|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If the Democrats would not throw Biden out of the nomination for shooting someone on 5th avenue and the election was between Trump, a convicted felon and liable for sexual assault, and Biden, who shot someone on 5th avenue, then yes I would pick Biden. I wouldn't want Biden but one of them is going to be President and even a Biden who shot someone beats out Trump.
Because we live in reality where those are the options available. Wishing we lived in lalaland doesn't change that.
|
On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department.
It was specific.
If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him?
Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not.
EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected.
|
On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 06 2024 15:17 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'. GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have. He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people. I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests. What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22.
The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.)
I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections.
|
Politics is kind of like philosophy in the past, in that only people who were well-off could afford to engage in them (the wealthy and elite, or just people with too much time on their hands). The rest of us commoners don’t have that kind of luxury to engage in debates that won’t see our immediate net worth grow, because these issues seem so far away and don’t affect us personally, when there are more immediate concerns to take care of. Take me for example, I usually just lurk instead of shitposting like this. I’m too busy focusing on my own life and problems, and if you want to criticize me for my selfishness and my inaction that you say is complicit in genocide on the other side of the world, congratulations, you just described the majority of people. Criticizing people for stuff outside their sphere of influence is easy. Do whatever you need to feel superior and help you sleep at night I guess.
You know, I’m starting to understand why idealists like Greta Thunberg get the hate that they do. Realists will look at her and think, “Who does this autistic brat think she is? Jesus, the savior of the world? Such unjustifiable arrogance for somebody who does fuck all for the cause she claims to support!” When the best solution that idealists like Greta and her ilk can come up with to solve climate change is to sit in the middle of the road and block traffic from all sides, they’re just proving the adults’ point. Nobody is going to decide and stop using organic sludge to power the majority of this planet’s tech in a day as it’s totally ingrained within our infrastructures at the moment. Not only is sitting in the middle of the road not a solution, it’s childish and you’re actively making things worse for everyone, thus not solving anything. Your “solution” fucking SUCKS, and yet you dare criticize ME for driving my car and going about my day trying to make ends meet? No, how dare YOU! I can’t believe I would cheer on the police removing these insufferable cretins off the road on my way to work (actually saving people’s lives).
Congratulations, you’ve turned people away from your cause or made them actively hostile against it, which I’m sure doesn’t actually help in the end. If your “solution” (such as accelerationism and anything in the same vein) involves hurting innocent people who are in no position to actually make decisions and change things, how does that make you any different than terrorists? You might as well just start assassinating/inconveniencing the actual people in charge who’re responsible instead. Or, I don’t know, contribute to clean fusion research or something.
You either make the decision to pull the switch or not, or the switch will randomly make the decision itself. Not choosing does not absolve you of any responsibility when the switch decides to kill five people, nor can you claim any credit when only one person is killed. Idealists might not accept the premise of a binary choice and think there’s a path to zero people being killed, but reality is often times unkind to afford you that kind of luxury. It might just as well when idealists pursue the path of no casualties that fate decides to turn their plans upside-down and they inadvertently get twenty people run over by the trolley instead (making everything worse).
One death is better than five, and zero is better than one, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. What people are disagreeing on is the feasibility of the actions and paths that could be taken, even if we all probably share similar end goals. Reality will often times constrain to binary paths. Idealists are a bit more optimistic in that regard, but the onus is on them to offer a solution that just might work and doesn’t worsen the overall situation, and convince the realists of that instead of criticizing them from the backseat and doing fuck all. What’s the proper expression, “The pot calling the kettle black?”
Maybe we should start on the points where we can probably find agreement on. Like, Biden needs to dig up more courage and tell Bibi to fuck off for once. Got any ideas that would help move Biden more towards that direction, that doesn’t inadvertently help Trump get reelected in November? (If you need a reminder, he’ll be MUCH worse for your cause.) Protests might be one, but it’s too much effort and I’m a busy man and can’t be arsed. I’m not even sure if the campus protests did anything since they’re all over the place with their messaging and stuff, but if you can show me they did, I’ll stfu instead of cheering for the police. “Solutions” like accelerationism ain’t gonna cut it either, as it’s about as effective as sitting in the middle of the road to solve climate change. I’m open to low effort solutions, but will still vote for Biden just on Afghanistan alone, just to feel good about myself, after wasting my 2020 vote on a coin flip between useless Howie Hawkins and that crazy JoJo bitch (not like I live in a swing state anyway, so nothing I do matters *shrug)
|
On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected.
I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal.
I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time.
|
On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 06 2024 15:17 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'. GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have. He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people. I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests. What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections.
Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this.
Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel?
Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration?
|
On June 07 2024 00:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 06 2024 15:17 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests. What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections. Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this. Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel? Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration?
I'm fine with granting a simple Yes for both of those questions, if that can help progress your test. I agree and I agree.
(I don't want to disrupt your test with pedantry. Technically I don't know if Biden can decide unilaterally to do all of those things, but he can certainly demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and then enforce some level of negative consequences if Netanyahu doesn't listen. I also don't know enough about Biden's criticism of the ICC, but I don't really think these particulars detract from the broader point you're trying to test.)
|
On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time.
I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him?
As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil".
|
On June 07 2024 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:28 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections. Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this. Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel? Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration? I'm fine with granting a simple Yes for both of those questions, if that can help progress your test. I agree and I agree. (I don't want to disrupt your test with pedantry. Technically I don't know if Biden can decide unilaterally to do all of those things, but he can certainly demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and then enforce some level of negative consequences if Netanyahu doesn't listen. I also don't know enough about Biden's criticism of the ICC, but I don't really think these particulars detract from the broader point you're trying to test.)
Thank you for your quick response. So, as you point out there's a gap between options Biden has and options he'd like to have. I think we can judge his intent by his words and actions, but of course there are some limitations.
Going by what we know, and considering that you think Biden could do a lot more to try to save lives, do you think it can reasonably be argued that Biden is unwilling to do what it takes to save the lives of thousands of people?
If so, do you think it makes sense to argue that Biden - from the perspective of Palestinians living in Gaza today - is worse than Trump?
|
On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil".
Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom.
|
On June 07 2024 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:28 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections. Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this. Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel? Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration? I'm fine with granting a simple Yes for both of those questions, if that can help progress your test. I agree and I agree. (I don't want to disrupt your test with pedantry. Technically I don't know if Biden can decide unilaterally to do all of those things, but he can certainly demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and then enforce some level of negative consequences if Netanyahu doesn't listen. I also don't know enough about Biden's criticism of the ICC, but I don't really think these particulars detract from the broader point you're trying to test.) Thank you for your quick response. So, as you point out there's a gap between options Biden has and options he'd like to have. I think we can judge his intent by his words and actions, but of course there are some limitations. Going by what we know, and considering that you think Biden could do a lot more to try to save lives, do you think it can reasonably be argued that Biden is unwilling to do what it takes to save the lives of thousands of people?
I think that can reasonably be argued, yes. (I also think, as president, there are probably political consequences you need to consider with any significant action you take, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most tumultuous, charged, and complex conflicts we've ever had. Unfortunately, it might not be so simple, in practice, to just snap your fingers and reduce the body count without potentially making things worse in other respects, but I think Biden could - and should - be doing more to save innocent Palestinian lives.)
If so, do you think it makes sense to argue that Biden - from the perspective of Palestinians living in Gaza today - is worse than Trump?
Absolutely not. Trump has made it clear that he wants to immediately wipe Palestine off the map, that Israel should control everything, and that any American Jews voting for Biden are stupid because of just how anti-Israel and pro-Palestine Biden really is (lol). For as bad as Palestinians currently have it under a Biden administration, they would have it objectively worse under a Trump administration.
|
On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of. That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect". "Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them. Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo. And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom.
So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact.
I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact.
But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US.
|
On June 07 2024 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:If so, do you think it makes sense to argue that Biden - from the perspective of Palestinians living in Gaza today - is worse than Trump? No, because Trump would do even less for them.
|
United States41987 Posts
On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US.
Which is presumably what led you to such radical direct actions as...
|
On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians? Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said: Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US.
No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!"
Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree.
The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences.
|
On June 07 2024 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:28 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when
overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections. Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this. Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel? Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration? I'm fine with granting a simple Yes for both of those questions, if that can help progress your test. I agree and I agree. (I don't want to disrupt your test with pedantry. Technically I don't know if Biden can decide unilaterally to do all of those things, but he can certainly demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and then enforce some level of negative consequences if Netanyahu doesn't listen. I also don't know enough about Biden's criticism of the ICC, but I don't really think these particulars detract from the broader point you're trying to test.) Thank you for your quick response. So, as you point out there's a gap between options Biden has and options he'd like to have. I think we can judge his intent by his words and actions, but of course there are some limitations. Going by what we know, and considering that you think Biden could do a lot more to try to save lives, do you think it can reasonably be argued that Biden is unwilling to do what it takes to save the lives of thousands of people? I think that can reasonably be argued, yes. (I also think, as president, there are probably political consequences you need to consider with any significant action you take, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most tumultuous, charged, and complex conflicts we've ever had. Unfortunately, it might not be so simple, in practice, to just snap your fingers and reduce the body count without potentially making things worse in other respects, but I think Biden could - and should - be doing more to save innocent Palestinian lives.) Show nested quote +If so, do you think it makes sense to argue that Biden - from the perspective of Palestinians living in Gaza today - is worse than Trump? Absolutely not. Trump has made it clear that he wants to immediately wipe Palestine off the map, that Israel should control everything, and that any American Jews voting for Biden are stupid because of just how anti-Israel and pro-Palestine Biden really is (lol). For as bad as Palestinians currently have it under a Biden administration, they would have it objectively worse under a Trump administration.
Thank you once again. I think this is the key part that should be addressed. If GH wants to argue that voting for the lesser evil isn't the right thing to do, then I think he owes an explanation for why he thinks Trump's stance on Palestine is not a sufficient argument in favor of a vote for Biden.
To me it seems that, while it can be argued that Biden has crossed an unacceptable line, Trump has also crossed that exact same line PLUS several more with intent to bring the Israel-Palestine conflict to the worst possible conclusion.
|
On June 07 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:28 Magic Powers wrote:On June 07 2024 00:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:24 Magic Powers wrote:On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking). I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22. The purpose of my post was just to lay out my personal approach, not to refute GH's position. (Razyda asked me "How can you disagree??", so I was hoping that my response could explain how I can disagree.) I agree with you that GH and I have different frameworks. I don't think his framework is tenable because, at the end of the day, someone actually gets elected president and affects our country and our world. I view GH's framework as being similar to the Democratic Party's "it's okay if we lose, because we have the moral high ground" perspective that many of us criticize. I think GH's framework is the more (most?) extreme version of that, because even if GH has the highest moral high ground, he has no chance of actually winning and implementing it (as opposed to the Democrats' 50/50 chance). I think GH's approach is lovely, from a philosophical and ideological perspective, but has zero basis in reality or in practice. It's nice for thought experiments, but not for real elections. Is GH's view actually baseless? Please allow me to test this. Would you agree that Biden could - as of this very moment - demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire and, if ignored by Netanyahu, withhold all military aid from Israel and maximally sanction Israel? Would you agree that Biden's criticism of the ICC demonstrates that he's unwilling to put additional pressure on Israel's administration? I'm fine with granting a simple Yes for both of those questions, if that can help progress your test. I agree and I agree. (I don't want to disrupt your test with pedantry. Technically I don't know if Biden can decide unilaterally to do all of those things, but he can certainly demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and then enforce some level of negative consequences if Netanyahu doesn't listen. I also don't know enough about Biden's criticism of the ICC, but I don't really think these particulars detract from the broader point you're trying to test.) Thank you for your quick response. So, as you point out there's a gap between options Biden has and options he'd like to have. I think we can judge his intent by his words and actions, but of course there are some limitations. Going by what we know, and considering that you think Biden could do a lot more to try to save lives, do you think it can reasonably be argued that Biden is unwilling to do what it takes to save the lives of thousands of people? I think that can reasonably be argued, yes. (I also think, as president, there are probably political consequences you need to consider with any significant action you take, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most tumultuous, charged, and complex conflicts we've ever had. Unfortunately, it might not be so simple, in practice, to just snap your fingers and reduce the body count without potentially making things worse in other respects, but I think Biden could - and should - be doing more to save innocent Palestinian lives.) If so, do you think it makes sense to argue that Biden - from the perspective of Palestinians living in Gaza today - is worse than Trump? Absolutely not. Trump has made it clear that he wants to immediately wipe Palestine off the map, that Israel should control everything, and that any American Jews voting for Biden are stupid because of just how anti-Israel and pro-Palestine Biden really is (lol). For as bad as Palestinians currently have it under a Biden administration, they would have it objectively worse under a Trump administration. Thank you once again. I think this is the key part that should be addressed. If GH wants to argue that voting for the lesser evil isn't the right thing to do, then I think he owes an explanation for why he thinks Trump's stance on Palestine is not a sufficient argument in favor of a vote for Biden. To me it seems that, while it can be argued that Biden has crossed an unacceptable line, Trump has also crossed that exact same line PLUS several more with intent to bring the Israel-Palestine conflict to the worst possible conclusion.
Agreed. (And I think that Trump has crossed a whole bunch of other terrible lines too.)
|
On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide. No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump. Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said:
[quote]
Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide. That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences.
At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter.
But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line.
It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump).
|
United States41987 Posts
On June 07 2024 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 00:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump.
[quote]
That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments. Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too. If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department. It was specific. If Biden shot someone on 5th ave, and was still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", would you (like gors) still vote/advocate for/support him? Only you can determine whether it would meet your metric of "enough additional evil" or not. EDIT: If I'm wrong and any of Biden's advocates/voters/supporters/whatevers wouldn't vote/support/etc for him were he to shoot someone on 5th Ave, I'd happily stand corrected. I don't know. If Biden shot my Mom, I wouldn't vote for him. If he shot Trump, I'd probably vote for him twice. + Show Spoiler +I'm kidding. Voting twice is illegal. I appreciate the virtue of hypotheticals, but not at the expense of reality. We know what a Biden presidency entails, and we know what a Trump presidency entails. I don't think that considering imaginary situations where Biden becomes more and more evil, or where Trump becomes less and less evil, is valuable at this point in time. I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him? As it stands, I'm of the understanding that you would still vote for him and advocate others do the same. Moreover, that you believe/have argued that you'd have a moral obligation to support Biden anyway. Because not voting for Biden would be "enabling evil". Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. + Show Spoiler +It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom. So me saying: isn't a terrible take, but an uncomfortable fact. I'd go a step further and posit that one reason why you took such umbrage is because it is an uncomfortable fact. But the point isn't the moral bankruptcy of supporting someone despite them murdering your family in cold blood as a character flaw, but as a systemic/cultural harbinger of doom. In part, because it is a prolific mindset among the ostensible "left" of the US. No, it's still a terrible take, as I explained the first time around. Your realization that I can compartmentalize and act like an adult, and realize that the proper punishment would be criminal prosecution - as opposed to the destruction of our country (i.e., helping Trump win) - isn't the gotcha you think it is. Even as someone who's emotionally traumatized, I wouldn't be thinking "The best way I can assure retribution is by removing all the rights from American women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. That'll show Biden, and that'll bring my mom back to life!" Me advocating for a murderer being brought to justice is also the complete opposite of what Trump supporters would want for Trump, if Trump went on a killing spree. The choice is between Biden and Trump, whether one of them shot your mom or not. It's weird you would call my consideration of the big picture "morally bankrupt", but I guess you can call anything morally bankrupt when you're refusing to deal with real-world consequences. At best you're arguing it is both a terrible take and an uncomfortable fact. I'd say you argue the former because of the latter. But the larger point is the incapacity of (seemingly any) Democrats/their supporters to draw a line, even at not voting for someone that murdered said supporters' families in cold blood, is indicative that they'll never be able to draw a line. It's honestly a bit bewildering to me that you and others don't see the catastrophic problem with you and other Democrats/their supporters being able to rationalize voting for Trump (yes, I mean Trump).
And presumably you've drawn this line, America has crossed it, and that's why you've resorted to...
Buddy, you've also not drawn any lines. You're just really into roleplaying someone who has.
|
On June 06 2024 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 21:00 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:On June 06 2024 17:02 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 16:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 06 2024 15:17 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'. GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have. He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people. I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests. What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself. Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all. I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical. Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens. Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do. Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom. I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. ( Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.) How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it. I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective: 1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.) 2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.) 3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.) 4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up. 5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize). 6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college". You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking).
1 - correct
2-5 is basically attempt to present choosing lesser evil as something good, kinda like "if children didnt work in factories economy would collapse, hence we are good making them work there"
6 - I dont think they do, people arent there for politicians, it is actually other way around - politician should represent his/her voters. So if there isnt candidate which you think will represent you, then why on earth should you vote for him?
It is like going to shop and livng there money without buying anything.
Bolded: actually, the moment you cast the ballot you do, it is kinda package deal.
PS: this came across funny 
On June 06 2024 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass.
On June 07 2024 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know you're saying it in jest, but I'm seriously asking if Biden shooting your mom would actually make you not vote for him?
On June 07 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Of course I'd still have to vote for Biden and tell others to do the same. It would be more painful for me to do (given the hypothetical increase in his evilness), but we're assuming that nothing else has changed about Biden and Trump. Trump would still be a much worse president than Biden, in my opinion. And separate from all that, I'd want Biden prosecuted and convicted (if he actually committed a crime). I wouldn't want him to get away with murder or manslaughter, and I definitely wouldn't be fine with the fact that he hypothetically shot my mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
