politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The idea that not voting is some form of protest that has material consequences for the ruling class is ahistorical. It took centuries of struggle to attain universal suffrage. The people in power are perfectly happy to have only a small fraction of the demos exerting any political power at all; in fact this is how most civilizations have functioned for the past few thousand years.
Actually it took centuries of people revolting and overthrowing old systems of government, not them kowtowing to party 1 and party 1a.
Ok so how does not voting help with this?
Know what else is ahistorical? The idea that genocide = genocide = genocide, and that there aren't levels to this.
These people don't know or care about history.
If genocide is wrong, then genocide is wrong, no matter what the level.
Say genocide A was 100 million and genocide B was 500 million. You can save A, B, or neither. Which do you pick?
Hint: there's only one right answer.
The trolley problem is bullshit. You're using bullshit to rationalise accepting the deaths of innocent people.
The trolley problem - specifically the version where you must push one fat guy to save five others - requires a Descartesian 'Evil demon' to perfectly produce the reality of, or appearance of, a contrived situation wherein you are forced to be responsible for the murderous actions of another.
This situation explicitly creates an either/or situation, as if the only way to save people in America is to let brown people in another country die.
Source: medium
I am not, in reality, forced to be complicit in a political system where it has been decided that we must murder some of the innocent in order to protect more of the innocent. Anyone trying to force me to think that way is either malicious or deluded, and at the very least believes in a shit thought experiment which has nothing to do with real-life moral decisions.
Hint: there is only one right answer, and that is you agree that killing innocent people is wrong, so do not support killing innocent people. That's how morality works. Or do you need a trolley to come towards you and your family while you are all strapped to the tracks before you realise it?
Your lack of choosing the lesser poison for million is, indeed, complicity in of itself whether you like it or not. Patting yourself on the back as you usher in Trump when you could've had Harris — who is obviously in every single way better on Gaza than Trump — is perhaps the most illogical thing I have ever seen.
Here's how logic works:
If killing is wrong, then don't kill.
Can America please stop enabling the killing. Thanks.
Less killing is better than more killing.
Attempted ceasefire is better than undermining said ceasefire.
More amicability better than less amicability.
Less Ukrainians die vs more Ukrainians die.
Comparative logic.
You seem to be under the impression that your not voting changes the binary outcome.
This pyrrhic victory neglects to recognize that either Trump or Harris will be elected. And there is no circumstance that Trump is better than Harris. Not on women's rights. Not on climate change. Not on Ukraine. And not on Gaza.
Whether you like it or not, it's Harris or Trump. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change this fact.
So both the moral and pragmatic solution is to choose the lesser evil that gives the highest odds to improve all these groups. Which is Harris. Factually.
Me voting wouldn't change the outcome either, considering I can't.
Is killing wrong?
Yes, killing wrong.
Killing more people with less chance to kill fewer people more wrong.
Again, dichotomous choice. Easiest choice to make, really.
If killing is wrong, then voting to kill some rather than more is still wrong.
I request better options.
Correction: it is less wrong.
Standing by and letting someone kill more when your action could've resulted in less makes you as culpable in the killing as Biden and Harris themselves.
We're standing by to let killing happen right now. I'm the one saying that's unacceptable.
You can't vote so you're irrelevant but still, no, the only agency I'm privileged to have is my vote. Doing nothing means more die. Voting Harris means less die. Simple.
You are complicit by living in the US and paying taxes which fund military aid to Israel. Not voting does not absolve you. And in the case of this election, it makes you slightly more complicit because one of the war criminals who is running is slightly worse than the other.
Do you know what? I'll make an international move across the ocean just to accommodate you.
Everyone in the US is complicit. Everyone in NATO member countries is complicit. Everyone not fighting to overthrow their imperialist government is complicit. Again, not the point.
Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... I'm sorry, ahem. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I laughed my ass off at this, too.
Nobody is "accepting the deaths", they are acknowledging the reality of the situation that significantly more people will die through inaction than action.
No one is saying "Vote and then wash your hands of it." Genocide is wrong so you need to do everything you can to prevent it. One of those things is vote, but it is not the only thing. You vote, and you continue to pressure the government to stop assisting in genocide.
Okay, but I can't.
So you encourage other people not to and pretend to be helping while in reality making things worse.
I say that killing people is wrong. If that's not acceptable to you, that's fine. I clearly live in a world where killing innocent people is seen as convenient.
Not what I said at all, but thank you for making it clear that you aren't interested in actually having a conversation because you don't bother to listen to what other people say. You just assume the other person said something you can disagree with.
Great conversational skills. Good bye.
So you're not actively trying to convince people not to vote for Harris?
If saying that killing innocent people is wrong convinces people to not vote for Harris, then Harris is probably not a very good candidate.
I'm actively trying to convince people to find a way to not kill innocent people. I hate the fact that this is happening, and it makes me want to die.
You are going into threads about Harris saying "but killing innocent people is wrong."
"I'm not saying don't vote for Harris, I am just inserting the suggestion into conversations about Harris, then claiming you came to that conclusion on your own."
For someone who claims to have strong convictions you sure have a hard time actually standing up for and defending what you are saying. Any pushback and it quickly becomes wishy washy bullshit.
I'm saying that killing people is wrong. If you showed me Harris had committed to holding Israel accountable and creating a ceasefire, I would be a big fan. It's not hard to be better than Trump or the Republican party, they're odious.
You can't blame me for my perception that the Democratic party is aiding Israel by sending them weapons. You can blame me for caring about the lives of innocent people, though.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire/index.html
Absolutely. So you admit there are levels.