this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
319 points (81.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43879 readers
1325 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There's no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?

Right?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide? Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue. One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

Suppose you have two buttons. If you press one, it kills someone. If you press the second, it kills two people. If you don't press the first button, someone else is eagerly waiting who will press the second. Whoever has placed the buttons here, has enough power that neither the buttons nor the other person are within your personal ability to harm at the moment, and you have neither the time nor the popularity to amass enough people to change this before the other guy pushes the "kill two people" button. Your only options are to press one or press neither and allow the second be pressed. If your answer to this scenario is "I press neither button, because pressing the first kills someone, don't you care about people's lives!?", then you are not choosing morality, you are choosing selfishness, because you care more about the notion that your hands will be clean than about the net life saved if you press the button that kills fewer people. In fact, the blood is as much on your hands by inaction if you decide to reject your choice, as it would be had you killed the additional victim yourself.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You know how you can trick a stupid fucking child into doing what you want by presenting them a false choice of two alternatives you're happy with? "Do you want to go to bed now or after one more show?"

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So what are the other choices?

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just because you can't stop something doesn't mean you have to participate in it. But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships. And it's not like there's not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences...

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not voting is a choice. You can't not participate in politics.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can chose not to vote for a party actively committing the literal worst crime in the world.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No you can't. Because we live under a system where one of them is going to be in power after the election, and every possible voter shares equal responsibility in the outcome.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

We either live in a democracy where all votes matter, or we live in an oligarchy where we get to choose from choices presented to us.

Did you vote for Harris in the primary?

Was Biden illegally the only candidate on the ballot in some States where there were other contenders in the primary that met the requirements to be on the ballot?

I'm not morally responsible for things outside of my control in the same way as I'm not responsible for the sins of my father.

You want to try and make an argument that shove responsibility for a genocide that you're fine with being complicit in, you're going to need more than 2 sentences.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take. It's not a fair choice, but it isn't false either, and choosing not to go along won't give you a better outcome

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take.

NO THERE FUCKING AREN'T. And if you believe that, you completely went to brunch when Trump left office and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[–] tangentism@beehaw.org 11 points 3 weeks ago

Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue.

What liberal brain rot is this?

Biden is fully engaging with his policy of genociding Palestinians. Harris has said that she will carry on with the policy with absolutely no change.

The fucking dissonance you people walk around with is astounding!

And before you come out with the usual other shit floating around your vacuous head, no, I'm not advocating voting for the shitty pants trust fund rapist.

You people cannot seem to grasp that what is being done in the Levant will be done to you. The DOD had just updated it's rules so they can use lethal force against you.

It's coming and you'll are too fucking partisan to realise that you're turkeys all voting for Christmas!

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide?

When you are offered two candidates and both support genocide, including one being an active part of the current one, you can say, "no, never again means never again" and work against both rather than pretending you now have to support genocide.

Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue.

You should believe your lying eyes and see that Biden has gotten your consent for genocide, with Harris helping. The genocide has only ramped up as the election draws close.

There is not worse that can be done. It is full, unequivocal support for basically anything Israel wants for genocide including the weapons and supplies on which they depend to carry out this genocide. If anything, Dems are more effective at this kind of thing, as they secure European support and offer better stipulations to the Israelis around when to escalate and when to play it a little cooler.

Though your electoral logic is seld-defeating anyways. Your consent for the lesser evil keeps you politically anemic and unable to have solidarity with those who need it. You make yourself subservient.

One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

This is a fantasy.

Suppose you have two buttons.

I am not interested in childish metaphors.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. "Working against both", when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it's a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone's moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Your problem is one of timeframes.

You might, though I personally don't think so, be right on a single election time frame.

They're definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.

Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.

The situation you're in, right now, disproves your argument.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

You live in a fantasy and sabotage real effort to limit damage in the real world. You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.

[–] shadowfax13@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago

“You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”

you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?

Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Show me any examples of them limiting damage

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

Current dead baby count would disagree

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.

If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.

While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Never again means never again for anyone.

Trying to lesser evil genocide makes you complicit.

Repeat after me: "I am against genocide and will not vote for genociders".

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you hate women and don’t want them to have bodily autonomy? You see how that sounds? It’s the same logic as your argument.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

In what way is that the same logic as my argument? I am not voting for misogynists.

load more comments (9 replies)