Whattrees

"I don't have any moral responsibility because I believe the trolley shouldn't exist in the first place." Totally nuanced and not completely missing the point of the analogy at all. If only everyone knew we could just magically make the trolley disappear we could have skipped over the decades of philosophy written about the trolley problem because the solution is so easy!

A trolley problem format meme depicts the genocide of Palestinians on one track and the false equivalence of genocide to LGBT, BLM, and abortion on the other track.

It's not a false equivalence, there is no equivalence argued for in the meme. It points out that genocide in Gaza will happen on either track, but only one of them will actively make things worse for other groups I care about also. It's not calling them equivalent, in fact it's arguing they are not equivalent which is why we have a moral obligation to keep It off the track with more people on it. At best, the outcome for Gaza is equivalent, but the outcome for others is not.

Who says it's not getting worse?

Are you delusional enough to think that Trump and Harris will have identical outcomes for the other groups listed? Even if Harris doesn't "fix" those issues, preventing them from getting worse is better than allowing them to get worse. No improvement on abortion access is objectively better than a national abortion ban or anything else Trump (or really, the Heritage Foundation) wants.

I should explain why Democrats who endorse a genocide of brown people might be bad on BLM??

Ah yes, because Harris isn't as anti genocide as we want, it's totally logical to assume she would be in favor of black people dying more at the hands of police. Yes, that totally follows. And definitely the best option to improve policing is to let Trump be in charge. He will totally not work to make things worse.

Oh yes, the guy who can't even take 5 minutes to vote is totally devoting his free time to making things better. Do you think any of the other shit you talked about will be easier under Trump than Harris? You are choosing to let things get worse for the people you claim to care about just so you can feel morally superior by not "participating". News flash, choosing to not vote is still a choice with consequences for the people you are virtue signalling about. Choosing not to pull the lever doesn't make you not morally responsible for the people who chose not to save.

You think it's impossible to make a difference by voting and also by doing other things. I think voting to keep things from getting worse is the bare fucking minimum. If you can't even take a few minutes out of one day to mark a sheet of paper to keep things from getting worse I don't believe for a second are you doing anything to make things better.

And your solution is.... to let the trolley roll over them anyway while feeling morally superior. Unless you have some plan of removing the trolley before January, you are choosing to let it crush them anyway. Choosing to not vote or pull the lever is also a choice that you will have to live with and one that requires moral justification.

Does it? Is "fixed" the only bar that matters, or is "better" not still valuable? What about simply "not actively getting worse"? Is there no value in taking the smallest of steps to keep things from getting actively worse, or even attempting to stop them from getting worse? Does that prevent you from taking bigger steps to work for a better world? Do you think unions, mass protests, and other means of systemic change will magically be easier under Hitler 2.0 than a Dem?

You've asked this other question like 4 times in this thread so far, you must really think it's a gotcha.

Let's imagine for a second that Harris and Trump are indistinguishable on the question of Gaza (they aren't, but let's pretend your fantasy reality exists for a moment). That would mean that any choice results in the same outcome. That makes that question a wash. Choosing to vote for Harris, Trump, or not vote all have the same outcome on that front. But what about the other issues that matter to people? Should we let abortion access get more difficult in the meantime? Should we let the party that doesn't believe there are any issues with policing into power over the one that admits there's an issue but hasn't fixed it yet?

Your question is incredibly dumb, not only because you seem to think that something happening while X party is in power means that X party is responsible (someone never took a civics class and learned about SC appointments or the filibuster) but because it's entirely possible for a party to be good on one issue and bad on another. The Dem establishment is wrong about Gaza, what the hell does that have to do with abortion? Why would they be bad on abortion and BLM just because they are bad on this issue?

Of course! And if you don't pick, no one at all gets hurt or affected by that choice in any way! It totally only affects you! It's not like you have a moral obligation to not actively make the lives of others worse, right? It's not like choosing to not vote is also a choice that requires moral justification! Refusing to act is totally different morally than acting in a way that harms others! I can't wait to feel so right when I watch the news of the military camps and the anti-trans lynch mobs! Sure, I mean I didn't take 5 fucking minutes out of one day every 4 years to mark an X on a sheet of paper that could have prevented that from happening to them, but it's not like I had any power to do anything about it, right? ... Right?

Of course! And the way we do that is let the fascists win! It all makes sense now! We just have to let enough of our trans homies die and let Trump use the military to round up millions of people and put them in camps first! It's the blood sacrifice we need in order to usher in the (insert political system most Americans don't understand in the slightest and have negative views toward that will totally improve if we are instrumental in letting Hitler 2.0 win) revolution! It's just a good thing I am privileged enough to not have to be one of those rounded up in camps or lynched in the streets or die during the civil war / revolution! Why doesn't anyone else see it? We just have to deliberately let enough people die first in order for the politics-fairies to grant me the exact system I imagine!

/S

I'd love to see what your suggestion is for "working to disempower and destroy" the systems exactly while letting fascists take power. It's not like we could ever do both, right? We could never vote to keep things from actively getting worse and also advocate for a better world, right? It's not like the Dems would move right if they lost this time like they have done every single time before, right?

You make a great point. I can see why cops would be on edge and would rather risk taking someone into custody unnecessarily rather than putting their life at risk. Based on your reasoning they would probably be hyper vigilant for signs a stop might go wrong. Given an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace, they are probably trained to err on the side of caution, right?

No. Absolutely not. "Officer safety" isn't a blank check. Officer's first duty is to the law and the constitution, even before their own safety. You don't get to violate someone's right because you were scared, especially when the officers never once mention a safety threat. The only thing they say when they pull out the driver is "when we tell you to do something, you do it." You can keep imagining that this is about safety, but it's transparently not. It's about an officer who got butt-hurt when someone didn't suck his dick hard enough.

A rather obvious diss and strawman argument, but I see your point. What you are ignoring though is the reasonable person who is employed as a cop.

You are not a cop I assume, which is why I said person. The legal standard is "reasonable officer". The point still stands, nothing he did was objectively reasonable by the legal standard.

If you had that job, how much would you be willing to risk death on a daily basis to give people the benefit of the doubt?

If I was a cop, I would recognize that I volunteered for a dangerous job where my primary responsibility is to the rights of the citizens I supposedly protect. I would not violate someone's rights just because I had a completely unjustified fear. Are we just going to brush past the fact that this unjustified fear just happened to be directed towards a black man? That must just be coincidence, right?

So sue the fuck out of him! That's what the courts are for. That's a separate issue from whether the cop decided he was non-cooperative at a level that warranted intervention.

Well, no it's not. The courts determine what is reasonable and legal. The cop doesn't get to violate rights or laws even if he thinks the situation warranted intervention. He must have an objectively reasonable and legal reason for that intervention. Short of that, what he did was unreasonable and illegal. That's the whole point. And again, you haven't pointed to a single thing he did as showing non-cooperation, especially not enough to warrant all that followed in a legal way. As I've outlined numerous times now, he didn't refuse any order given. The only one he didn't comply with fast enough for the officer was the order to exit in which the officer gave him 7 seconds before resorting to violence.

That's the whole point of qualified immunity. Cops are the ones willing to wade into the shit on a daily basis. They put their lives on the line, so they get the discretion to decide they are going to cuff you for the rest of the interaction if they feel unsafe.

It's shocking how little you understand about how this all works. QI gives them legal protection for things that are not well established at the time of the interaction. It gives them cover for interpreting a law in the grey. Pulling someone out without reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous is not a grey area, it was decided by the Supreme Court decades ago. Not using excessive force is per-se well established (meaning QI does not apply when using unreasonable and unjustified force, like say punching a handcuffed suspect). I'll gloss over your completely insane framing of officers as "putting their lives on the line" and "willing to wade into this shit" and just say, do yourself a favor and look up the Castle Rock case and Uvalde before trying to suck them off next time.

If they break the law, sue them. If policy is bad, lobby for change. People wrote the laws, people set the culture, people can change it. But just whining online that some sports guy you like wasn't treated as politely as you would have liked is like having a quick wank, it makes you feel good, but won't change anything.

I don't give a shit about sports ball or this guy in the slightest. I had never even heard his name until this news broke. This isn't about "not being polite enough". The driver was treated in an illegal manner by a power-tripping cop because he didn't act as nicely and apologetically as this officer thought he was entitled to. That officer can get fucked. And the fact that the police union stated their full support of him before the video even came out should tell you something.

What exactly would you suggest to make things better? This kind of talk online led to the largest protests in American history just a few years ago and after months that led to nothing. And you aren't here advocating for change, you've been defending the officer and presuming he is right about everything this whole conversation.

If you think you can do better, go apply for a job with the force, show us what the police could be. If you are going to let someone else do it so you don't have to take the risk and can sit safely at home whining about it. Sure you can get some attention, but you aren't going to be taken very seriously.

Oh yes, the classic "our job is so hard, why don't you try it". Got any more stereotypical cop defense lines you wanna throw out? Maybe a "he should have just complied" in there? No thanks, I have too much self-respect to be a pig. That being said, I don't have to be a quarterback to know when a footballer makes a bad play. I don't have to be a doctor to know not to listen to a quack. I don't have to be a cop to know a power-tripping tyrant when I see one.

your version of "pacifism" is completely meaningless, and that by your standards, you could still call yourself a pacifist while taking any side in any conflict.

Hey buddy, I'm not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you don't like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white "for or against violence in all forms" kind of pacifism. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you don't agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.

Your definition of pacifism is indeed meaningless, manipulative, and self-aggrandizing, intending to steal valor from the association with people who actually stand by their strongly held moral convictions against violence.

Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how it's complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. You're not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesn't mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didn't even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You don't get to define that term for them.

yOu KnOw YoUr PrEvIoUs CoMmEnTs ArE sTiLl ViSiBlE, rIgHt?" God you people can be insufferable. I stand by everything I said in my previous comments, none of which in any way contracts what I'm saying.

Ya, it's totally me that's been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didn't say "I'm a communist" or "I look to Lenin" in your previous comments. Got it.

How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?

Oh ya, it's totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should "seek peace." Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time I've interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?

Look I'll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:

People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you don't actually want a better world, you want one where American doesn't exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for "the revolution" while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our "revolution" in a way that totally wouldn't result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.

Again, putting words in my mouth, inventing positions whole cloth based on nothing and assigning them to me. You sure like assigning things to people just so long as they don't happen to be phrased as labels, huh?

What the fuck did you mean by "Russia should seek peace" then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They don't need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to "seek peace" you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.

Obviously not. I've stated my positions numerous times. I even offered to explain the theoretical influences behind my positions. This time, you're taking words out of my mouth lmao. I guess that's a nice change of pace.

No one cares about the "theoretical influences" of your opinions. You've been "just asking questions" while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasn't.

You seem to think that I don't understand that language is mutable and collectively defined.

You literally still don't get it. It's not that it can change and is collectively defined, it's that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.

What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation.

Ahhh ok. So you think it's manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they don't use it the way you, a person who isn't a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.

You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.

Oh, so you didn't say any of those things? You didn't say you were a communist? You didn't reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you haven't been excusing Russia's actions (like talking about "Ukraine bombing civilians in the Donbas" ) and trying to argue against Ukraine's? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?

Are you saying you don’t support Russia?

No, they should seek peace.

That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?

No, they should seek peace.

Of course not!

Incorrect.

I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They aren't. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they haven't raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.

I have. The "secret positions" that I'm supposedly hiding are entirely your invention

Cool. So we're just going back to pretending that you've been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because you're incapable of defending them!

As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are "wrong". That's not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn't know your definition. Your argument isn't a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.

I haven't said anything about my positions on any topic. I'm not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists don't, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you don't like it, and now collapsed into "I guess all words are meaningless then". It's not my problem that you don't understand how words work.

You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don't have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think I'm wrong, you can correct me. I didn't assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?

Are you saying you don't support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same "I'm just asking questions, I have no opinions" bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say "America bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesn't like them."