Sorry, guys. I’m voting for the only candidate that can end global warming.
Giant Meteor / Butt Stuff ‘24!
This time we’ll get it in the end!
BOHICA.
Do you have a newsletter I can sign up for?
Please don’t play with my emotions
This is the 3rd party I’ve been waiting for.
Black hole sun, won’t you come
And wash away the rain
deleted by creator
Where are all the Russian plants, oops I mean true progressives, at to tell us we’re just not leftist or progressive enough and Jill is totally definitely only ever trying to improve things for the country, ignoring her meeting with Putin and aides, and also Kamala is literally no different than Trump! Universalmonk, verdantbanana….i need you to straighten OP out! /s
Jill is too mainstream, I’ve voting for Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party!
Vermin Supreme for Every Elected Position 2024. The one true choice.
A mandatory tooth brushing law is the most un-American bullshit I can think of.
Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed. Nothing less than a knight, shining…
I was gonna try and write a comment 1upping you because I didn’t think Rachele Fruit was a real person, but then I decided to look her up just to double-check. Nope! She’s actually a real person.
She’s the next President of the United States
Hail to the Fruit
Oh you’ve changed the candidate you’re backing, huh? You are a very serious voter with real principles and values, Mr. Monk.
If you only care about the duopoly or third parties every 4 years when the Presidential election rolls around, then I regret to inform you but you have fallen for a grift.
If you actually gave a shit about breaking the binary you’d be boots on the ground working to legitimatize third-parties where they’re actually viable - local and smaller scale elections.
I’ve said this so many times before. Only not as succinctly.
These kids think that they can become activists only one year out of every four, and still have a chance to be the change they want to see. Time and time again, it’s been explained to them that this isn’t how shit works- and what do they do?
They delete, ban, and report everthing that tries to show them how this doesn’t work.
The mind reels at how many properly decent and intelligent people have had their political career stillborn because all these “superior” asshole non-voters never bothered to cast ballots for School Board and City Council on up the electoral ladder.
But you see… that would require… making an effort. And we can’t have that, now can we? God forbid! That would mean… soiling those pure, innocent, silky-smooth hands with actual democracy homework.
They’d always much rather sit their lazy, ignorant asses at home, lovingly yet distractedly fondling their purity, then sniffing their fingers.
deleted by creator
I couldn’t possibly pull either lever, that would put blood on my hands! Instead I spend all day on Lemmy urging everyone to pull the display lever. This is different from me touching any levers directly, because reasons.
Get on the tracks with them. We die together.
I said throw shit onto the track to try and stop the trolley once.
The philosophy majors did not like me pointing out it was ridiculous to imagine the problem existing in a void with an absolute limit on possible courses of action.
They liked it even less when I reminded them that the problem was invented to make fun of them by a philosopher who was arguing that both courses of action were ridiculous conclusions to reach given the broader context of a trolley crash not existing in a vacuum.
Thought experiments in the void is how we got the declaration that feathers and lead weights were affected by different rates of gravity.
Cool, so if you dont vote for Harris, you’re wasting your vote.
I also think philosophy is mostly dumb. But there is a vacuum here, shitty democracy or fascism. You can throw shit on the tracks, that just means one less vote against fascism
I was talking about the philosophy problem itself not the FPTP vote. As you could probably guess from the context of me dunking on the philosophy majors so much.
The philosophy majors did not like me pointing out it was ridiculous to imagine the problem existing in a void with an absolute limit on possible courses of action.
Holy shit you did it! You beat philosophy! ^^^/s
If reminding a bunch of people that trolleys are typically built in places with a lot of stuff that can be thrown on the track is all it takes to “beat” philosophy, then maybe the philosophers didn’t have anything to say worth listening to in the first place.
Especially when they’re trying to ask questions to determine a moral course of action, why does anyone have to die when some property damage would do the trick just as well?
That’s why the question was devised in the first place, to illustrate how ridiculous the two schools of thought represented by either decision were when taken to their logical conclusion.
The original correct answer was to do something more productive than just standing around with your thumb up your ass debating utilitarianism vs not taking a direct action to kill someone.
deleted by creator
says philosophers should exercise more intellect
gets called anti-intellectual
There’s weapon’s grade something in this discussion but if it’s anti-intellectualism I ain’t the one bringing it son.
deleted by creator
The quote was a hyperbolic answer to someone sarcastically suggesting I was trying to act smarter than everyone else because the question is an infamous example of self styled philosophers simultaneously over and under thinking questions.
Overly obsessing the meaning they’ve read into what was originally posed as satire, and yet underthinking the details and implications of the scenarios they’re describing.
We are expected to take the question as if we were there in person and yet they are not expected to adhere to a setting in which we could be there in person.
It’s very “rules for thee…” and the fact that self proclaimed philosophers go so out of the way to insist on this supposed deep and foundational question really shoots the credibility of the profession to pieces if such a faulty question is actually as important to the lot as the people trying to insist I’m some uneducated ape for pointing out that “someone will die anyways” scenarios are inherently suspect.
The point of a thought experiment isn’t to creatively invent your way out of answering. It’s to give you a lens to examine your beliefs. The trolley problem can be a train problem or a giant falling safe problem or a two-bombs-with-a-button-to-switch-detonators problem. The specifics aren’t there for you to fantasise they’re there to give context to one of the most entry-level problems in ethics.
You didn’t impress your philosophy buddies by refusing to engage with a hypothetical. You made them groan and then they laughed about you when you left the room.
If such a faulty experiment is the basis of our ethics it’s little wonder why the world has become such a cynical and nihilistic place.
Suggesting an alternative isn’t refusing to engage with the hypothetical, it’s engaging in the hypothetical in a way that someone who thinks they’re so smart for studying philosophy should really fucking know how to entertain.
And again, the whole question was devised to point out that both answers are horrifying, morally bankrupt, and a logical conclusion of a faulty school of ethics, so insisting the question is “basic ethical philosophy” is just damning the entire foundation even more.
You’re not making a case that I should feel embarrassed about a snafu in philosophical thinking, you’re making a case that the real trolley problem is whether I should have gone back and shot the philosophy majors you think were snickering behind my back before they could do any actual damage by indoctrinating someone with actual deciding power into their effective death cult school of ethics where never thinking twice about “someone dies anyways” outcomes is perfectly reasonable.
Your “foundational ethics question” is equally as ridiculous as asking if I’d cheat on my SO if it would cure their cancer and also they wouldn’t forgive me for it. That’s not how anything ever works and insisting there’s some deep meaning in it is a farce, and the author of the question itself intended for it to be a farce, and trying to defend it as anything but a farce just makes you a farce
I’m being completely serious here: if you have trouble understanding the concept of a hypothetical situation, you might be on the spectrum.
Dude wants to de-rail the trolley. Hes so worried about the people on the tracks he forgot about the people on the trolley, and he’s the one saying the trolley problem can’t exist in a vacuum. Well motherfucker, why have an empty autonomous trolley?
I said throw shit onto the track to try and stop the trolley once.
So you think the right thing to do is something that everyone knows wouldn’t make the slightest improvement to the situation?
https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-can-stop-a-train/
Trolleys aren’t trains
Fair enough… It would have been better stated as a train problem than a trolley problem. But I personally wouldn’t ding the philosophy majors too hard for that.
And still, I have no idea what you could throw in front of a trolley to slow it down appreciably with only a few seconds to think.
Anything not bolted down, benches, trash cans, hell if it’s small enough you could try throwing stuff at it directly to tip it off the track
deleted by creator
Is doing my Jason Russell impression an option?
deleted by creator
You pull the first lever. I dunno why nobody is answering.
Why should I accept the assumption that a trump presidency means 100 times more people killed, whether involving American weapons or not?
deleted by creator
The trolley problem does not have a correct answer, and a very popular way of thinking is that “if I do not engage the lever, whatever happens next is not my responsibility. If I divert, I will have killed that one person.”
I’m not American, not here to tell anyone who to vote for
Maybe the most egregious example of this was something I saw yesterday, which was somebody saying “Tim Walz needs to go vegan”. When pressed about why him and not, say, Donald Trump, they said that people on the left and center were more likely to actually be swayed. It wasn’t worth engaging any further, but I thought it was pretty hilarious that they bothered to try to push the 60-year-old VP candidate to go vegan, but not the 40-year-old VP candidate. Like, you know that you’re not pushing the needle for anybody with that post, right?
It’s about as useless as making a post saying that JD Vance should hang dry his clothes instead of wasting energy running a clothes dryer.
Suggesting it’s easier to convince a Midwestern football coach/car dad to go vegan than an NYC germaphobe is a level of optimism I have never seen
Look pal, the general said “sow division” amongst whatever socio-political lines we can see, ok? Why Do You Hate Black Vegan Catholics???
(/s obl.)
If they spent that energy campaigning for election reform instead of harassing Lemmy users I’d find it more convincing.
And vote in every local election. So change can happen. I doubt they even do that.
They’re not here in good faith and I don’t believe they ever were.
Discouraging 3rd party voting hurts democrats more than anyone. Studies show that 3rd party presidential candidates largely bring out people that would not have voted otherwise and largely benefit the democratic party down-ballot.
Don’t tell your apolitical friend about how they shouldn’t vote for Cornel. Don’t tell your friend about how voting for a 3rd party is pointless. Don’t tell your friend to vote for your person. Tell them to vote.
Edit: here’s my receipt.
Independent voters supported Democratic candidates over Republican candidates, 49% to 47%, according to the exit poll by Edison Research for CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. According to the AP VoteCast survey for The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, independents supported Democrats over Republicans, 42% to 38% … While independents nationally voted for Democratic candidates by just 2 points, they supported Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly over Republican challenger Blake Masters by 16 points, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock over Republican Herschel Walker by 11 points (in the Nov. 8 election), and, for senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman over Republican Mehmet Oz by a whopping 20 points. ( My note on Fetterman, this was before the stroke)
I like it. Tell them to vote, then encourage them to vote for Harris (especially if you’re in a swing state).
You can try that, but they should be separate conversations. Have one conversation about how voting generally is good. Then have another conversation about candidates. Trying to roll it all in one will still discourage those types of voters for the partisan appearance.
I like this approach, just encourage people to vote. I don’t care who or what you vote for, but take 30 minutes and read up on a few issues and then go participate every single time in all the elections.
Third parties are obviously the way any intelligent person may choose to vote. This video explains why they are currently not viable in America. Ranked choice voting has to come before third parties. It’s not a moral thing, it’s voting math.
Gonna vote third party as soon as the Democrats and Republicans implement ranked choice voting
It some places it is taking place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
seriously though is there any way to get to ranked choice voting other than a violent revolution?
A couple states have started using it. Just needs enough willpower.
This requires organizing. Even the revolution requires organizing, so I think you’d get more traction with rank choice voting vs a revolution.
Yes. We’re already starting to use it in some places!
Strikes, boycotts, or anything that hurts their donors’ wallets. There actually is some political will for it too, just not enough for individual politicians to push through. They need to be able to point to external unrest.
Gotta excuse supporting genocide in good faith. After all it is an election year
deleted by creator
In case you aren’t aware, Biden, not trump is currently responsible for supplying the weapons being used for the genocide going on right now. Are you cool with whitewashing genocide? Or is gaslighting your thing?
That’s it, I’m not voting for Biden again.
If people didn’t speak up, you might of had to…
Yeah and if my grandma had wheels she’d be a wheeled prostitute.
In the right market she’d make bank! Rolling in the dough as it were
You of to do what you of to do…
Personally, I try not to shame anyone for voting a specific way, though I certainly still judge them for it. I’m just trying to be more curious now, rather than disrespectful
Of the two choices, which do you believe will result in the most harm?
I believe if you keep aiding genocide, it will result in the most harm. If you stop aiding genocide it would lead to less genocide.
Which, more. Say a name, or nothing else.
Stopping this can be done right now. It would be much easier to a win election if you didn’t have to apologize for genocide or committing ongoing support for it. The candidates need to earn votes, which is completely doable before Nov 5th. I don’t see enough of a distinction on this. It incredibly stupid waste of money to support this glaringly evil state.
Edit: Vermin Supreme
So… Between Trump and Harris who do you think will result in the most harm?
Claudia de la Cruz
Not a viable option.
The senile filanderer criticized Biden of not sending enough to Israel. He’s not blameless. I’m not excusing Biden, but Trump is still worse and any vote that doesn’t push him further away is the worst option.
Removed by mod
Blocklist member detected.
Seriously, we should collect such nicknames in a convenient list so that everyone would block you as they register.
People like you bring 0 useful contribution and only make this place shittier.
Press X to doubt, Tankie.
ITT: people skipping over the 39 days bit. Time and place. Let’s save the Republic then we work on everything else.
tbf people have been saying this as far back as Clinton’s term.
There was even discussion of Biden only running for one term before he was elected, yet lots of people here refused to believe anyone who wanted a new candidate was actually a republican in disguise.
Still, no point voting for a non existent grassroots third party. Green party more or less exists for people who don’t want to vote, not a valid anti corporate solution, despite having a decent group of members.
BUT THIS TIME ITS REAL PROMISE!
Assuming bad faith over everyone who disagrees with you is a first step to fanaticism and vulnerability to external opinion.
Weaponizing tribe mentality to reach your goals is very bad long-term, and makes yourself susceptible to the same trap.
Lemmy, unfortunately, is very prone to that. Remember that time people called here for Biden to step down and were downvoted into oblivion? Where were they when he actually stepped down and everyone started cheering for Harris all of a sudden?
There are valid reasons to NOT vote for the Democratic party in these elections, even if you clearly don’t side with the Republicans.
Bye Felicia.
It’s actually spelled Felisha. You should always watch the credits of great works of art.
In American English, the phrase “Bye, Felicia” or “Bye, Felisha” is an informal phrase intended as a dismissive send-off, wherein a person or idea is rendered so unimportant his or her name is reduced to “Felicia.”
The one valid reason not to vote Dem/Repub this cycle has been to not support genocide, which ultimately supports genocide except the voter can dissociate their vote from the outcome. Other than that, I haven’t seen any other valid arguments to vote 3rd party, particularly when looking at what those candidates would do if they won. Holding the presidency with all of Congress against you means you can’t get anything done, so it’s a waste of 4 years.
The argument of bad faith you’ve made sounds awfully like the beginning of a slippery slope argument.
One important and vocalized point is to hold Democrats accountable for their actions. This isn’t limited to genocide.
Because as things stand, Dems can get away with anything as long as they are marginally less terrible than Republicans. And as the goalposts move every time, situation gets worse and worse.
Voting third party might force Democrats to actually implement changes they propose in order to attract more third party voters to ultimately win the election.
In general I agree that voting can be used to hold candidates accountable for their policies. In this case, I still don’t see how holding the less terrible of the two accountable isn’t tantamount to helping the worse. No one knows why you voted 3rd party, just that you did. If the outcome is that Repubs win, the simplest answer is that most people prefer hard right policies, which is opposite the goals of most 3rd parties (except perhaps libertarianism).
Less terrible of the two is something I think most people would follow unless indoctrinated to think the more viable option is worse. Having constant conversations about holding democrats accountable with nary a peep about how Repubs are worse leans into this viewpoint. At best it’s bad optics. At worst it’s intentional to secure a far right win.
You can always be vocal about why you didn’t vote Democrat. Voting does not mean you are restricted from saying who you voted for, protesting their decisions, and organizing.
“Less terrible of the two” is a path to gradually degrade the rights and quality of life for everyone.
If Dems are not forced to change, we won’t see much improvement. For as long as they’re not pressured by anything but literal fascism, they’re better off serving their sponsors than their own electorate.
A fairly small percentage of Democratic voters vocally saying “fuck you” is enough to force Dems to either change and finally deliver on their promises or lose. Let’s hope they’ll be able to do the former.
TIL people still think this ignorant crap actually makes sense.
Please elaborate
So what I meant was that I had learned “today” (yesterday) that people still say dumb shit that makes no sense when pressed against reality, regardless of the fact that there been enough proof for them to know it’s incorrect.
The underlying point that was made was that while knowing everything you said was wrong, and saying it anyway, illustrates the bad-faith in your message.
Do you seriously think that some grassroots movement of Stein/West supporters somehow have things right and correct while everyone else is just too stupid to understand? Come on man. Have you not noticed that NEITHER of them give two shits about anything three years out of every four?
In fact, NO Green Party candidate does a fucking thing between elections to bring this change they program you to demand.
But everyone else is wrong, right?
Haha this, libs are so cruel and violent that they can’t possible imagine someone taking a principled stance on genocide.
These were the same libs decrying the “violence” of broken windows and looting during the George Floyd riots.
Assuming bad faith over anyone who disagrees with you
libs are so cruel and violent
This is what leftist lemmy actually is. Voices of reason being underscored by the very same bad faith assumptions from a “morally superior” position.
All so you can feel better about the fact that people with your moral standing have zero power here while the rest of us actually try to keep this country from going tits up.
Do you honestly think the people you label as libs want genocide?
Go Team Harris!
Noooo you aren’t allowed to say that!
One of the mouth breathing imbeciles who will determine our future based on a confluence of distraction, idiocy, and geography might read it and think they too have a choice!
Or worse yet enough people might get the idea that their vote is more than just something to throw away. If even 1% of the country grows that way each cycle corporate profits might be threatened at some point!
Believe the people who sobbed their hideous wretched guts out that we had to support Biden! They’re never wrong On PuRpOsE!
You sound like you get bullied a lot and you don’t really understand why everyone is ok with it
You sound like someone with no communication skills or earnest opinions.
Where’s that universalmonk blyat?
You can’t call any of them by name, unlike Beetlejuice. You have to post something positive, even mildly so, about the Harris/Walz campaign. Then all the little rats come scurrying over to tell you how you’re a genocide stan and any real American should be voting for Cornoliverill Stein de la Fruit, and it’s definitely not because daddy Putin said so.
I broke the script the other day when they said they were ok with a trump second term. That they weren’t afraid of trump. I highlighted the conservative judicial appointments impact the working class and minority groups and they simply couldn’t address it.
I don’t have to explain anything to you.
🗣️🧠
Removed by mod
look i have had the choice for with or without lube for half a century now. Thing is saying I don’t want to get sodomized at all just results in the default of without lube. I hate it with lube but I really, really hate it without.
Well thats an awful perspective. Have you tried looking at things in a less black and white type of way? You haven’t literally been fucked without lube have you?
nope but destroying useful goverment infrastructure and moving the tax burden to regressive taxes taht hit me harder and deregulating things easy do that metaphorically.
I like the name of your lemmy instance a lot.
From the dude who runs it faq page:
Why ‘moist’?! wtf is wrong with you?
It's comically unmarketable
“We’re the good guys, we just think anybody who doesn’t support our person is literally evil and only not supporting our person out of an extremist desire for accelerationism and literally no other reason, and that they are the real evil of this country, not Republicans”
Yeah democrats are sooooooo different, nuanced, and level headed. 🙄
I think you might be missing the point of this meme.
Blue MAGA 🙈🙉
That was a lot easier of an argument to make before Biden started giving billions of dollars to a war criminal.
Funny how that exact same sentence makes just as much sense if it were to come from a smug pseudo-intellectual far leftist.
And the audacity of you to bring up nuance. THAT…. Is fucking hilarious!
