this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
278 points (81.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43680 readers
2232 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_[email protected]~

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 😊.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (11 children)

It's the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, "Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people".

But if you take a step back it's reasonable to ask, "WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don't spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus' forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose."

So given that realization it's also reasonable when told you must choose to say, "Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt."

That's the essential argument. There's the realpolitik decision to do "less harm", but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

And then the trolley cross track drifts and murders six people while the third party voter feels smug and self-righteous about 'doing the right thing'.

The time to prevent the construction of the trolley, to prevent people from being kidnapped from their homes and tied to trolley tracks, is every time other than the election, so your election options are the 'Not Murdering People With Trolleys' group.

During the election, you minimize harm.

And for everything else, you push for improvements.

The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.

You need to care before the trolley is barrelling down the tracks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.

So why do establishment liberals ignore the demands of progressives until it's time to suddenly demand their votes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

Because you're cherry picking people to be "establishment liberals."

Bernie sanders exists. AOC exists. Etc etc etc

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 minutes ago

What cherry was allegedly picked in the comment you replied to?

AOC is somehow not an establishment democrat??

“She is working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home,” the Squad member said Monday night in championing Kamala Harris for president.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/2024/08/20/cease-fire-gaza-dnc-aoc-00175032

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)