Yes. I’m also aware that virtually every country on earth has elections, including undemocratic ones. Our elections have been more about spectacle and entertainment since well before Trump. They’re also a very useful tool. If you asked a person in a vacuum whether they support genocide, or any of the other awful stuff our politicians get up to, they’d say no. But once you introduce team sports into it, once you get everybody to make a choice, now they feel like they have to defend that choice and justify the horrible things their team does. And so at all times, about a third of the population become active advocates for the ruling class, justifying and explaining everything that they do. Because if I criticize the president, I’m also criticizing their decision to vote for that president, and how about I fuck off with that, bub?
It’s all just fear mongering and performatively demonstrating how much faith you have in electoralism. And it’s stupid because when the elections do happen, you’ll have discredited yourself, looking like the boy who cried wolf. I don’t think there’s any way I’m going to break through this nonsense so we’ll just have to wait a bit until I’m proven right, by which point of course everyone will have moved on to something else and won’t care.
And the whole thing is especially stupid, because there are literally wolves right there! How about we focus on the tyranny and oppression that’s actually, already happening? On the masked fascist thugs raiding workplaces and dragging people away to secret torture dungeons? Is that not bad enough that you need to conjure up some unlikely, imagined scenario to fret over? I stg.
Look, I wouldn’t care about USA politics since it is not my place to say, but what your psycho leader is trying to do, is essentially making Russia launch another attack on Europe. And I’m a finn, we’re in the front lines, and I fucking don’t want to have fight yet another invasion and even possibly your goddamn troops off Greenland as well. Maybe you only care about your country, but what you chose has a massive impact on the rest of the world, and now people in developing countries are dying because the dollar store dictator cut large amounts of funding, and a great war is threatening to happen in Europe again, which would mean even more people could die in unnecessary wars.
This all could have been avoided or at least postponed, which would have given more time to try to prevent all this insane shit. Or are you seriously suggesting your democrats would have also allied with Russia and threatened to attack Greenland?
Greenland, no. But to act like the Democrats aren’t involved in imperialism, plunder, and genocide in other places is absurd. I’m not willing to sacrifice those other countries and people for the sake of Greenland, or for my own sake, or for the sake of my neighbors.
In my view, genocide is completely off the table in the range of solutions I’m willing to consider. I’ll oppose the right by whatever means are available to me, but that’s simply not an option.
If you want to argue that I have a moral responsibility to aid other countries and ensure their safety and security, maybe to some extent that’s true. But any such positive moral duty certainly does not outweigh my negative moral duty to not actively fuck with other countries, to not be the danger I’m supposed to be preventing. “First, do no harm.” If protecting Finland requires me to support the wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinians, then you’re on your own. If protecting Palestinians meant actively supporting the wanton slaughter of Finns, then I would say the same thing.
I haven’t seen anyone on lemmy actually claim that, and I certainly wouldn’t. But who is leading you right now is making all those things actively worse. Not a single palestinian has been saved because you’re willing to let some other people suffer instead, now we’re just all going to suffer.
Personally I think there’s a clear difference between “I let 10 people die” and “I let 100 people die”, and since in your country’s shitty voting system inaction or third parties is practically the same as choosing the latter, well… To change your system it has to start from the root level which you clearly know better than I do. But when election is ongoing - the bus is already running, you have only two choices. And now the bus is going off the cliff
I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is “the same as voting for Trump.” By that logic, it’s also the same as voting for Harris. It’s complete and total nonsense.
The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, “If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would’ve turned out better.”
If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I’m not going to be particularly bothered by that.
I agree with opposing genocide, I really do. But you have not opposed genocide at all; you have opened the door to even more genocide just to keep your own moral purity. Genocide is still going in Palestine, it’s going on in Ukraine, it’s going on in tons of places all around the world right now. And if NATO falters, it is going to happen in other places in Europe too since that’s what Russian imperialism causes, in Taiwan if China attacks there, and probably somewhere close India too, if they use the chance to get at it with Pakistan again.
In an ideal world there’s always the golden perfect moral choice, where nobody suffers, but we don’t have that. You seem think you’ve had that perfect choice, but it has not affected the world in a positive way at all, it has just allowed the evil to cause more harm. That is not a morally good choice
I don’t have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.
I genuinely can’t comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were “baffled” that people didn’t agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It’s absurd.
What you are failing to understand is, that this was the most realistic version of the trolley problem you could encounter; there was no option you could take, that wouldn’t have supported real world genocide; someone would have always died under the trolley. The three basic options available all lead to genocide; by choosing democrats you supported some real world genocide and ideologically genocide, by choosing republicans you supported even worse genocide in the real world and ideologically. By choosing neither, you didn’t ideologically support genocide, but you supported the actual worse genocide option in the real world.
You chose what you perceived as morally righteous by deciding not to ideologically support genocide, but by choosing that, you enabled real world consequences resulting in more actual genocide than what would have happened if you chose otherwise.
Also, quite ironically, philosophy was my second major in university, so maybe you should take that class instead. Lol
If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you’re aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn’t have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, “Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it.”
Yes. I’m also aware that virtually every country on earth has elections, including undemocratic ones. Our elections have been more about spectacle and entertainment since well before Trump. They’re also a very useful tool. If you asked a person in a vacuum whether they support genocide, or any of the other awful stuff our politicians get up to, they’d say no. But once you introduce team sports into it, once you get everybody to make a choice, now they feel like they have to defend that choice and justify the horrible things their team does. And so at all times, about a third of the population become active advocates for the ruling class, justifying and explaining everything that they do. Because if I criticize the president, I’m also criticizing their decision to vote for that president, and how about I fuck off with that, bub?
It’s all just fear mongering and performatively demonstrating how much faith you have in electoralism. And it’s stupid because when the elections do happen, you’ll have discredited yourself, looking like the boy who cried wolf. I don’t think there’s any way I’m going to break through this nonsense so we’ll just have to wait a bit until I’m proven right, by which point of course everyone will have moved on to something else and won’t care.
And the whole thing is especially stupid, because there are literally wolves right there! How about we focus on the tyranny and oppression that’s actually, already happening? On the masked fascist thugs raiding workplaces and dragging people away to secret torture dungeons? Is that not bad enough that you need to conjure up some unlikely, imagined scenario to fret over? I stg.
Look, I wouldn’t care about USA politics since it is not my place to say, but what your psycho leader is trying to do, is essentially making Russia launch another attack on Europe. And I’m a finn, we’re in the front lines, and I fucking don’t want to have fight yet another invasion and even possibly your goddamn troops off Greenland as well. Maybe you only care about your country, but what you chose has a massive impact on the rest of the world, and now people in developing countries are dying because the dollar store dictator cut large amounts of funding, and a great war is threatening to happen in Europe again, which would mean even more people could die in unnecessary wars.
This all could have been avoided or at least postponed, which would have given more time to try to prevent all this insane shit. Or are you seriously suggesting your democrats would have also allied with Russia and threatened to attack Greenland?
Greenland, no. But to act like the Democrats aren’t involved in imperialism, plunder, and genocide in other places is absurd. I’m not willing to sacrifice those other countries and people for the sake of Greenland, or for my own sake, or for the sake of my neighbors.
In my view, genocide is completely off the table in the range of solutions I’m willing to consider. I’ll oppose the right by whatever means are available to me, but that’s simply not an option.
If you want to argue that I have a moral responsibility to aid other countries and ensure their safety and security, maybe to some extent that’s true. But any such positive moral duty certainly does not outweigh my negative moral duty to not actively fuck with other countries, to not be the danger I’m supposed to be preventing. “First, do no harm.” If protecting Finland requires me to support the wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinians, then you’re on your own. If protecting Palestinians meant actively supporting the wanton slaughter of Finns, then I would say the same thing.
I haven’t seen anyone on lemmy actually claim that, and I certainly wouldn’t. But who is leading you right now is making all those things actively worse. Not a single palestinian has been saved because you’re willing to let some other people suffer instead, now we’re just all going to suffer.
Personally I think there’s a clear difference between “I let 10 people die” and “I let 100 people die”, and since in your country’s shitty voting system inaction or third parties is practically the same as choosing the latter, well… To change your system it has to start from the root level which you clearly know better than I do. But when election is ongoing - the bus is already running, you have only two choices. And now the bus is going off the cliff
I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is “the same as voting for Trump.” By that logic, it’s also the same as voting for Harris. It’s complete and total nonsense.
The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, “If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would’ve turned out better.”
If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I’m not going to be particularly bothered by that.
I agree with opposing genocide, I really do. But you have not opposed genocide at all; you have opened the door to even more genocide just to keep your own moral purity. Genocide is still going in Palestine, it’s going on in Ukraine, it’s going on in tons of places all around the world right now. And if NATO falters, it is going to happen in other places in Europe too since that’s what Russian imperialism causes, in Taiwan if China attacks there, and probably somewhere close India too, if they use the chance to get at it with Pakistan again.
In an ideal world there’s always the golden perfect moral choice, where nobody suffers, but we don’t have that. You seem think you’ve had that perfect choice, but it has not affected the world in a positive way at all, it has just allowed the evil to cause more harm. That is not a morally good choice
I don’t have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.
I genuinely can’t comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were “baffled” that people didn’t agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It’s absurd.
Maybe take a philosophy class sometime.
What you are failing to understand is, that this was the most realistic version of the trolley problem you could encounter; there was no option you could take, that wouldn’t have supported real world genocide; someone would have always died under the trolley. The three basic options available all lead to genocide; by choosing democrats you supported some real world genocide and ideologically genocide, by choosing republicans you supported even worse genocide in the real world and ideologically. By choosing neither, you didn’t ideologically support genocide, but you supported the actual worse genocide option in the real world.
You chose what you perceived as morally righteous by deciding not to ideologically support genocide, but by choosing that, you enabled real world consequences resulting in more actual genocide than what would have happened if you chose otherwise.
Also, quite ironically, philosophy was my second major in university, so maybe you should take that class instead. Lol
If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you’re aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn’t have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, “Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it.”