One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.
The way I see it is, if one side wins, the Left will not only have to worry about the Palestinians, but suddenly they’ll have to choose between protesting about all those other things AND it’ll be with a hostile government that will curtail civil rights and probably start committing abuses against US citizens.
If the other side wins, all those other issues become less of a danger and the Left can focus on keeping up the pressure on Democratic leadership to stop supporting Israel. It’s still not guaranteed, but it’s a much better chance than in the alternative world where out and out fascism takes over. Focus on what’s important, don’t needlessly add more problems on to the pile.
TIFI
Liberals before they vote: I need to vote, any action to save democracy must be taken
Liberals after they vote: Welp time to do nothing for the next four years, also if you disagree with the Democrat president you’re a threat to democracy and you hate freedom :3
This is in an unbelievable reduction of the reality, but sure. I’d also love a citation on how Trump will be worse for Palestine. Unless you’re going to suggest something utterly outrageous like he’s going to nuke the whole planet or something, the situation is already a horrific genocide. Harris and Biden are already funding and arming the genociders. Trump has said this is also what he plans to do. His main argument against Harris vis a vis Palestinian genocide is that he’s better friends with Netanyahu.
We have some very bad people; we have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.
- Donald Trump
“Oh, but I don’t actually go outside - so he doesn’t mean me,” he said communistly.
Me when I ignore state violence and genocide that happen under Dems. Maybe if we ask Dick Cheney nicely enough, he can get Harris to change her mind on policy.
Man it’s getting downright gross how liberals are just so blasé about their acceptance of Palestinians being murdered.
Libs are so inspirational with their memes about the inevitability of genocide.
Get out and participate in this system, yall!!! \s
I see .ml found this post. There are almost as many dumb comments as there are downvotes.
They be like “but if the top people are being ran over, it’ll radicalize them into communist ideology, and no way could a surveillance state, that is being promised by Trump and co. to to be even more extensive than the current one, combined with the promise of using the military against protestors, ever hinder the ability of a nation-wide revolution”.
I’m so glad that deteriorating material conditions radicalize people into left-wing ideologies, here I was worried that educating people was what radicalized them into left-wing ideologies. That’s why whenever I go home to Appalachia for a visit everyone there is wearing red. Th-that is the reason they’re so politically fond of red, r-right…?
How are people supposed to react to a meme arguing that genocide is inevitable?
Not rejecting reality to throw a fit and ensure as many people are killed as possible instead would be a good start.
If you endorse a genocide because you’re scared it would otherwise happen to you, you’re still a Nazi. The Jews in the Nazi party in the 1940s were not victims, they were just Nazis.
If you endorse a genocide because you’re scared it would otherwise happen to you, you’re still a Nazi. The Jews in the Nazi party in the 1940s were not victims, they were just Nazis.
Don’t worry - the Terminally Online Leftists will change their tune from “It won’t change the election” to “If Palestine gets genocided by Israel, it’s only fair minorities in the US are genocided too”.
That last bit isn’t really a fair characterization. We don’t have to invent things people will say. There are already enough voices in this dialog.
No, child, if you need to do a genocide to continue living you deserve death. Period. There is no excuse for it. There is no possible justification you can make without being a Nazi.
Your life isn’t worth more than any other human’s; much less the lives of millions of other humans.
Does reporting them work?
As far as I know, being dumb isn’t against the community’s rules, so no. That would just be bothering the mods for no reason.
I read something along the lines of “Report, do not engage” but maybe it’s more for obvious shills?
Thanks for the heads up though!
“Report, do not engage” is for trolls. These people are true believers, they just believe in something deeply immoral and senseless, because they think they won’t suffer the consequences of fascism.
Not engaging is still valid for idiots, not just trolls.
Thanks for clearing that out, and yes, as I went to school and also grew up alongside the soviet fucking union I’m quite aware that these poor souls are quite delusional.
It’s quite interesting for me how they can hold those beliefs. They’re so engaged too.
Almost a shame they are not a bit more tame because now it’s hard or even impossible to engage in a constructive discussion with them.
If we’re being real, it’s just Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRGC, and anyone unfortunate enough to be too close to those assholes on the bottom track.
Too close being defined as, in the same country.
Don’t be a journalist, or a first responder, because they seem to get special attention from Israel. Also Don’t be in a hospital or a school, because again, special attention.
Not that the “special attention” actually involves recon and targeting of individuals. No, it’s more a case of someone looking at a map and saying “well, that structure is still standing, so let’s blow it up”. The exception being journalists and first responders, whose locations are subject to recon for better targeting.
Imagine believing this is what’s “real”.
I keep trying to explain this to people, maybe this graphic will work.
According to the comments here it didn’t work.
The philosophical position is that if they pull the lever, they become personally responsible for the resulting deaths. If they don’t pull the lever, that’s sad so many people die, but it’s the responsibility of the people running the train and who tied all those groups to the tracks. They have no personal blame in that case.
It’s not an intuitive position to many of us, but philosophers take it seriously.
Honestly, I wonder how much of our disagreements do ultimately come down to moral philosophy. I see a lot of people making this comparison and I’d be happy to put aside the present political situation and step back to discuss a higher level of disagreement.
I am a consequentialist, and I would agree, in principle, that the correct decision in the trolley problem is to pull the lever. But that should always come with an extreme amount of disclaimers. There are no shortage of people throughout history who have made justifications for their actions on the basis of “the ends justify the means,” but often, they turned out to be wrong. To use an example, torture under the Bush administration was claimed to be justified on the basis of getting useful intelligence in order to save lives. But no such intelligence was ever extracted. Really, it was more motivated by revenge, or a desire to be the sort of cool antihero who does the stuff nobody else will that needs to be done, but “the ends justify the means” served as a rationalization. Another example like that (though perhaps more controversial) is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The problem with applying the trolley problem to real life is that we are mere human beings of flesh and blood. We have a whole host of cognitive biases that mislead us even when we have the best of intentions. If we give our minds a way to justify things that we know are bad, it gives it an out that allows us to rationalize the irrational and justify the unjustifiable.
There are two practices that are necessary to apply in order to counteract these biases. First, it is necessary to adopt a set of strong moral guidelines based on past experience and historical evidence. Second, it is necessary to regularly practice some form of introspection or meditation in order to better understand where your thoughts and feelings arise from, and how they flow through your mind. Said guidelines do not have to be rigorously adhered to 100% of the time, but they should be respected, and only deviated from after clear, careful consideration, understanding why the guideline exists and why deviation from them is almost always bad.
“Base” consequentialism, where you recognize that pulling the lever in the trolley problem is the correct decision, but simply accept that as a guiding principle, is a terrible moral philosophy, worse than deontology and possibly worse than having completely unexamined moral views. Some of the worst atrocities in history are the result of that sort of “ends justify the means” approach, detached from a set of moral guidelines and detached from humility and self-reflection. I would even say, speaking as a communist, that many of the bad things communists have done in history are a result of that kind of mentality. Following moral rules blindly is preferable to breaking moral rules without first doing the necessary work to be trusted with breaking them.
There’s plenty more I could say on the topic but people always complain about my long posts so I’d better cut myself off there.
Just reply to yourself with additional information. People like me can read through them all, and everyone else can skip them.
I found your post useful myself.
These are all sort of parody to begin with but the purpose of the trolley dilemma isn’t about the results of the lever switch, it’s about approaching complicity and participation in a system that creates this kind of immoral choice.
But if you have a choice between lots of violence and less violence isn’t it immoral not to try and at least minimize the violence that you have to no power to stop?
I mean that’s why I referred to this as a parody: the point is with the trolley dilemma is that you’re being forced to participate in an immoral choice (the lever), not just that the lever applies or absolves the user from a moral liability.
A major part of the exercise is that the choice seems simple to flip the switch as plain harm reduction, but that people change their calculus the moment the single victim has a personal connection: (it is their parent, spouse, child being killed instead of the other 5 strangers.)
The forced immoral act (killing) ceases to be the moral quandry and instead harm reduction is the level of personal connection and culpability that people begin to weigh.
Since these memes tend to portray the trolley effectively running down both tracks with one outcome, the whole premise is kind of defeated.
It depends if you have to participate in the violence to minimize it.
For example, take a public shooter who disabled a police responder. Does a nearby citizen have an obligation to seize the cops gun and attempt to stop the shooter? Should they be shamed if they do nothing and hide? Is that choosing to allow violence or choosing not to be a part in it?
Natural disasters happen, accidents happen, and people regularly stop and help. I would be surprised if someone didnt in those situations.
There’s the additional risk of being shot in your example, so I’d reckon that less people would try to take the gun in this case compared to the trolley problem.
Theres also risk that you would get hurt helping in the other examples I gave.
Also a random by stander would have no idea what flipping a switch would do, it could derail the train and kill more than are on either track.
The situation in the trolley problem isnt realistic, and it definitely isnt simple or settled. Its an interesting thought experiment though.
The trolley problem implies that the bystander knows what flipping the switch would do though? Same as the US election, since I doubt that Democrats would start actively oppressing trans people or women (unless they start compromising on issues).
(unless they start compromising on issues).
Something Democratic politicians are completely unknown to do.
Right.
Right?
Right?!
but the purpose of the trolley dilemma isn’t about the results of the lever switch, it’s about approaching complicity and participation in a system that creates this kind of immoral choice.
…
