If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
I take full responsibility for my actions. I have zero regrets about voting third party and I'll do it again if faced with similar circumstances.
Keep making excuses for fascists while punching left, it's what liberals are best at.
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%.
They were voted into a position where they were able to do that.
Paul von Hindenburg who got elected in 1932 after winning support from the social democrats as a "lesser evil." Eight months later, Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor. A month after that, Hitler issued the Reichstag Fire Decree which suspended civil rights and allowed for detention without trial, which he turned on his political opponents.
And the lesson you want me to take from that is "voting for the lesser evil is effective at stopping fascism?"
Nobody does that.
People are pointing out the choices US-American voters have
- genocide and police violence
- the above, but also
That sounds a lot like, uh, doing that.
Oh, are you backtracking already? Before it was "worse than Trump supporters" now it's "a fucking problem like MAGA is." This is exactly what I mean. You just say shit.
You want to show that you don't just say shit? Then explain how voting for Trump is less bad than staying home or voting third party. Maybe you should go around knocking on doors, finding former Republican voters who sat out because they refused to support Trump, and you should tell them they should've voted Trump because staying home was "worse."
Absolutely wild how desperate you are to shift responsibility away from actual Trump voters, to blame anyone except those who directly brought him to power. Maybe you should examine what it is in your brain that causes you to do that.
Or maybe you should just keep saying shit with zero thought or examination whatsoever.
You’re demonstrating a utilitarian sense of ethics.
And even more specifically, act utilitarian ethics. This incredibly narrow focus on the immediate effects of actions on the individual level which they treat as the only possible way of looking at things with absolutely zero examination.
I'd describe myself as a rule utilitarian, and from that perspective, the rule of "Don't support genocide, period" has a much stronger track record historically than, "Don't support genocide, unless you have a really good reason."
There is not one single time in all of human history that a stubborn refusal to support genocide has produced undesirable results. There are countless cases of people committing genocide because they see it as a "lesser evil" or "the only viable option." "If we don't kill them, they'll kill us, so we have no choice, this is the lesser evil." But not only are liberals utterly ignorant about moral philosophy, they're also ignorant about history, or they refuse to learn from it.
Modern American liberals are the ideological inheritors of the people who took the more "progressive" approach to indigenous people of subjugating and forcibly assimilating them, killing any who resisted, as opposed to the people who simply wanted to exterminate them all (who now live on through republicans). It's no wonder that they struggle to understand any perspective more progressive than "humane" genocide.
People who sat out this last election are worse than trump supporters.
Lmao y'all just say shit.
Really? So democratic presidents don't wage war in the Middle East?
They also weren't just "reacting wrong to a situation." They (both Republicans and Democrats) have caused this situation. Who was it who said, "If Israel did not exist, the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region?"
There's been a near-complete bipartisan consensus on conquering the Middle East since at least Bush. Obama had every opportunity to withdraw and chose instead to double down, as well as orchestrating regime change in Libya. Everyone's also been quietly bombing Yemen for decades.
The difference between them is mostly how concerned they are with legality and propriety. But both are committed to the imperial project of conquering the Middle East. Bipartisan support for arms to Israel to conquer Palestine (and Lebanon) The overthrow of governments in Libya and Syria. Direct invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's simply untrue to claim that this project started under Trump. Of course, Trump has mostly forgone the usual pretense of inventing pretexts for the aggression and is much more mask off about everything. But the overall goal is the same, Republicans are just dumber and more brazen about persuing it.
Those bases aren't just there because of Trump.
I think that the Democrats are comparable to Republicans on treatment of Muslims. Democrats have supported and armed the Palestinian genocide, as well as waging war elsewhere in the Middle East. I wouldn't say (and have never said) that they're worse than Republicans, but they're certainly comparable. I don't think that "materially supporting a genocide and forcibly silencing dissent, apologetically" and "materially supporting a genocide and forcibly silencing dissent, gleefully," are "incomperable."
Is there any way for me to defend that position, or am I just automatically a bot, logic and evidence be damned?
If the thesis is, “There was no attempt by Russian bots to sway public support of Palestinian civilians against the Democrats,” you’d have a hard time convincing me.
There are bots out there trying to convince everyone of everything. That in no way means that you get to dismiss everyone voicing a particular viewpoint as being a bot.
If the thesis is, “GenZ was well-informed about the plight of Palestinians before TikTok told them to look into it and shaped their opinion,” also unlikely to convince me.
And you believe that the thing that changed was bots and not video evidence of genocide?
This thread is full of the most absolutely bizarre takes imaginable.
The war in Afghanistan was a complete failure from start to finish and was only ever about making more money for arms manufacturers and oil companies. At literally any point in the decades long occupation, the best thing to do would be to immediately withdraw. The decision to withdraw was one of the best policy decisions any president has made in my lifetime (an admittedly low bar). I was hoping and praying for that decision for literally 20 years of my life. Personally, I'd tend to credit Biden with it since he was the one who actually followed through and accepted the political fallout from all the psychopathic hawks in the media.
And I come in here and the two sides are, "Biden good because [incredibly good and necessary decision] was actually Trump's fault!" vs "Biden bad because [incredibly good and necessary decision] was Biden's fault!"
How on earth has everyone in here come to this conclusion that if we prolonged the war even another 20 years, we could accomplish something we completely and utterly failed to do in that time? Even our own puppet government was telling us to leave. If you want to blame someone for losing the war, blame Bush, because the war was already lost within the first year at most. I literally cannot comprehend how anyone could look at that situation and want us to stay unless they were directly profiting from it.
Rationally, I know that liberals are bloodthirsty warmongerers who worship Khorne and want to build mountains of skulls and all, but like aren't you supposed to keep up some kind of pretence of not just wanting to turn a country into a perpetual slaughterhouse?
So who did you vote for, the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs? Since that can never happen in a FPTP system, it stands to reason that we must still have the two parties we started with. Was there some time period in history where the US didn't have FPTP where all the party shuffling happened?
The closest a 3rd party candidate ever got
That is what makes them a "third party," isn't it? When a third party starts doing well enough to win elections, they just stop being called a third party. And that has happened, or we'd be choosing between the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans.
Nah, I'm not sweating or holding my head. I'm 100% confident in my decision and would do the same again, and will if faced with a similar situation in the future. I am utterly unconcerned by any thought of, "maybe I'm not willing to support genocide enough."
It's so bizarre to me that liberals think the trolley problem is just this black and white thing with a clear, objective answer that's applicable to the real world.
Do you think you're the first people to ever use that kind of logic to justify genocide? How many of those people were on the right side of history?
Voting to save half the Palestinians isn’t worth it, because half still die.
Voting to kill half the Palestinians is not morally justifiable because genocide is inherently unjustifiable. So no, I wouldn't profit off the Holocaust, because I'm opposed to genocide.
Why save some Jews if most still die? Might as well profit because its more convenient for you.
I don't see why you wouldn't profit off the Holocaust. Either way, the genocide is going to happen. Stopping the Holocaust simply isn't on the table. But we can either have the Holocaust, or we can also have the Holocaust plus you get some money out of it. Which one is the "lesser evil?"
Maybe you can even donate a portion of your Holocaust profits to a charity. See, if you weren't profiting off the Holocaust, someone else would be, and would they donate to charity? Harm reduction!
I'm the one saying no, fuck that shit, a line has to be drawn. You're using some insane troll logic to twist "drawing a hard line against genocide" to "supporting genocide."
And I think the bans were right in retrospect because the timed (not typically perma) bans expired
Lol, no they weren't/didn't.
and those people still magically disappeared completely from Lemmy after the election.
Lol, no we didn't.
What the fuck are you talking about? What a bunch of bizarre leaps of logic.
How on earth do you get from "I'm opposed to genocide" to "I would be fine profiting from the Holocaust because who gives a shit?" Show your work.
Why didn't you answer the question? You said it's "not 100%." I'm just asking you to be a bit more specific.
Here's a list of domestic laws that were violated, to say nothing of international law:
The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive U.S. military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and internal security.
The U.S. War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces.
The Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.
The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide
And y'all were silent about genocide. If y'all had simply said that a genocidal candidate is fundamentally unacceptable, then you wouldn't have undermined the message and split the anti-genocide vote.
Silence is approval, cupcake.