The analogy kind of falls apart since she is not limited to this guy and Chad. She's free to choose nothing at all. With Trump vs Biden, there's no viable third option, and having no president is not one of the options. So the "Trump is worse" argument becomes viable simply because you do have to choose one of them.
Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she's paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
You can tactically vote for Biden to avoid Trump and still take actions to dismantle the system.
Or you could maybe take actions to fix the system. Because whatever you lot come up with after dismantling is going be worse for everybody else.
You can still do both. The only viable path to election reform comes from downballot state elections anyway.
You can still do both
Not sure that I follow what you mean. You can’t fix a system that is being dismantled, so I’m guessing that you mean something else.
Well if you properly dismantle the system, we won't be voting this November anyway. Better get on that quick, bud.
I disagree, if we are legitimately talking about dismantling the USA, like what happened to USSR, then it will take decades or more to do peacefully. Not gonna happen overnight, babe.
Bro I thought we were talking about the election system, not the whole damn country. You wanna destroy the country, elect trump. I guess that's why you encourage people not to vote for biden.
I never said anything about destroying the country. If Texas wants to secede, let them, I say. If democrats and republicans can’t get along, then keep em separated, I say.
Also, I only encourage people to vote their conscience. I don’t care who they vote for.
If you lot are trying to talk about election reform again, then go back and listen to what Lawrence Lessig was talking about before the democrats blocked him from the debates to protect hillary.
edit: and don’t call me bro. use the proper “brother” or don’t bother, i’m not gender-conforming
these flippant “just let them secede and suffer and die” comments are sad to read.
You’re also not allowed to complain about him calling you “bro” after you ended with “babe“ previously.
these flippant “just let them secede and suffer and die” comments are sad to read.
it’s sad to read that you think that Texas couldn’t survive on it’s own. I believe in Texas. Remember the Alamo.
You’re also not allowed to complain about him calling you “bro” after you ended with “babe“ previously.
Excuse me? Butting in where it’s not necessary is not appreciated. This fellow started out using the terms of endearment of “bud”, so piss off.
babe
seriously?
bud
seriously?
It was in response to your patronizing nonsense. Yes, they should have turned the other cheek, but you literally started this! So yeah, you forfeit your right to critique it
uh wrong, “bud” started it. get blocked.
Missed that fair point. Either way you’re both being ridiculous.
So the woman in our scenario should decide to choose the "Nice Guy" tactically?
No, I’m saying that your analogy breaks down.
I don't think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.
You’re free to do nothing, but smart people choose to minimize harm when there are only bad choices in front of them.
Who said I'm "doing nothing"? Voting isn't doing anything. Only actions outside the ballot matter.
Voting isn’t doing anything? Did you not see what happened when Trump got to pick three Supreme Court justices? Roe is gone dude. This stuff matters.
Hrc won the popular vote. How did voting harm reduction then do anyone any good?
Folks that stayed home to prove a point made sure the SC would get the three. Failure to Vote resulted in the harm. Had those folks Voted, harm would have been reduced. You the failure of your own position.
Right, because the dnc totally didn't ignore Bernie Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. Again, please.
I don’t understand the question. We don’t elect based on popular vote.
I'm saying hrc votes were worthless; throw away votes. Hence a non vote was the same, and a third party vote was at least as valuable, and when enough people support a third party candidate, it will be worth more, because it shows the two major parties they have something to worry about.
Nope. The folks that Voted remained in consideration as there was another Election. Those that didn't Vote were ignored. One of the primary reasons Biden got the Nod to be the Candidate in 2020 was that those that did not Vote could not be counted on to show up and thus the potential Candidates they would support were ignored from the considerations as they couldn't be counted on.
This is also a good point. I think we'd have a better shot at electing a third-party candidate than we would of pushing an establishment democrat left.
It really doesn't. This is the momentum of your country either way. Or did you forget that your democrats had chances to put Supreme Court justices and they just...didn't?
What are you talking about? The senate has to approve them. The GOP controlled the senate. I get you don’t understand our system but before acting so smug I’d make sure I understand what happened.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
And so I refer you back to my first comment in this thread
I have read it don’t be an ass. Make a point or don’t.
My point to this kind of comment is made in that post. We're just looping at this point.
If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a bad analogy. Accept that it has flaws or make your case. Don’t keep pointing to the same insufficient comments as if the only answer is our lack of comprehension. Several people clearly disagree with it on the same grounds so maybe consider you’re wrong.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
It fits. You say the analogy doesn't fit because "we don't have a choice". I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn't have a choice either.
If you and I choose not to vote for Trump or Biden, who do we wind up with?
If she says no to both guys, who does she wind up with?
Yeah nah mate. You have the right to not vote. But if you choose to exercise this right you don't get to whinge about the person elected by those who did vote.
Society is not composed of you and you alone. It is composed of many. You took yourself outta this decision but it's still being made freely by everyone else and no, it doesn't impinge on you to accept the democratic consensus of the many
But if you choose to exercise this right you don't get to whinge about the person elected by those who did vote.
roflmao, sorry, that is just absurd.
until the UN General Assembly says that the right to share an opinion only applies to people who vote, you are totally wrong.
i’ll exercise my universal right to complain and have self-determination in government by not voting for genocidal maniacs, thank you very much.
I understand that I'm living in an oppressive system enforced by violence and that my life is shaped at the threat of state violence. you don't need to reiterate that to me. It's why I'm not legitimizing it by participating in this farce of "democracy" and instead dedicate my life to changing it.
Whichever puppet is on top doesn't change all that whatsoever. Nor will your platitudes about be "accepting the democratic consensus of the many" when I don't have the alternative due to said violence.
Well said. As someone who is going to vote for Biden to keep Trump out of office, I harbor no ill will towards leftists who choose to reject the whole charade. One way or another, we need to bring down the system, and I don't see any evidence that voting for centrist democrats is likely to incrementally move us towards a better system.
On the contrary, it seems more likely to me that Trump would potentially accelerate the evolution of society by fucking everything up so badly that we would have no alternative but to make radical changes.
However, given that I am unable to be certain of the future outcome of each timeline, I believe that voting for Biden minimizes the risk of a worst case scenario. But again, I don't approve of shaming leftists for abstaining, because the reality is that both parties are colluding to maintain the status quo, and ultimately if Trump wins the election its not the voters who will be to blame, but the Democratic party for failing to produce a credible challenger.
For the little it will be worth to you, i am a radical moderate and we can find common ground in fixing the broke in radical ways.
Thank you for sharing that; I also consider myself a radical moderate. In the context of a decadent and degenerate society, the term makes a great deal of sense.
You are so very welcome, friend. I totally agree.
You've got some good points. Keep up the good fight
You can refuse to vote but you're still going to end up with one of those two as your president. Are you OK with not having a say about which one it ends up being just to make a point to nobody in particular?
Are you OK with not having a say about which one it ends up being just to make a point to nobody in particular?
Abstention makes a point to everyone in general through the tracking of voter participation levels.
Nope. Just results in your being removed from the calculation as irrelevant.
Ok, fascist.
You shouldn't not vote. Vote for someone else instead. Vote for the person you want to represent you.
I might register to vote just to write in “thanks for counting the votes” for president - or I guess I could vote for Cornel West, but what’s the point? The abstention would be more representative of my views, at this time, I believe.
Consider this:
Republicans win big this election, including the presidency. Democrats were just very nearly beaten out. They look at who else got votes, and investigate what their platform was. They realize they could co-opt some of those ideas to try and get some of those voters next time. But, if you haven't voted, they have no clue what platform you support or what policies they can adopt to win you over next time.
Swap the parties if it suits you, I'm not trying to make a statement for one versus the other, I'm trying to convince you to vote at all.
I'm not trying to make a statement for one versus the other, I'm trying to convince you to vote at all.
appreciated
But, if you haven't voted, they have no clue what platform you support or what policies they can adopt to win you over next time.
I get what you are saying, but I’m not yet convinced. You did make a dent, though. I’ll let it percolate a while.
They look at who else got votes, and investigate what their platform was. They realize they could co-opt some of those ideas to try and get some of those voters next time.
I spent 20 years voting like that and the democrats have utterly failed to listen to anything other than the social justice issues.
The republicans are fundamentally right about some things (this is a democratic REPUBLIC, afterall) but so fundamentally wrong about other things, that they similarly failed to listen to.
So now, I’m mostly content being in the “no one is listening to me” category.
edit: fwiw, i do occasionally write to representatives about topics that i am knowledgeable about
As pointless as Voting third party is in the US, at least you remain included in the considerations of the Ruling Class. Don't Vote and your interests are ignored as irrelevant.
. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.
Life is full of choice forced upon you, thats unavoidable short of choosing to stop existing. I am forced to choose between where to work. If I say "fuck it, I'm not going to legitimize this capitalist system, I'm making no such choice", I've still made a choice, one that will end up with me being homeless. The threat of violence came true anyways.
It's in my best interest to choose, and in the meantime work to dismantle the capitalist system that is threatening me with homelessness. But when it comes to voting, it's worse because the lives of others are on the line.
You don't have the luxury to stand by and do nothing when people's lives are on the line.
How many trans people will die as a result of suicide or outright killings as a result of Trump coming to power? Their blood will be on your hands, how much are you ok having on your hands? You have the opportunity to vote for a candidate that isn't going to ban GAC, who isn't going to condone or pardon violence against trans people, who isn't going to shift the culture towards more hatred.
And you're choosing to stand idly by and let the harm happen.
A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all
Indeed. Vote your conscience or don’t vote at all.
Yes. While there's nothing wrong with sex work, if you're forced into it to survive when you'd rather not (marriage or cohabitation because it's either that or sex someone to get a low or higher paying job) it's still forced prostitution, and once Mr. Nice Guy has you, it's mask off, 100. Even if you willingly choose Mr. Nice Guy, and the mask comes off, it's a bait and switch, rather than duress and still scummy.
To put it another way, if your choices are die from dehydration or drink poisoned water, dehydration may be less agonizing than drinking from a brackish source.
You are participating regardless. You are simply letting others decide for you.
Abstention has historically been a way to declare your distaste for all options and, outside of America, is regarded as honorable. For some reason Americans don’t get that a massive absence at the polls isn’t just about “having better things to do”.
It historically has been and shall always remain an ineffectual and pointless way to assure you and your interests are not a part of the calculation in any way. The fewer that Vote the easier it is to "manage" the remainder. No one, literally no one including the nonvoters themselves cares a single whit for the opinions of nonvoters. Refusal to participate makes your position meaningless. It is the "holding your breath" of the lazy and immature adult. Nothing more and nothing less.
Wow. You have a severe issue with people who are presented some options and say: “No, thanks.”
I have a civic duty that if I am not represented by a candidate, that I do not muster support behind that candidate. If a political party needs my support, it is their responsibility and not mine to attract the voters they claim to need.
You can watch the constant sliding of Democrats toward the right and the vacillating popularity of fringe-left parties to know that the Democratic Party doesn’t give a damn about winning left-fringe voters. After Nader secured over 3 million votes in 2000, do you think the Democratic party learned a single lesson? Or did they just shit the bed all over again in 2004? Did Obama run on any of the 2000 Green Party’s positions?
I’ll save you the effort: The Democratic Party opted to adopt 0 of the Green Party positions from the 2000 election.
So tell me all about how voting Third-Party somehow sends a message.
If the woman in the scenario is going to be stuck with the nice guy or Donald Trump, then yes she should tactically choose the guy who isn't an unapologetic rapist. She can influence the nice guy's behavior, and avoid the horror of Trump. She does not have to condone or accept the nice guy's bullshit behavior, and there will be a future.
Your utterly not related nor relatable to reality scenario is pointless.
Should she choose to watch Star Wars or Star Trek after having stabbed both your imaginary scum bag and his friend chad. Has the same relevance to the Election.
Using the trolley problem as an analogy, if you don't pull the lever the people run over by it are not your fault but the trolley company's, but if you do pull the lever the death of the guy on the other tracks is absolutely on you.
I assume you voted for Biden last election, to avoid the trolley running over the people in that proverbial track. Congratulations, you are guilty of murdering all those Palestinian children. Now, next election, if (when) Trump wins, your vote even for Biden is what gives legitimacy to his presidency.
After that news on research that a Trump victory would likely spell the end of NATO, don’t be surprised if the rightists starts to see this election as being about ending NATO and withdrawing from the UN.
Typical right-wing goals that maybe leftists don’t appreciate the strength of conviction that the hard-liners have.
That (and the obvious social conservative goals) are the only legitimacy that Drumpf really has.
edit: also, Trump trumped Biden on the Palestenian genocide when he moved the Israeli embassy. i’m sure that that emboldened Netanyahu to press even harder rightwards. Now look at it.
ending NATO
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing. It has literally never fought a defensive war in its history and the places its invaded and bombed are still hurting decades later.
withdrawing from the UN.
A UN where the US couldn't veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I'd have to campaign for him.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I’d have to campaign for him.
If you at all care about the lives of trans people, black people, women, latin american people, and the other many targets of Trump & the republicans, then you must recognize that under no circumstances should Trump be given power.
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
A UN where the US couldn't veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
The US is one of like, what, two countries in the entirety of the UN that haven’t yet ratified ICESCR after 50+ years. So, making some more sense there, too.
I’d not see us leave the UN, though, because then we would truly be screwed. The US would officially no longer embrace human rights, not being a member-state.
But point well taken.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I'd have to campaign for him.
I’d genuinely be right there with you if he came out as 100% in favor of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Not having that is an automatic disqualifier for me.
The US would officially no longer embrace human rights
The US only embraces human rights of enemy states. We've got more prisoners than any other country and support the worst dictatorships.
Until we ratify the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the US, I’m inclined to agree.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot that would be shocked once Russia started invading countries like Georgia, Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Finland...
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot
I’ll bite, as one would be an asshole to think one was an idiot for understanding a basic of diplomacy - engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
At face-value, recall, Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West. Do you want them to always be our enemy?
engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West.
That's entirely due to Vladimir Putin. Neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin were 'enemies' of the west. (OTOH, the dismantling of the USSR really could have benefited from some help from the west; the oligarchs and political elites sacked the wealth of the country, which paved the way for Putin.) Capitulating to Putin would not soften his stance; he would still believe that all of the formerly Warsaw-pact countries 'belong' to the United Soviet Socialist Republics. He still believes that sections of Finland that Russia lost in the Continuation War belong to Russia. He still believes that all the Baltic countries belong to the USSR, despite the USSR not having existed for 30-odd years.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization. The NATO agreement is that IF Russia invades any member country, that all NATO signatories will come to the defense of that country. If a signatory invades Russia, then they're on their own. The only think that NATO directly opposes is Russian aggression; all Russia has to do to avoid war with NATO is... Not invade a NATO country.
I appreciate your enthusiasm! You do make solid points, some of which I am well aware of, but as Russia is not a specific area of interest for me, I can’t match your level of enthusiasm.
However, in the interest of the spirit of brotherhood and interestimg conversation, I would ask this of you:
That's entirely due to Vladimir Putin.
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades, isn’t it fair to say that we ought to continue to operate as-if he did speak for the whole country?
Building on that semi-rhetorical question, and especially in regard to your concession that the West could have helped more, and in a larger, more historical perspective, might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion, it might be the case that there are border towns that legitimately prefer to be part of Russia, given their local history, but were never represented properly at the fall of the USSR.
You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the specific mechanism by which the USSR was dismantled.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization.
No argument there. Again, though, I’d ask: when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
At this juncture, I presume it would be a long ways away, but one never knows what can come out of diplomatic negotiations, so maybe Ukraine solves the whole thing, if we are lucky.
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades,
...That's because every time someone else comes even slightly close to having any kind of popular support, they 'commit suicide', or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia. E.g., Alexi Navalny. Moreover, he controls all the media in the country, and has largely managed to cut off significant access to any sources of information from outside the country. So that 'strong level of domestic support' is due to a dearth of options, rather than genuine support.
might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
No. That's like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis. The region belongs to the country first and foremost, before it belongs to the region. Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair--and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced--it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion,
There are a lot of "ethnic Italians", and "ethnic Irish" living in the US, and they were badly mistreated during the first part of the 20th C. That wouldn't have given Ireland or Italy the right to invade New York, because, despite their ethnicity, they were Americans. Not Irish citizens, not Italian citizens. And, bluntly, Putin claiming to be concerned about the treatment of ethnic Russians is concern trolling. It was an excuse to invade, just like his claims of de-Nazification. The real issue was that Ukraine had left the USSR when the USSR failed, he wants it back, and any excuse that people can be suckered into buying is good enough for him.
when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
Again: no. You don't improve your relationship with a bully and a criminal by capitulating. They are the one that is acting incorrectly, so it is incumbent on them to improve their own behaviour, rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing.
they 'commit suicide', or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia
Like I said, arguably. Show me some data that says that the opposition has grown above 25% (arbitrary, you may understand what I mean) and then I’ll come down on the side that he probably doesn’t speak for the majority of the country.
That's like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis.
The only way that they can secede is if we make a constitutional amendment to allow states to secede, yes. Personally, I’d vote for letting Texas secede, if they wanted to.
Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair--and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced--it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.
Now we are seeing eye-to-eye, Helix - that’s pretty much my point. There are diplomatic avenues to solve this problem, so maybe Ukraine can solve the whole thing, in the interest of preventing future wars. I say “solve” in the sense that they may be able to negotiate a plan for how to handle this in the future for the whole old Soviet bloc.
concern trolling
No argument with this paragraph, I agree, in principle.
The whole thing reeks of Putin trolling the West.
rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing
Point taken, however, instead of a little victimizing (by way of that hypothetical peaceful path that we outlined earlier) they are now getting a lot of victimizing (vis a vis, death and destruction).
Again, for the sake of argument, assuming that Russia itself was victimized during the fall of the USSR, and assuming that Putin is seeking to redress that, rather than him trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then is there any other peaceful path?
if we assume that he is trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then I’d be entirely in agreement with you on this topic.
I’m just not willing to make blanket assumptions like that - I prefer the probabilistic approach.
Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to discuss this with me. I’ll keep replying if you do.
Like I said, arguably. Show me some data that says that the opposition has grown above 25% (arbitrary, you may understand what I mean)
In 2020, the support for Alexi Navalni was around 20%, which, as the article notes, was despite the fact that all of the available Russian media--which is entirely controlled by the state--demonized him as a traitor to Russia. If you had a reasonably free media in Russia that was free to report on what Putin was really doing, then it seems likely that support would have been higher.
But if opposition leaders keep getting jailed, or commit suicide, every time their public support breaks out of the single digits, then yeah, duh, of course you aren't going to see opposition about 25%.
There are diplomatic avenues to solve this problem, so maybe Ukraine can solve the whole thing, in the interest of preventing future wars.
You're missing the point entirely. Sure, it's not rape if you consent. And you can stop a rape that's already happening by saying, okay, sure, I consent to this. But, really...? That's the direction you want to go here? Russia could also stop this at any time just by pulling troops out, and giving Ukraine it's own land and kidnapped people back. Russia can prevent future wars by, I dunno not invading other countries. Why should it be the responsibility of the victim to negotiate with the aggressor?
Again, for the sake of argument, assuming that Russia itself was victimized during the fall of the USSR, and assuming that Putin is seeking to redress that, rather than him trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then is there any other peaceful path?
Russia was victimized by Russians. Not by the west, not by Ukraine. These are all self-inflicted wounds, not some grand conspiracy by The West. The former Soviet states didn't want to be Soviet states, because the Soviet government had always been complete dogshit. When the USSR broke up, the politically powerful and connected systematically looted the country of wealth; it wasn't western governments and companies that looted the country. So if Putin wants to fix that, he needs to fix his shit, not blame everyone else for the problems that Russia created for itself. But that's not what he's been doing; he's trying to mask internal problems by claiming that it's an external enemy.
Not Voting is a Vote, just as not choosing is a choice. It is simply a Vote for the worse option based upon your judgment. You remain 100% responsible for enabling what happens simply because you didn't do what you could to prevent it.
"In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote."
David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
it's not really a vote for the worse option, it's a vote saying "i don't know what's best or don't care, so i'll take whatever happens"
The entire concept of Voting boycott is idiotic. The premise being, "less of a problem gets me noticed!", astoundingly resulted in the protest Voter being ignored.
if all the people that don't vote, voted third party: they'd win...
nope. Still lower numbers than the two established parties. However, what it would do is get the numbers high enough that the various monied and political interests involved paid attention to what those folks were thinking. Unlike the non-Voter whom everyone ignores as they don't Vote.
Your argument relies on hordes of people suddenly, magically changing their behavior in a cohesive and coordinated way. Have fun with that.
Which ends up being an acceptance of the worst option, because the boomers who vote for Trump always vote every election.
It's a trolley problem. The trolley is flying down the tracks. The boomers are itching to vote for Trump.
Standing by and doing nothing makes you complicit.
Yup. Evangelicals shall Vote every single election. You sure that not Voting is the flex you think it is?
Not Voting is a Vote
No it isn't, fuck that doublespeech. That's like saying to the woman in op's example 'If you don't choose between Niceguy and Chad and then one of them comes and rapes you it's your fault for not choosing the other to protect you when you got the chance'.
That analogy was flawed from the start and doesn't apply to anything. Stop using it, and stop even thinking about it.
With the current election, there are two choices, and only two choices. That is the reality you have to work with. We know that x number of Republican voters are going to turn out no matter what. So by not voting, you aren't making any kind of moral stand. You are just deciding to let the greater of two evils win.
And the reason OP’s analogy falls apart is choosing nobody or someone else is actually valid when you are deciding who to date. But there is going to be a president, it is going to be one of those two people, and not voting/voting third party in 2024 does not change that.
100% does. You have voted to let the majority of those remaining to decide for you. That you did so is actually logged if you are eligible, IE registered. Sorry sunshine, reality happens no matter how hard you hold your breath and stamp your feet.
The whole point of the trolley problem is to illustrate how difficult culpability/blame is and how a single choice can be incredibly multi-faceted to the point where you can’t possibly untangle it and find the “correct” answer unless you adhere to a strict, well-defined moral framework. Which usually means making a choice to ignore other factors and other valid moral frameworks. Hence the conundrum. It’s real use is to test drive how each framework handles the situation and to see your reaction to it.
You're missing the lesson here, or purposely obscuring it to win an internet argument in the hopes no one looks too closely because you cited a thoroughly-meme’d smart sounding philosophical question.
The 'correct' answer to the trolley problem is subjective, that's the whole point. I used it to illustrate where I stand, not what the absolutely moral choice is.
I've been pointing how awful that trolley company is since I reached my teens, I've been out in the streets protesting the dangers of this very track, trying to stop the trolleys from running, I would burn down the Trolley Company's headquarters if needed, but I am not killing that one guy no matter what.
I wasn't trying to 'win' an argument or even convince the other commenter of anything, just trying to tell my point of view as a non voter (for ethical reasons). I see voting as a very meaningful action, if the person I vote wins everything they do while in power is going to be a bit either thanks to me or my fault. And they do a lot more bad than good, I would feel that some of that blood is in my hands.
The police officers in Uvalde had no legal responsibility to protect the children in the school. They were not required to charge in and stop--shoot--the person that murdered so many children. And yet, we quite rightly condemn their unwillingness to act, even though acting would placed them at risk of harm or death at the hands of the shooter. They had the ability to prevent mass murder, and they did not.
The person that refuses to act, when it puts them at no risk, and costs no more than the minor inconvenience of standing in line for a few minutes, is certainly no better than the police officers in Uvalde.
I'm opposed to killing 'innocent' people, if the guy in the trolley problem wanted to kill the people on the other track I would certainly pull the lever. But now that you bring children killers to the conversation, you are arguing not just for not getting into the school or stoping the killer but for voting him for more child-killing because the other child-killer is worst. I find all of that very twisted and I want no part in it.
Whether you want to be a part of it or not, if you are a US citizen, you are. Your only choice is to reduce hard, or not.
The analogy kind of falls apart since she is not limited to this guy and Chad. She's free to choose nothing at all. With Trump vs Biden, there's no viable third option, and having no president is not one of the options. So the "Trump is worse" argument becomes viable simply because you do have to choose one of them.
Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she's paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
You can tactically vote for Biden to avoid Trump and still take actions to dismantle the system.
Or you could maybe take actions to fix the system. Because whatever you lot come up with after dismantling is going be worse for everybody else.
You can still do both. The only viable path to election reform comes from downballot state elections anyway.
Not sure that I follow what you mean. You can’t fix a system that is being dismantled, so I’m guessing that you mean something else.
Well if you properly dismantle the system, we won't be voting this November anyway. Better get on that quick, bud.
I disagree, if we are legitimately talking about dismantling the USA, like what happened to USSR, then it will take decades or more to do peacefully. Not gonna happen overnight, babe.
Bro I thought we were talking about the election system, not the whole damn country. You wanna destroy the country, elect trump. I guess that's why you encourage people not to vote for biden.
I never said anything about destroying the country. If Texas wants to secede, let them, I say. If democrats and republicans can’t get along, then keep em separated, I say.
Also, I only encourage people to vote their conscience. I don’t care who they vote for.
If you lot are trying to talk about election reform again, then go back and listen to what Lawrence Lessig was talking about before the democrats blocked him from the debates to protect hillary.
edit: and don’t call me bro. use the proper “brother” or don’t bother, i’m not gender-conforming
these flippant “just let them secede and suffer and die” comments are sad to read.
You’re also not allowed to complain about him calling you “bro” after you ended with “babe“ previously.
it’s sad to read that you think that Texas couldn’t survive on it’s own. I believe in Texas. Remember the Alamo.
Excuse me? Butting in where it’s not necessary is not appreciated. This fellow started out using the terms of endearment of “bud”, so piss off.
seriously?
seriously?
It was in response to your patronizing nonsense. Yes, they should have turned the other cheek, but you literally started this! So yeah, you forfeit your right to critique it
uh wrong, “bud” started it. get blocked.
Missed that fair point. Either way you’re both being ridiculous.
So the woman in our scenario should decide to choose the "Nice Guy" tactically?
No, I’m saying that your analogy breaks down.
I don't think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.
You’re free to do nothing, but smart people choose to minimize harm when there are only bad choices in front of them.
Who said I'm "doing nothing"? Voting isn't doing anything. Only actions outside the ballot matter.
Voting isn’t doing anything? Did you not see what happened when Trump got to pick three Supreme Court justices? Roe is gone dude. This stuff matters.
Hrc won the popular vote. How did voting harm reduction then do anyone any good?
Folks that stayed home to prove a point made sure the SC would get the three. Failure to Vote resulted in the harm. Had those folks Voted, harm would have been reduced. You the failure of your own position.
Right, because the dnc totally didn't ignore Bernie Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. Again, please.
I don’t understand the question. We don’t elect based on popular vote.
I'm saying hrc votes were worthless; throw away votes. Hence a non vote was the same, and a third party vote was at least as valuable, and when enough people support a third party candidate, it will be worth more, because it shows the two major parties they have something to worry about.
Nope. The folks that Voted remained in consideration as there was another Election. Those that didn't Vote were ignored. One of the primary reasons Biden got the Nod to be the Candidate in 2020 was that those that did not Vote could not be counted on to show up and thus the potential Candidates they would support were ignored from the considerations as they couldn't be counted on.
This is also a good point. I think we'd have a better shot at electing a third-party candidate than we would of pushing an establishment democrat left.
It really doesn't. This is the momentum of your country either way. Or did you forget that your democrats had chances to put Supreme Court justices and they just...didn't?
What are you talking about? The senate has to approve them. The GOP controlled the senate. I get you don’t understand our system but before acting so smug I’d make sure I understand what happened.
Also they’re not “my” democrats.
Both matter. We need to do both.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
And so I refer you back to my first comment in this thread
I have read it don’t be an ass. Make a point or don’t.
My point to this kind of comment is made in that post. We're just looping at this point.
If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a bad analogy. Accept that it has flaws or make your case. Don’t keep pointing to the same insufficient comments as if the only answer is our lack of comprehension. Several people clearly disagree with it on the same grounds so maybe consider you’re wrong.
It fits. You say the analogy doesn't fit because "we don't have a choice". I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn't have a choice either.
If you and I choose not to vote for Trump or Biden, who do we wind up with?
If she says no to both guys, who does she wind up with?
You could adjust it to talk about arranged marriages instead.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Yeah nah mate. You have the right to not vote. But if you choose to exercise this right you don't get to whinge about the person elected by those who did vote.
Society is not composed of you and you alone. It is composed of many. You took yourself outta this decision but it's still being made freely by everyone else and no, it doesn't impinge on you to accept the democratic consensus of the many
roflmao, sorry, that is just absurd.
until the UN General Assembly says that the right to share an opinion only applies to people who vote, you are totally wrong.
i’ll exercise my universal right to complain and have self-determination in government by not voting for genocidal maniacs, thank you very much.
I understand that I'm living in an oppressive system enforced by violence and that my life is shaped at the threat of state violence. you don't need to reiterate that to me. It's why I'm not legitimizing it by participating in this farce of "democracy" and instead dedicate my life to changing it.
Whichever puppet is on top doesn't change all that whatsoever. Nor will your platitudes about be "accepting the democratic consensus of the many" when I don't have the alternative due to said violence.
Well said. As someone who is going to vote for Biden to keep Trump out of office, I harbor no ill will towards leftists who choose to reject the whole charade. One way or another, we need to bring down the system, and I don't see any evidence that voting for centrist democrats is likely to incrementally move us towards a better system.
On the contrary, it seems more likely to me that Trump would potentially accelerate the evolution of society by fucking everything up so badly that we would have no alternative but to make radical changes.
However, given that I am unable to be certain of the future outcome of each timeline, I believe that voting for Biden minimizes the risk of a worst case scenario. But again, I don't approve of shaming leftists for abstaining, because the reality is that both parties are colluding to maintain the status quo, and ultimately if Trump wins the election its not the voters who will be to blame, but the Democratic party for failing to produce a credible challenger.
For the little it will be worth to you, i am a radical moderate and we can find common ground in fixing the broke in radical ways.
Thank you for sharing that; I also consider myself a radical moderate. In the context of a decadent and degenerate society, the term makes a great deal of sense.
You are so very welcome, friend. I totally agree.
You've got some good points. Keep up the good fight
You can refuse to vote but you're still going to end up with one of those two as your president. Are you OK with not having a say about which one it ends up being just to make a point to nobody in particular?
Abstention makes a point to everyone in general through the tracking of voter participation levels.
Nope. Just results in your being removed from the calculation as irrelevant.
Ok, fascist.
You shouldn't not vote. Vote for someone else instead. Vote for the person you want to represent you.
I might register to vote just to write in “thanks for counting the votes” for president - or I guess I could vote for Cornel West, but what’s the point? The abstention would be more representative of my views, at this time, I believe.
Consider this:
Republicans win big this election, including the presidency. Democrats were just very nearly beaten out. They look at who else got votes, and investigate what their platform was. They realize they could co-opt some of those ideas to try and get some of those voters next time. But, if you haven't voted, they have no clue what platform you support or what policies they can adopt to win you over next time.
Swap the parties if it suits you, I'm not trying to make a statement for one versus the other, I'm trying to convince you to vote at all.
appreciated
I get what you are saying, but I’m not yet convinced. You did make a dent, though. I’ll let it percolate a while.
I spent 20 years voting like that and the democrats have utterly failed to listen to anything other than the social justice issues.
The republicans are fundamentally right about some things (this is a democratic REPUBLIC, afterall) but so fundamentally wrong about other things, that they similarly failed to listen to.
So now, I’m mostly content being in the “no one is listening to me” category.
edit: fwiw, i do occasionally write to representatives about topics that i am knowledgeable about
As pointless as Voting third party is in the US, at least you remain included in the considerations of the Ruling Class. Don't Vote and your interests are ignored as irrelevant.
Life is full of choice forced upon you, thats unavoidable short of choosing to stop existing. I am forced to choose between where to work. If I say "fuck it, I'm not going to legitimize this capitalist system, I'm making no such choice", I've still made a choice, one that will end up with me being homeless. The threat of violence came true anyways.
It's in my best interest to choose, and in the meantime work to dismantle the capitalist system that is threatening me with homelessness. But when it comes to voting, it's worse because the lives of others are on the line.
You don't have the luxury to stand by and do nothing when people's lives are on the line.
How many trans people will die as a result of suicide or outright killings as a result of Trump coming to power? Their blood will be on your hands, how much are you ok having on your hands? You have the opportunity to vote for a candidate that isn't going to ban GAC, who isn't going to condone or pardon violence against trans people, who isn't going to shift the culture towards more hatred.
And you're choosing to stand idly by and let the harm happen.
Indeed. Vote your conscience or don’t vote at all.
Yes. While there's nothing wrong with sex work, if you're forced into it to survive when you'd rather not (marriage or cohabitation because it's either that or sex someone to get a low or higher paying job) it's still forced prostitution, and once Mr. Nice Guy has you, it's mask off, 100. Even if you willingly choose Mr. Nice Guy, and the mask comes off, it's a bait and switch, rather than duress and still scummy.
To put it another way, if your choices are die from dehydration or drink poisoned water, dehydration may be less agonizing than drinking from a brackish source.
You are participating regardless. You are simply letting others decide for you.
Abstention has historically been a way to declare your distaste for all options and, outside of America, is regarded as honorable. For some reason Americans don’t get that a massive absence at the polls isn’t just about “having better things to do”.
It historically has been and shall always remain an ineffectual and pointless way to assure you and your interests are not a part of the calculation in any way. The fewer that Vote the easier it is to "manage" the remainder. No one, literally no one including the nonvoters themselves cares a single whit for the opinions of nonvoters. Refusal to participate makes your position meaningless. It is the "holding your breath" of the lazy and immature adult. Nothing more and nothing less.
Wow. You have a severe issue with people who are presented some options and say: “No, thanks.”
I have a civic duty that if I am not represented by a candidate, that I do not muster support behind that candidate. If a political party needs my support, it is their responsibility and not mine to attract the voters they claim to need.
You can watch the constant sliding of Democrats toward the right and the vacillating popularity of fringe-left parties to know that the Democratic Party doesn’t give a damn about winning left-fringe voters. After Nader secured over 3 million votes in 2000, do you think the Democratic party learned a single lesson? Or did they just shit the bed all over again in 2004? Did Obama run on any of the 2000 Green Party’s positions?
I’ll save you the effort: The Democratic Party opted to adopt 0 of the Green Party positions from the 2000 election.
So tell me all about how voting Third-Party somehow sends a message.
If the woman in the scenario is going to be stuck with the nice guy or Donald Trump, then yes she should tactically choose the guy who isn't an unapologetic rapist. She can influence the nice guy's behavior, and avoid the horror of Trump. She does not have to condone or accept the nice guy's bullshit behavior, and there will be a future.
Your utterly not related nor relatable to reality scenario is pointless.
Should she choose to watch Star Wars or Star Trek after having stabbed both your imaginary scum bag and his friend chad. Has the same relevance to the Election.
This line right here is where it should be obvious how far this "analogy" has to be twisted to even start to become analogous.
It is an irrational nonequivalency and stupid.
do you genuinely think not voting will make neither candidate win
Using the trolley problem as an analogy, if you don't pull the lever the people run over by it are not your fault but the trolley company's, but if you do pull the lever the death of the guy on the other tracks is absolutely on you.
I assume you voted for Biden last election, to avoid the trolley running over the people in that proverbial track. Congratulations, you are guilty of murdering all those Palestinian children. Now, next election, if (when) Trump wins, your vote even for Biden is what gives legitimacy to his presidency.
After that news on research that a Trump victory would likely spell the end of NATO, don’t be surprised if the rightists starts to see this election as being about ending NATO and withdrawing from the UN.
Typical right-wing goals that maybe leftists don’t appreciate the strength of conviction that the hard-liners have.
That (and the obvious social conservative goals) are the only legitimacy that Drumpf really has.
edit: also, Trump trumped Biden on the Palestenian genocide when he moved the Israeli embassy. i’m sure that that emboldened Netanyahu to press even harder rightwards. Now look at it.
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing. It has literally never fought a defensive war in its history and the places its invaded and bombed are still hurting decades later.
A UN where the US couldn't veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I'd have to campaign for him.
He is straight up using Hitler's play book.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/04/trump-poison-blood-quote/
If you at all care about the lives of trans people, black people, women, latin american people, and the other many targets of Trump & the republicans, then you must recognize that under no circumstances should Trump be given power.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
The US is one of like, what, two countries in the entirety of the UN that haven’t yet ratified ICESCR after 50+ years. So, making some more sense there, too.
I’d not see us leave the UN, though, because then we would truly be screwed. The US would officially no longer embrace human rights, not being a member-state.
But point well taken.
I’d genuinely be right there with you if he came out as 100% in favor of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Not having that is an automatic disqualifier for me.
The US only embraces human rights of enemy states. We've got more prisoners than any other country and support the worst dictatorships.
Until we ratify the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the US, I’m inclined to agree.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot that would be shocked once Russia started invading countries like Georgia, Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Finland...
I’ll bite, as one would be an asshole to think one was an idiot for understanding a basic of diplomacy - engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
At face-value, recall, Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West. Do you want them to always be our enemy?
That's entirely due to Vladimir Putin. Neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin were 'enemies' of the west. (OTOH, the dismantling of the USSR really could have benefited from some help from the west; the oligarchs and political elites sacked the wealth of the country, which paved the way for Putin.) Capitulating to Putin would not soften his stance; he would still believe that all of the formerly Warsaw-pact countries 'belong' to the United Soviet Socialist Republics. He still believes that sections of Finland that Russia lost in the Continuation War belong to Russia. He still believes that all the Baltic countries belong to the USSR, despite the USSR not having existed for 30-odd years.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization. The NATO agreement is that IF Russia invades any member country, that all NATO signatories will come to the defense of that country. If a signatory invades Russia, then they're on their own. The only think that NATO directly opposes is Russian aggression; all Russia has to do to avoid war with NATO is... Not invade a NATO country.
I appreciate your enthusiasm! You do make solid points, some of which I am well aware of, but as Russia is not a specific area of interest for me, I can’t match your level of enthusiasm.
However, in the interest of the spirit of brotherhood and interestimg conversation, I would ask this of you:
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades, isn’t it fair to say that we ought to continue to operate as-if he did speak for the whole country?
Building on that semi-rhetorical question, and especially in regard to your concession that the West could have helped more, and in a larger, more historical perspective, might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion, it might be the case that there are border towns that legitimately prefer to be part of Russia, given their local history, but were never represented properly at the fall of the USSR.
You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the specific mechanism by which the USSR was dismantled.
No argument there. Again, though, I’d ask: when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
At this juncture, I presume it would be a long ways away, but one never knows what can come out of diplomatic negotiations, so maybe Ukraine solves the whole thing, if we are lucky.
...That's because every time someone else comes even slightly close to having any kind of popular support, they 'commit suicide', or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia. E.g., Alexi Navalny. Moreover, he controls all the media in the country, and has largely managed to cut off significant access to any sources of information from outside the country. So that 'strong level of domestic support' is due to a dearth of options, rather than genuine support.
No. That's like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis. The region belongs to the country first and foremost, before it belongs to the region. Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair--and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced--it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.
There are a lot of "ethnic Italians", and "ethnic Irish" living in the US, and they were badly mistreated during the first part of the 20th C. That wouldn't have given Ireland or Italy the right to invade New York, because, despite their ethnicity, they were Americans. Not Irish citizens, not Italian citizens. And, bluntly, Putin claiming to be concerned about the treatment of ethnic Russians is concern trolling. It was an excuse to invade, just like his claims of de-Nazification. The real issue was that Ukraine had left the USSR when the USSR failed, he wants it back, and any excuse that people can be suckered into buying is good enough for him.
Again: no. You don't improve your relationship with a bully and a criminal by capitulating. They are the one that is acting incorrectly, so it is incumbent on them to improve their own behaviour, rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing.
Like I said, arguably. Show me some data that says that the opposition has grown above 25% (arbitrary, you may understand what I mean) and then I’ll come down on the side that he probably doesn’t speak for the majority of the country.
The only way that they can secede is if we make a constitutional amendment to allow states to secede, yes. Personally, I’d vote for letting Texas secede, if they wanted to.
Now we are seeing eye-to-eye, Helix - that’s pretty much my point. There are diplomatic avenues to solve this problem, so maybe Ukraine can solve the whole thing, in the interest of preventing future wars. I say “solve” in the sense that they may be able to negotiate a plan for how to handle this in the future for the whole old Soviet bloc.
No argument with this paragraph, I agree, in principle.
The whole thing reeks of Putin trolling the West.
Point taken, however, instead of a little victimizing (by way of that hypothetical peaceful path that we outlined earlier) they are now getting a lot of victimizing (vis a vis, death and destruction).
Again, for the sake of argument, assuming that Russia itself was victimized during the fall of the USSR, and assuming that Putin is seeking to redress that, rather than him trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then is there any other peaceful path?
if we assume that he is trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then I’d be entirely in agreement with you on this topic.
I’m just not willing to make blanket assumptions like that - I prefer the probabilistic approach.
Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to discuss this with me. I’ll keep replying if you do.
In 2020, the support for Alexi Navalni was around 20%, which, as the article notes, was despite the fact that all of the available Russian media--which is entirely controlled by the state--demonized him as a traitor to Russia. If you had a reasonably free media in Russia that was free to report on what Putin was really doing, then it seems likely that support would have been higher.
But if opposition leaders keep getting jailed, or commit suicide, every time their public support breaks out of the single digits, then yeah, duh, of course you aren't going to see opposition about 25%.
You're missing the point entirely. Sure, it's not rape if you consent. And you can stop a rape that's already happening by saying, okay, sure, I consent to this. But, really...? That's the direction you want to go here? Russia could also stop this at any time just by pulling troops out, and giving Ukraine it's own land and kidnapped people back. Russia can prevent future wars by, I dunno not invading other countries. Why should it be the responsibility of the victim to negotiate with the aggressor?
Russia was victimized by Russians. Not by the west, not by Ukraine. These are all self-inflicted wounds, not some grand conspiracy by The West. The former Soviet states didn't want to be Soviet states, because the Soviet government had always been complete dogshit. When the USSR broke up, the politically powerful and connected systematically looted the country of wealth; it wasn't western governments and companies that looted the country. So if Putin wants to fix that, he needs to fix his shit, not blame everyone else for the problems that Russia created for itself. But that's not what he's been doing; he's trying to mask internal problems by claiming that it's an external enemy.
Not Voting is a Vote, just as not choosing is a choice. It is simply a Vote for the worse option based upon your judgment. You remain 100% responsible for enabling what happens simply because you didn't do what you could to prevent it.
"In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote."
David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
it's not really a vote for the worse option, it's a vote saying "i don't know what's best or don't care, so i'll take whatever happens"
The entire concept of Voting boycott is idiotic. The premise being, "less of a problem gets me noticed!", astoundingly resulted in the protest Voter being ignored.
if all the people that don't vote, voted third party: they'd win...
nope. Still lower numbers than the two established parties. However, what it would do is get the numbers high enough that the various monied and political interests involved paid attention to what those folks were thinking. Unlike the non-Voter whom everyone ignores as they don't Vote.
Your argument relies on hordes of people suddenly, magically changing their behavior in a cohesive and coordinated way. Have fun with that.
Which ends up being an acceptance of the worst option, because the boomers who vote for Trump always vote every election.
It's a trolley problem. The trolley is flying down the tracks. The boomers are itching to vote for Trump.
Standing by and doing nothing makes you complicit.
Yup. Evangelicals shall Vote every single election. You sure that not Voting is the flex you think it is?
No it isn't, fuck that doublespeech. That's like saying to the woman in op's example 'If you don't choose between Niceguy and Chad and then one of them comes and rapes you it's your fault for not choosing the other to protect you when you got the chance'.
That analogy was flawed from the start and doesn't apply to anything. Stop using it, and stop even thinking about it.
With the current election, there are two choices, and only two choices. That is the reality you have to work with. We know that x number of Republican voters are going to turn out no matter what. So by not voting, you aren't making any kind of moral stand. You are just deciding to let the greater of two evils win.
And the reason OP’s analogy falls apart is choosing nobody or someone else is actually valid when you are deciding who to date. But there is going to be a president, it is going to be one of those two people, and not voting/voting third party in 2024 does not change that.
100% does. You have voted to let the majority of those remaining to decide for you. That you did so is actually logged if you are eligible, IE registered. Sorry sunshine, reality happens no matter how hard you hold your breath and stamp your feet.
The whole point of the trolley problem is to illustrate how difficult culpability/blame is and how a single choice can be incredibly multi-faceted to the point where you can’t possibly untangle it and find the “correct” answer unless you adhere to a strict, well-defined moral framework. Which usually means making a choice to ignore other factors and other valid moral frameworks. Hence the conundrum. It’s real use is to test drive how each framework handles the situation and to see your reaction to it.
You're missing the lesson here, or purposely obscuring it to win an internet argument in the hopes no one looks too closely because you cited a thoroughly-meme’d smart sounding philosophical question.
The 'correct' answer to the trolley problem is subjective, that's the whole point. I used it to illustrate where I stand, not what the absolutely moral choice is.
I've been pointing how awful that trolley company is since I reached my teens, I've been out in the streets protesting the dangers of this very track, trying to stop the trolleys from running, I would burn down the Trolley Company's headquarters if needed, but I am not killing that one guy no matter what.
I wasn't trying to 'win' an argument or even convince the other commenter of anything, just trying to tell my point of view as a non voter (for ethical reasons). I see voting as a very meaningful action, if the person I vote wins everything they do while in power is going to be a bit either thanks to me or my fault. And they do a lot more bad than good, I would feel that some of that blood is in my hands.
The police officers in Uvalde had no legal responsibility to protect the children in the school. They were not required to charge in and stop--shoot--the person that murdered so many children. And yet, we quite rightly condemn their unwillingness to act, even though acting would placed them at risk of harm or death at the hands of the shooter. They had the ability to prevent mass murder, and they did not.
The person that refuses to act, when it puts them at no risk, and costs no more than the minor inconvenience of standing in line for a few minutes, is certainly no better than the police officers in Uvalde.
I'm opposed to killing 'innocent' people, if the guy in the trolley problem wanted to kill the people on the other track I would certainly pull the lever. But now that you bring children killers to the conversation, you are arguing not just for not getting into the school or stoping the killer but for voting him for more child-killing because the other child-killer is worst. I find all of that very twisted and I want no part in it.
Whether you want to be a part of it or not, if you are a US citizen, you are. Your only choice is to reduce hard, or not.