicans and Democrats;[193] this meant that she was often called upon to exercise her power to cast tie-breaking votes as president of the Senate. Harris cast her first two tie-breaking votes on February 5. In February and March, Harris’s tie-breaking votes were required to pass the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 stimulus package Biden proposed, since no Senate Republicans voted for it.[194][195] On July 20, Harris broke Mike Pence’s record for tie-breaking votes in the first year of a vice presidency[196] when she cast the seventh tie-breaking vote in her first six months.[197] She cast 13 tie-breaking votes during her first year in office, the most tie-breaking votes in a single year in U.S. history, surpassing John Adams, who cast 12 in 1790.[197][198] On December 5, 2023, Harris broke the record for the most tie-breaking votes cast by a vice president, casting her 32nd vote, exceeding John C. Calhoun, who cast 31 votes during his nearly eight years in office.[199][200] On November 19, 2021, Harris served as acting president from 10:10 to 11:35 am EST while Biden underwent a colonoscopy.[201] She was the first woman, and the third person overall, to assume the powers and duties of the presidency as acting president of the United States.[202][203][204]
As early as December 2021, Harris was identified as playing a pivotal role in the Biden administration owing to her tie-breaking vote in the evenly divided Senate as well as her being the presumed front-runner in 2024 if Biden did not seek reelection.[205]
So from my understanding she gets the final vote on split issues. She could have leveraged her political power to push these issues to get to vote.
There you go bringing facts and rationality into a bOTh sIDes debate. Bold move.
Hey look more “fact and rationality”:
But sure, she’s “calling for a ceasefire”. Are you really that guillible or just bad faithed?
I wonder what you would see in your search results if you searched for Harris call for ceasefire.
Less than 87 billion words.
Very much so. Most of the links in mine were about Kamala Harris calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Hey you want some facts and rationality?
Harris should be in jail.
ROFL! Harris should be in jail?
For what exactly? I’d LOVE to see this. Please. If you would, explain in detail.
So, tell everyone that you don’t know what the VP does without saying it.
Did you mean to respond to someone else with this?
Sooo… Harris is president? I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
Please explain how the Vice President is to blame for this.
So she called for a ceasefire back in March? and then in July? And then in September?
That doesn’t sounds very effective does it?
Keep moving those goalposts. Btw, I hope this is literally your job because wow. 4 hour old account, and since jumping on this morning, you have been EVERYWHERE.
At the moment: 40 comments in 4 hours. All about one thing. Nice.
He just does this until an account gets banned. All his usernames are some form of “fuckamericans”. Edgy 12 year old.
At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
I just wanna take this a step further and say it’s actually less rational.
What Trump is talking about is stopping aid to Ukraine, something which he had previously supported and delivered on.
What Harris isn’t talking about is stopping aid to the people killing Palestinians, a position that she has never supported.
Of course I’m not actually saying Trump is actually pro-Ukraine. But if I had to choose one, I’d have an easier time defending that claim than the idea that Kamala is pro-Palestine because at least I’d have something material to work with.
Why would you do this, yet completely ignore what Trump will do in Palestine and what Harris will do in Ukraine? Why is one only important for the one candidate, and the other for the other?
Trump will stop aid to Ukraine, and, as he has already said, will give Netanyahu carte blanche to eliminate the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Harris will continue to aid Ukraine, and has not taken a clear position on Israel/Palestine (because, if she did, she would 100% lose this election), but at the very least, has called for a cease-fire.
Get out of here with this dishonest bullshit.
Nothing I said was remotely dishonest.
Why would you do this, yet completely ignore what Trump will do in Palestine and what Harris will do in Ukraine?
Because that’s not relevant to the specific point being discussed. The comparison was Harris on Palestine vs Trump on Israel. Y’all might expect people to constantly pay homage to your candidate to signal that we’re on your side or whatever, even when it’s not relevant, but I have no interest in doing so.
Why is one only important for the one candidate, and the other for the other?
I’m not voting for either or telling anyone to vote for either so this is nonsense. Trump is obviously not a good candidate and you shouldn’t vote for him.
Harris will continue to aid Ukraine, and has not taken a clear position on Israel/Palestine
Absolutely false. Harris has been completely clear that she agrees with Biden’s policy of unconditional military aid to Israel.
Add disabled people to this list, homeless people, just so many of us who would suffer under a facist.
homeless people need a flag
Pretty sure they need houses
But for comical effect I found this https://www.walmart.com/ip/Homelessness-Awareness-Month-USA-Flag-T-Shirt/5628172427
Walmart selling that is just rich
Actually, they need a home. Common misconception. Flags are indeed not homes.
In the early days of the IWW, many of the Wobblies were hobos. So maybe you could say that the IWW cat is a homeless icon.
My favorite one is missing! Political Dissidents AND party members deemed a nuisance!
There isn’t enough space in the frame for the flags that represent all of the people who get stomped on by fascism.
This is more direct, but I always saw the original thought experiment as a way to explore that very concept - is inaction a “choice”? IMO, the only rational answer is Yes.
Even without the third rail, “no choice” is very clearly a choice. People just selfishly want to believe they don’t share responsibility if they just let things happen “naturally”, as of their inaction means they aren’t involved. But they are. We all are. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
There are over 200 million voters.
A thought experiment about an individual choice is not even close to applicable to the choice facing a single voter since in that thought experiment not-choosing is the same as making the default choice whilst in a vote not-chosing is leaving the choice to all other voters.
The use of this though experiment as a metaphor for the choice facing individual American voters is downright deceitful and propagandistic, self-servingly so since it’s being used to try and boost the chances of one side.
As Jeff Bridges said in the newer TRON movie
It’s CLU’s game now, the only way to win is not to play
But he was wrong, as his inaction would have caused him to lose
Yeah, that’s why there’s all the variations of pushing an extremely large person in front of the train to stop it, and things like that. The lever, obviously it’s a choice that you should make. The person, it’s still a choice, but at what point is it not an issue you should try to handle.
Voting is a lever. There’s other actions that are more akin to pushing someone onto the tracks.
People just selfishly want to believe they don’t share responsibility if they just let things happen “naturally”
Elections are a weak tool for individuals to shape policy at the national level. Observing that your Congresscritters are blind and deaf to your solicitations, that gerrymandering and voter caging renders your vote almost meaningless, and that policy - particularly foreign policy - seems to be shaped by DC mega-donors and lobbyists and think tanks more than any recently elected officials doesn’t make you selfish. That’s absurd.
And when you look at the miserable job guys like Eric Adams or Henry Cuellar or Richie Torres or Joe Manchin have done during their time in office, you begin to question the wisdom of this “Vote Blue No Matter Who” shit.
Ð original was actually intended as a joke to mock ð schools of þought represented by boþ options presented.
Basically saying ðat boþ lead to horrifying outcomes when unchecked by oðer ways of þinking.
This cursed text is like writing in oWo speak. You sound just as dumb as them.
Removed by mod
Those of us who don’t vote know this. We’re counting on it.
The machine is going to keep on killing people overseas and persecuting minorities. But the system is based on consent. If Harris wins she will claim that the voters have endorsed her and all her policies, even if we held our nose and voted for in spite of those policies. Same with Trump, who tried to take away his supporters’ healthcare and was surprised that there was a backlash since his campaign was claiming the people had spoken and he had a mandate.
A big enough group of third party and non voters shows the flaw of these parties. If they want me to support them, then work with me, pander to me dammit. Expecting my vote when you promise absolutely nothing for my community is a common Democratic trait; look at how little some Democratic politicians did for the black community and their retort was “where else are you gonna go?” They’re doing it again for black Americans and Muslim Americans. Harris won’t even be seen with those voters but she found time to hug Liz Cheney and invite her into the big tent. Harris says Black Lives Matter, she says Trans lives matter, she says Israeli lives matter, she won’t say that Arab lives matter equal to Israeli ones. Why shouldn’t I vote for Stein, who DOES say this? Harris made a choice to back every one of Biden’s failed policies and made a calculated decision that she can win the election without me. Hillary thought the same, and hoped that by throwing Muslim-Americans under the bus she could maybe get a few republicans to change to her side. It failed, and it will fail again.
Edit: ah yes, downvote me all you want but I’ve been speaking to voters in swing states and you’re only lying to yourself if you can’t address this issue for them. Harris can’t even bring herself to say the most basic talking points in support of Palestinian rights. Just say you plan to make a committee to look into how to build a future Palestinian state or that looking back it was wrong for Biden to deny the Palestinian death count, and that would address a lot of concerns, but it’s like she’s intentionally making it harder for Arabs and Muslims to vote for her.
No politician is going to bend their policies for the population that doesn’t vote.
For so long, boomers had the majority of sway with politicians because they had the highest percentage of voter participation.
But we DO vote. American Muslims actually have been a reliable Democratic voting bloc since 2004 and since we are a more educated and more wealthy community than the average American we also have been reliable democratic donors. Why the party under Biden has gone out of its way to avoid us is just horrifying.
Probably because ð actual reason you broke rank is because you want to exclude queer folks.
You þink we don’t see your guy endorsing Trump is ð same one who went around his city taking down rainbow flags and cancelling pride marches?
Ð ummah always saw Palestine as a pawn to anchor ðeir antisemitism wið, and now ðey’re using us again to anchor ðeir queer-phobia.
Nonsense. The majority of American Muslims support LGBT. So does every elected Muslim in Congress. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s one national government, Micheal! What could it cost to derail, 10 lives?
There’s always rubles in the borscht stand.
“Elon Musk isn’t just some no good immigrant, he’s my no good immigrant”
it is a good thing there is no option for political violence on this helpful chart about the distribution of political violence
you wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong ideas about the direction political violence has to flow
Edit: I don’t give a shit how many down votes I get. I’m correct! Vote blue! And show Palestinian, Arab, and all marginalized demographics you/we are not going to abandon them for self preservation. Show more empathy via doing everything within your capacity to help those around you. There are marginalized people around you. Do more. Be better. We all will be put in the tracks as the individual and we all hope others won’t boil down your life to a binary train track meme.
I’m going to be 100% with yall that comment and post this shit.
Before I go on, let me say I voted dem and know they would be better for the world over Trump.
But is that’s the standard and argument you expect people to vote for, you are in for a rude awakening… To anyone reading this or agreeing with these outright insulting comments and posts about how you know better need to take a long look in the mirror. Because…
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
Yes vote dem. But get off your ass and protest, donate, and support those communities currently harmed be democrats disastrous Gaza and Middle East policy. That’s how you sway hearts and minds. These fucking backhanded, self serving, ignorant posts and comments won’t stop anything but prove to those communities that the democrats base does not give a shit about anything that doesn’t directly effect themselves.
Yall are missing the forest from the trees. Not voting for the light genicidal party nor the full genicidal party isn’t some gotcha win for Trump. It’s a failure on our part to demand our party doesn’t continue using our votes to do harm.
call your senators daily and demand they publicly denounce Israel and the IDF. Donate money to organizations that are saving lives destroyed by our bombs. March with your fellow Palestinian and Arab brothers and sisters. Divest and boycott any business with ties to Isreal and the IDF.
We should be on the tracks trying to destroy them not worrying about who we are sending the train towards. We’re better than this. This is just conservative tactics used on a population that we need to vote blue! We are better than this! show some empathy and get involved. I have Palestinian friends and they would spit in your face if you said this kind of shit to their face because it’s removing the humanity of the 40k people killed by Isreal via bombs provided by Biden/Harris. If you/we don’t care why should they?
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
Jesus fucking Christ man, is it really so ridiculous to believe that a week before the election the current concern is voting Dem considering that is the upcoming issue with a hard and irreversible cutoff?
Many of us are involved in politics outside of voting. I write my congresscritters regularly, usually on matters of foreign affairs, for all the good it does. I donate when I can.
But right now a considerable number of people are banging the “DON’T VOTE BOTH SIDES THE SAME” drum when there is a very good chance of a literal fucking fascist being elected, the issue of “These votes are NOT fucking equivalent” is pretty fucking important to bring attention to, and bringing it to attention with asspats and “I understand if you don’t want to stop any further genocides happening, but…” is the kind of feckless, useless civility politics bullshite I’m constantly criticizing the Dems for, so you can be sure as shit I’m not cutting anyone else slack for that approach.
Ya exactly. Where the fuck have yall been? I’m not trying to be pedantic or insulting but we that actually cares have been fighting for a long time to actually help! And yes they’re are things outside of our control but we should never fucking stop trying to stop the train. You (those that haven’t done anything to in your personal life to oppose fucking genicide outside of commenting and posting) are the reason why Palestinian and Arab Americans will stay home on election day. We need their vote! So get involved! Regardless of how the election ends we need to come together as a unified community and not individuals that act as if the Palestinians are already dead regardless of our collective actions! I’m guessing there are enough more marginalized demographics between you (not you specifically) and the next set of binary track decisions. If they (the rich and powerful) can do it to the Palestinian people they’ll do it to you. And when they do come for you I pray others don’t wait until a week before elections when they start posting train track memes as that’s a point that should be made.
Get involved. Show communities that are currently on the chopping block you’ll never stop trying to save their lives regardless as how close the train is. Get involved! Voting is the absolute least you can do, but you can do more! This post and comment won’t sway a fucking election but us unifying and help those in need as much as possible will!
I’m done. Yall be acting like I’m the one being crazy when I’m saying no one has to be on the tracks of more keyboard warriors actually did something for others. Get involved!
END
For sure. We should do better so we’re not in this predicament.
But unfortunately, we are, and there are people on the tracks. Right now. And we have a decision to make (and “not playing” is one of those choices, and it doesn’t absolve you of blame).
Many of us are involved in politics outside of voting. I write my congresscritters regularly, usually on matters of foreign affairs, for all the good it does. I donate when I can.
I hate to be a bad news bear, but calling and writing congress does effectively nothing. When it comes to actual policy (and not empty lip service), politicians only serve donors and lobbyists.
If we want real change then we will need to replace our broken and corrupt two party system with a modern multiparty democracy
I hate to be a bad news bear, but calling and writing congress does effectively nothing.
Bullshit. They keep tallies of what their constituents have called in for and it does work when enough people pester long enough.
I’m voting Democrat to preserve some semblance of democracy in this country, but I have to say I’m quite disappointed in my congress critters. My senator in particular. I’ve emailed her frequently, including links to articles detailing the crimes against humanity committed by the IDF, and all I get is a form letter response about how “Israel’s right to defend itself is so important” and “October 7th was terrible” and maybe a line about how horrible it is that Palestinians are suffering written in a way that either only blames Hamas or uses the most passive voice I have ever seen in writing.
Exactly. And that does not mean our job is done. Please keep writing and advocating. If more people do this we can save lives. Not only if those that we can see. It’s about fighting for the best of humanity opposed to the race to the bottom. Vote blue, get involved, fuck the IDF, divest and boycott.
When I have more time during my winter break, I’m going to mail a handwritten letter with some articles printed out, and follow up with a phone call. I’ll read the damn article to her if I have to.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin?
Nah. Amy Klobuchar. I’m a Minnesotan.
Damn, that makes two of 'em, then.
Almost all of them. It’s nauseating.
call your senators daily and demand they publicly denounce Israel and the IDF
Honestly, do YOU do that? Daily?
What has been your success rate in getting your senator on the line?
You must be on a first name basis by now.Uhhhhhh what? Are you being purposely dumb? Of course when I say call your senators, I’m not saying get them on the actual fucking line! Call his office/voice mail and make the comment… And don’t just comment one thing comment about all the communities currently being tied up on the tracks. And if you don’t want to do that have you donated to charities helping in marginalized communities local or abroad? How about volunteering? How about protesting? Whatever is in your capacity you should be doing it!
Of course when I say A I mean B
Getting real tired of this Trump-supporter-like line of reasoning
Are you genuinely unaware that the process of calling your reps doesn’t go directly to them?
If you’ve always thought people ment literally call your senators personal lines when they say, “call your senators” you probably are a moron. It’s that better? No one ever has ment it in the literal sense.
Maybe they haven’t and are just pointing it out. Few do, and that’s the problem. It’s not democracy, it’s representative democracy, but it only works like a democracy would if people hold their reps accountable.
So no, the ones suggesting to hold their reps to the fire, now and after the election, probably haven’t themselves. But they aren’t wrong, and it shouldn’t be thrown back in their face but instead embraced as a good idea to start now.
Otherwise nothing changes, because other factors already contact our reps daily and influence them, that’s why they vote the way they do.
A problem is that even if you do, you’re just talking to some part-time intern they hired to not have to listen to you.
For a single voter call, that’s true. That’s why it needs to be in mass numbers, and constant. Make them concerned that if they don’t show some change, people will start showing up physically. With pitchforks.
And if they don’t still, then go get some pitchforks.
Agreed but the chance those tracks will be destroyed before the election is slim.
I applaud your call to activism but in reality much less people will ever commit to fighting for their ideals that way.
Many more people will however are willing to give a token to a “right cause”
Voting D is that token. It doesn’t fix shit, especially considering the genocide but it will be a slower decline of human rights then the alternative.
More time to do activism.
There are many others, also on lemmy that are not calling for activism but for a token of not voting. I think the meme is a representation of that particular logic.
Everything you said is correct. I just don’t want to see all the surprised Pikachu when their inaction and self-righteousness results in a Trump victory. They’ll cry, “why didn’t the Palestinian and Arab Americans show up for the democrats?!”
The train hasn’t hit yet there are still millions of lives we can save by doing more than just voting. If we’re not willing to do everything to save them, why should they do anything to save us? I don’t care how close the train is. I’ll be trying to destroy the tracks until it hits me and the persons tied to the tracks. That’s my point.
These memes boil an unbelievably complex issue to a binary outcome. Marginalized communities are going to be there regardless of the outcome of the elections. Don’t wait until the train is about to hit you or something you care about before you decide to start dismantling the tracks. Then see how you feel when someone presumes your inevitable cleansing. I honestly feel like I’m living in Bizarro world or something. Like is what I’m saying beyond our capacity? We are doomed if we won’t all step on the tracks to stop the trains.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091 https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-made-weapons-used-by-government-of-israel-in-violation-of-international-law-and-u-s-law/
why didn’t the democrats show up for the Palestinian?
These memes boil an unbelievably complex issue to a binary outcome.
Yes. There will be a binary outcome very very soon.
Trump will win our Harris will win.
Trump will try to make worse things happen. Kamala will try to make better things happen.
It’s simple. It’s binary. Trump or Harris. There is no third possibility. There are no shades of grey.
Removed by mod
THANK YOU!
Our community is suffering, and the only solution people are offering are to yell at us and shame us for not finding this situation unlivable. “Your community will keep dying in either administration but could you vote for the pro-trans politician while you’re suffering?”
Mehdi Hasan was the only person who was able to reach out and connect to those voters with his recent video, and he did so with sympathy and understanding. He convinced me to vote and did so without bullying or calling me names.
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
I would flip this back on those who suddenly, despite decades of oppression, really care about Palestinians… Show me one thing that any of those people have done the further that goal.
As someone that supported BDS years before oct 7, I don’t think it’s fair to fault someone for learning new politics. Especially considering how these events demonstrate the utter failure of our media to cover this topic with even an ounce of non-partisanship.
Removed by mod
This picture misses that the choice also kills the switcher.
I saw this exact one with someone on the bottom that said “I refuse to participate in a broken system” on r/PeterExplainsTheJoke and NOBODY understood it.
Removed by mod
“Rehashing a discussion from a locked post?” Seriously?? Then remove OP’s whole post! @[email protected] I want an explanation.
I locked the post due to a ton of reports on comments. That’s not happened here.
Was my comment one that attracted reports? If so, why didn’t you give an actual reason for removing it? If not, then what’s the problem with continuing a part of the conversation that wasn’t part of the reason the other thread got locked? This is ridiculous.
How is it fair to keep up OP when it’s clearly a continuation of the previous post, but then remove my comment for the same reason?
I’m on Mobile right now. I restored the comment, as it broke no rules.
Thank you.
Sorry to bother again, but it still shows removed on my end from .ml, but shows up if I go to .world, do you know if there’s a way to fix that?
Sadly, just time. Federation isn’t always instant
keep voting, keep paying, this time will be different
Removed by mod
Good luck dismantling the system with Hitler+ in power. You’d have an easier time dismantling it while ‘regular’ Hitler is in power.
Hey look, a reason to vote.
Removed by mod
Am I allowed to call someone a fascist on here if they say, “Vote for Hitler?”
"In this example, your options are:
A. Voting for Hitler. (Hitler wins)
B. Voting for Super Hitler. (Super Hitler wins)
C. Voting 3rd party (Super Hitler wins)
D. Not voting (Super Hitler wins)"
Me: Ok, those options suck, but ‘A’ I guess?
“OMG, wow, advocating voting for Hitler? Literal fascist.”
I can’t believe I have to say this, but “being literally Hitler” should be automatically disqualifying. You should not, under literally any circumstances, support Hitler.
This should not be controversial.
It isn’t controversial, but voting isn’t the same as supporting.
Nowhere in this scenario between Hitler and Super Hitler would I support Hitler, but I would still vote for Hitler out of the two because it would lead to best results out of the possible outcomes at that time.
Your pearl-clutching is saying you’re equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler, which is objectively worse.
Why are you voting at all? Haven’t you figured out yet that elections are a circus designed to make you think you have a choice? How have billions of people been convinced that playing by rules established by ‘them’ is going to work to benefit justice? Who counts the votes? The very same people you might be voting against command the ones counting the vote. If the electorate is not separate from and superior to the political power, then an election is a farce no matter who votes, and no matter who wins.
All the candidates are Adolf. All the candidates are always Adolf. Adolf Senior, Adolf Junior, Adolf Lite, Fuzzy Adolf, Slimy Adolf, Orange Adolf, Busty Adolf, Regal Adolf, Caesar Adolf, Genghis Adolf, Pope Adolf, King Adolf, Queen Adolf, etc., yada, yada, yada …
These days it seems that Godwin’s Law has been heavy-dosing steroids and meth. Adolf died 70 years ago and went to seed. Now we have 100 thousand Adolfos all in cahoots.
Voting from the pool of candidates chosen, groomed, and funded by the real rulers, is literally slaves voting for the less evil of pre-approved masters.
VOTE HARDER.
voting isn’t the same as supporting.
Yes it is, and it’s insanity or butchering of the English language to suggest otherwise.
Your pearl-clutching is saying you’re equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler
I am equally fine with Hitler and Super-Hitler, which is to say, not fine at all with either of them. They are both fundamentally unacceptable and I would never vote for or support either of them. I am as opposed to both of them as it is possible to be opposed to.
which is objectively worse.
You either have no understanding of what the word “objectively” means or no understanding of philosophy or politics.
“Objectively” in that in the same situation (i.e. being the deciding vote between Hitler and Super Hitler) you would decide to not vote, allowing Super Hitler to win and I would Vote to have Hitler win.
Super Hitler is objectively worse than Hitler because one is made up and the other is dead, so what are you really arguing with me for?
Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.
Well, we demanded to do other things than voting to push the Dems to end their support for genocide. And got heavily attacked for it, daring to dirty the nest. We got insulted as being Trump supporters in disguise.
The idea that a serious threat to Dems voting turnout if they continue genocide would force them to change their stance before the election, was immediately met with hostility and gaslighting at worst and “lets wait until after the election” at best. Well waiting until after the election didnt work the past 25 or so years. Not with Clinton, Obama, Clinton or Biden.
We’re not talking about a threat to Democrats, we’re talking about a threat to democracy. Go back in history, and look at Germany between the mid 1920s to the 1940s. Puritanical votes in the face of authoritarianism didn’t empower people to combat genocide, it decimated their ability to do something about it. RFK, Jr., the environmental advocate was so firm in his beliefs that he went groveling to the guy that pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords, doesn’t believe in Climate Change, and just generally doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything unless it benefits him. RFK Jr. wasn’t a serious candidate. Stein? The woman shows up every four years, and didn’t even know how many members of Congress there are — and she’s the one that should be trusted to know the policy and diplomatic complexities to bring peace to an ideological, geo-political battle spanning millennia? Are those the “other things” you demanded? In order to accomplish things in the real world, it takes consensus and working together in order to achieve results without dictatorial power. A vote for Harris isn’t a vote for genocide or a perfect world, it’s a vote for moving forward — or if you want to be super cynical about it, a choice for one of the two candidates that can win who is the least likely candidate to exacerbate tensions and cause the spilling of more innocent blood.
If you can’t understand that, then it just means I can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. There isn’t a third option out there that is coming to save us — it’s up to us to save us, even if we have to do it piece-by-piece because there is no magic snapping of the fingers that is going to fix this.
Removed by mod
Everybody knows this. We’re just asking people to make the best choice given the circumstance. A protest vote against Harris isn’t going to teach them anything, a loss isn’t going to teach them anything. We’ll be left with a situation worse than we are in now.
Removed by mod
They just can’t get this. Even Ross Perot, who had 18% of the vote- far better than any third party candidate since- didn’t change things.
He didn’t, Nader didn’t, Jill Stein didn’t, none of the others did either.
But this time… THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!
But this time… THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!
In 90+% of elections people follow your advice and vote along party lines. And they say the same thing then, too.
So your criticism is the same shopworn logic I’ve heard for five decades. Nothing ever changes, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the wars continue, and you just keep thinking your can, ‘vote your way out’.
VOTE HARDER! Then maybe things will change.
In 90+% of elections people follow your advice and vote along party lines. And they say the same thing then, too.
And yet people like you keep saying this time, it will work.
What do they call it when you repeat the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
And yet people like you keep saying this time, it will work.
It is actually you that is saying this. That is the very thing I was criticizing. You seem confused and contradictory.
Your team is not the good guys. There are no good guys. There are the masters and the slaves; the rulers and the ruled. And as long as you keep believing in their game and their rules it will always be so.
“People like you …?” Are you literally illiterate? You read what I wrote, then accused me of saying exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Read my post again. Realize that you are completely delusional and caught up in the usual election cycle hysteria. I’ve witnessed this same shitshow for nearly half a century. Nothing ever changes, except the rubes and con men want to keep the slaves invested in the fantasy that participating more fully and robustly in their slavery will liberate them. It is you who is demanding to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. You are projecting your election cycle hysteria on to me.
Just VOTE HARDER. Maybe then things will change.
What team is my team?
What am I delusional about?
I’m looking forward to learning more about Flying Squid from an expert.
Nader and Stein certainly changed things. They made them worse.
Ross Perot also changed things, but arguably for the better.
All by fucking with the election and getting the person on the opposite side of the aisle elected.
Because that’s how the spoiler effect works.
[Resolved] Third parties splitting the vote
“Working as intended.”
Not really. When the Constitution was adopted, there weren’t political parties at all, no one knew what the spoiler effect was. The smartest among them might have had an idea that there had to be a better way, but no one knew what it was.
And remember that as bigoted and racist as the founding fathers were, some even considered such for their time, they were extremely egalitarian towards each other. Most of them truly believed in a nation run by free (white) men. A nation of the people (white men).
A few actually voiced displeasure when candidates won with less than half of the vote, and talked about it with their French counterparts. A man named Condorcet actually came up with a few alternative methods of voting, hoping one of them would allow the best candidate to win, now known as the Condorcet winner.
The Condorcet winner is the candidate who could win in a 1v1 race against every other candidate.
Condorcet had a lot to say about elections and such because he was tasked with writing the French constitution. But then a rival power block gained control of the developing government, and they introduced a new constitution that they had written in secret, then ratified it and had Condorcet thrown in prison, where he died two days later.
Anyway, election science has come a long way since then, and the I’d like to think that at least some of the (white) men who first wrote the American constitution would have advocated for a better voting system had one been available. But not the Montagnards. Fuck them for killing someone as cool as Condorcet.
A quote;
‘The rights of men stem exclusively from the fact that they are sentient beings, capable of acquiring moral ideas and of reasoning upon them. Since women have the same qualities, they necessarily also have the same rights. Either no member of the human race has any true rights, or else they all have the same ones; and anyone who votes against the rights of another, whatever his religion, colour or sex, automatically forfeits his own.’
Well you should do that pissing match during the candidate selection then. Don’t drag it out to after the choices are set.
Removed by mod
Why was the choice set since like a year already? And we met the same hostility and “reasons” 9 months ago. Truth is not enough people care enough to push for change. They just wanted to feel that their lot is not threatened, solidarity be damned. Well this does not work, as history has infamously shown time and time again. Unless people band together they’ll be picked off one by one.
The only time I saw resistance was when people were pitching about Joe or harris without saying, hey vote for candidate x y or z in the primary they are better than Joe or Harris.
If all you do is say so, and so is ship I’m not voting for them, then your just being a nuisance.
And when the context is Trump or Harris being elected, saying “I’m not voting for Harris” means by default you are supporting Trump.
And when the context is Trump or Harris being elected, saying “I’m not voting for Harris” means by default you are supporting Trump.
So if i am saying “I’m not voting for Trump” then what happens? By this logic even if i vote the same third party candidate or not at all, i would be supporting Harris.
The only way this “default” works is if people are expected to vote Democrats. And if that is the default expectation it means they can do whatever they want, with no accountability. Instead of politicians having to win your vote with good politics, the blame gets shifted to the voter for not being loyal to the party. That is gaslighting. And when having these discussions it seems a lot of people were gaslit quite successfully by the party elites.
Well what exactly are you doing to dismantle the system? Posting on Lemmy? How’s that working out? Not great?
Now get off your lazy, entitled, privileged ass and vote against Hitler+.
Removed by mod
So you’re someone who pays attention… Then why don’t you seem to understand how the system works?
We’re one week from the election and we have two choices. Harris and Trump.
Trump is anti-union, anti-democracy, and pro-genocide.
Harris is pro-union, pro-democracy, and anti-genocide (but currently constrained by the law).
That’s the two choices. No other choice is valid because the winner will be one of the two.
Vote third party and you have a Jill Stein or Ralph Nader situation where Trump wins.
Don’t vote? Well, that too leads to Trump.
Removed by mod
What?
What you typed makes no sense. Are you projecting? It seems like you’re projecting, but I can’t be sure because, again, what you wrote doesn’t actually make sense.
I don’t remember Hitler lite defending sexual assault victims. Or fighting for justice
By your logic, you’re more genocidal because at least she’s publicly asking for a ceasefire. You’re just ignoring those requests and shouting over her
Imagine fighting for people’s rights your entire life only to have nut jobs pretend like you’re killing children.
How many people have you helped?
For this to be correct the"moral high" track should go to before the junction since it’s literally a choice of leaving the decision to others.
In this specific case were what’s portrayed is the lever in the hands of each individual person amongst over 200 millions voters (rather than, say, the choice in the hands of people like Biden, who pretty much has an individual Genocide/No-Genocide choice), it’s not Logical to portray the choice of sticking with one’s moral principles as a choice for either side since there are still millions of other people needed for the choice to be made - in fact it’s downright deceitful and self-serving propaganda to misportray what’s literally a “I refrain from chosing hence leave the choice to the rest” as a being the same as a choice for one of the options.
The whole use of this format were an individual is represented as being alone in making a choice when the actual situation is “one vote amongst hundreds of millions” is downright deceitful and self-serving propaganda.
And the Gold Medal for Mental Gymnastics goes to…
… whomever keeps misportraying a person casting a single vote amongst 200 million as them individually making the final decision.
The essence of the trolley problem is to ask whether choosing not to exercise the agency that you have is a moral choice. The fact that you may not have complete control over the outcome doesn’t make the analogy bad in and of itself.
Suppose everyone else except you had already voted and exit polls suggested Trump had won by one vote. Would you vote, then? I don’t care what your answer is would be; that is between you and your own conscience. But, is the situation really so different from the real world situation where for all you know your vote might actually count?
You can disagree that the trolley problem comparison is apt, but I think calling it “deceitful and self-serving” is a stretch.
FWIW I am from the UK and I don’t care whether you vote or not.
In your specially crafted scenario it is indeed applicable.
However that’s not at all how it’s being used here. Here it’s just another variant of the propaganda used in the last year or so by the members of the Democrat tribe which boils down to “if you don’t vote Democrat you’re voting Trump”, which is a blantant false dichotomy and falacy.
Couple such sleazy salesman style of political propaganda with their active support of a Genocide were tens of thousands of children have already been murderer and, when seen in the broader context of World Politics, the Democrats are almost as low and disgusting as the Republicans.
To add insult to injury, I suspect that it’s the continued expectation amongst the Democrat Party leadership that the use of these propaganda techniques will retain enough of the Leftwing vote for them to win no matter what they do, that has allowed Biden during the last year to overtly support a Genocide to the point of doing things like sending Israel the very 2000lb bombs (which the US Military refuses to use because of their massive collateral damage) that they used in bombing Lebanese neighbourhoods: by having been parroting for months shit like this false-choice meme, these people have enabled Israel to be sent the very weapons with massive collateral damage that they used in bombing civilians and have hence been indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands.
(Had they instead been putting pressure on the Democrat Party, as the Israeli Neue Nazi side did for themselves via AIPAC, things would likely be very different now).
I too am not an American, I just have been involved in politics in two countries and seen it right up close in another two and after having been massivelly exposed to American Political Propaganda here in Lemmy in the last year or so, find it appallingly manipulative and deceitful, from both sides, though far more hypocrite from the Democrat side (Republicans are more users of straightforward lies rather than using more sophisticated methods of deceit such as presenting false choices like this one or cherry picking).
Funnilly enough, my enormous disgust with this kind of sleazy propaganda grew up during the decade I lived in the UK, especially the Leave Referendum period: compared with The Netherlands and Portugal were I lived before that, English politics, which is dominated by Public School types, is insanelly heavy on this kind of sleazy slimmy posh-salesman discourse crafted to mislead without outright lying and especially after my decade living amongst the plain speaking Dutch, I’ve come to really detest that kind of hypocrisy, especially when, like here, it’s deployed to cover those commiting morally unacceptable acts such as activelly supporting the mass murder of human beings.
It was bad enough when such style of politics was used in the UK to screw the lives of millions and its even worse when it’s used in America to enable the outright murder of hundreds of thousands of people, over 40% of whom are children.
I can barelly begin to convey my utter disgust with such practices and those who use them to enable what can only be described as evil-doing.
You’re 100% right
