But this pretends that “not voting” is somehow a morally neutral inaction. It is a choice, the choice to support genocide EVEN HARDER.

I voted third party. Voting for someone who opposes genocide is not "supporting genocide eVeN hArDeR" than voting for someone who supports genocide.

This has very little to do with utilitarianism or deontology, and everything with retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to actually do stuff.

I could just as easily say that your decision to vote for a genocidaire is just about retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to do stuff. The difference is that I subscribe to a moral framework that says genocide is bad.

You want a deontological take? Start bombing bridges or other infrastructure. Stop paying taxes, go to jail.

The philosophy understander has logged on.

I'm not even a deontologist, dumbass. I literally just said that. Not that "bombing bridges" is remotely a "deontological take" to begin with.

The thing that really bugs me about y'all isn't just the fact that you're so ignorant, it's that you're so confident in your ignorance. You drop into intelligent conversations to not only spew a bunch of unexamined nonsense, but to tell everyone else how stupid and bad they are for not accepting your nonsense. It's like talking to a MAGA person tuned down like 10%.