this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
891 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19125 readers
4186 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Here's the reality; we're all playing the trolley problem but it's with real people and unfortunately the only options are kill more people or kill less people. If you know that by not voting you're killing more people then you can't claim you're not responsible for their deaths.

If you really care go out and protest the system after the election. Choosing to let more people die now is a protest but you have blood on your hands.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yeah, but part of the trolley problem is that it's not just about choosing the option with the least harm, but also how being active in the decision impacts the morality of the situation. Being of the opinion that letting 3 people die on one track without your intervention is better than actively choosing the death of 2 is a completely valid response to the trolley problem. You don't have to agree that it's the right decision, but it's still valid.

Applying that to the election would mean deciding that letting the bigger harm that would be a Trump presidency happen is preferable to being an active participant in helping steer the metaphorical tram onto the Harris track and harming the people there.

There are no black and white answers here. That's the whole point of the trolley problem. Everyone is going to have their own point of view and it's going to vary depending on how they perceive the harm on each track. Like I said, if I had a vote in the US election, I'd probably vote to send the tram onto the Harris track, but my willingness to do so wouldn't be infinite, just because the Trump track is worse. At some point the harm becomes so big, that I would refuse to be an active participant, even if inaction meant an even worse outcome. Some people (understandably) feel like that with the current choices. That doesn't make them Trump supporters or bad people.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

Here’s the reality; we’re all playing the trolley problem

I'm not, because the trolley problem is a simplistic consequentialist fairy tale that doesn't exist in the real world.

In the trolley problem, you must choose in a way which allows death, because some sinister outside force has created reality in which you are the only person that can intervene in a situation in which one or more must die.
In the real world, you can choose to not kill.

I live in the real world.

 

If you know that by not voting you’re killing more people then you can’t claim you’re not responsible for their deaths.

I refuse to vote in a way which condones killing innocent people. To condone killing innocent people is against my moral standards.

 

Choosing to let more people die now is a protest but you have blood on your hands.

No, I do not. It is the people who carry out murders who have blood on their hands. There is no trolley, there is no trolley problem, and I am not in control of any level on any tracks. You invent those tracks in order to trap yourself into accept the status quo.

I do not accept the status quo. You and your descendants may enjoy it, instead. I hope you do not find out what it is like to be amongst the innocent who have to be killed because someone else has fantasised a trolley that must run you over.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Choosing not to vote is participation whether you like it or not. Your so called protest doesn't help change the system either. All it accomplishes is kill more Palestinians. It's a fucked up system and we should absolutely do everything we can to change it, but not voting doesn't absolve you of the excess deaths of innocents.

You have a chance to help people but you're too morally pure so instead you choose to plug your ears while they get murdered and tell yourself letting them die was the right choice morally.

If Trump wins and Israel ends up murdering everyone, I'll come back to this comment and remind you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Choosing not to vote is participation whether you like it or not.

I don't have a choice.

Your so called protest doesn’t help change the system either.

No, my personal morality is for me. That's how personal morality works. Other people can accept that practical reality necessitates killing innocent people if they want. That's because they are not acting on morality, they are acting on practicality. To the people dying, that distinction does not make much of a difference.

but not voting doesn’t absolve you

But I can't vote.

You have a chance to help people but you’re too morally pure...

If it's ridiculously 'pure' to be against killing innocent people then that explains why I don't feel emotionally attached to being human.

...tell yourself letting them die was the right choice morally.

Who am I letting die? I can't vote.

If Trump wins and Israel ends up murdering everyone, I’ll come back to this comment and remind you.

If Harris wins (which I wish could say was almost certain, but it's scarily close) and Israel ends up murdering everyone without Harris having seriously tried to stop them, will you come back to apologise?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is word for word from what I remember that some tankie said about a month ago.

I actually checked the date to make sure I wasn't reading an old post.

Thanks for giving me enough evidence to block you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

No problem!

This is word for word from what I remember that some tankie said about a month ago.

I bet it wasn't, though, but thanks anyway! You're probably just upset that one of your most recent posts references the trolley problem, and you can tell that I don't respect your lack of interesting or independent thought on the matter. Bye, and enjoy arguing that killing innocent people is in some way acceptable, because you construct hypothetical situations which demand it!

I also won't ask you to prove that my post is word-for-word the same as anything else. We're all on the internet, so we can surely check ourselves. But thank you for lying to me in order to show me that you don't argue in good faith!