|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Again, going back to your post: You are conflating a lot of different things here and basically, in doing so, admitting that my criticism is correct... which I don't even think you realize, because I am not sure that you actually know what values are, the way you phrase this? Someone's desire to see themselves as a good person is, itself, a moral failing. It is the thing you fall back on to appeal to instead when you've realized someone lacks any real sense of morality and values based arguments will not work but you still want them to do a thing. Whether is genuine or not is irrelevant - I did not accuse anyone of cynicism, I accused them of basing their argument on pride rather than values, and you are... affirming that that is in fact what they are doing? quote:Let's assume that they are making a legitimate moral calculus, here. You just spent an entire paragraph explaining why we should assume these people, presumably including you, are not, and arguably are not even capable of, making a legitimate moral calculus. quote:They are weighing up what they think the results will be of their vote quote:they are including the furtherence of genocide in their calculus, and they are giving it a very large weight, such that they think that it outweighs the other potential harms that might come. In your post, you portray this calculus as "Being willing to hurt innocent people" in order to keep those things intact. "Those things" being their self image? I'm having trouble following what you are ttrying to say quote:However, everyone discussing who to vote for is doing the exact same type of moral calculus. This statement is wildly incompatible with all the available evidence, and even the arguments you made earlier in this same post. quote:Even in your post, you say that their vote or non-vote will badly hurt innocent people - in other words, you are weighing what you think the outcome will be and deciding that if they vote third party or don't vote to follow their self-image, it will result in morally bad outcome. quote:The difference is where we are drawing the line, and that difference appears to be this: That some people include voting for a person committing a genocide as worthy as being included in the calculus, and others don't. Yes! Exactly! This is exactly my criticism, and I guess after all that your point is that you think I'm... correct? But you very much appear to have a problem with me pointing it out. quote:Again, the people including the genocide in their decision are not just prideful people who are too hung up on morality. They are engaging in the same kind of moral reasoning as you. The difference here is not pride or self-image or weak moral character or whatever: It's how much weight you give to the genocide, or if you include it in your decision at all. As much as you have argued that they are leading to "badly hurting innocents" by weighing the genocide more than local problems (whatever they may be - you don't specify which in the post) - they can equally point out that you are also weighing some innocents more than others, just in the opposite direction. They can not, by definition, be engaging in the same kind of moral reasoning, and you already expressly explained not just that they aren't but why they aren't? Also, I never, ever, EVER did anything remotely loving close to accusing people of being "too hung up on morality", if anything I did the exact opposite, so you're clearly misunderstanding something I'm saying, which might explain how you you wrote an entire post supporting my original accusation and thinking it somehow contradicts it. But seriously, you just spent an entire post by repeatedly claiming that we are making moral calculus in the same way... by explaining how we are not. That my criticism is incorrect... by explicitly agreeing with it. And that I am.... guilty of something? I'm not even sure what exactly. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 11, 2024 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:You're welcome to talk about the things you think we should do that will be more effective than voting - it could be an interesting discussion. But, you know, voting doesn't have a significant opportunity cost so I'm going to keep doing it and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Hey I'm not telling people they can't vote. I don't have any stomach for "maybe trump isn't that bad" either. But a significant part of our electorate seem ready to believe that. Not a majority, but our broken system doesn't seem intended or able to express the will of the masses anyway. There is no moral purity for us. Telling people who won't vote biden that they support genocide is just as pointless and self congratulatory as leftists saying such to those who will vote for Biden. We all (in the US) support genocide every minute we're not spending our lives in service of changing this. And that is as unlikely to catch on as it is unlikely to be a good idea to put into words. It's really bad if Trump wins. It's also just really bad, full stop, and seems it will continue to be so. Reading this debate over and over all these years has been helpful in discussing the matter out in the real world. Not long ago a young guy at work (who is black, this is relevant) defiantly told me he was voting for Trump, barely suppressing a grin. He seemed totally deflated when I told him "well its your vote, if that's how you feel." Then we were able to have a more constructive conversation about why trump is bad (and why biden is bad),and what capitalism and the two party system will allow. I don't know if he really wants to vote Trump, he certainly isn't a leftist. But there wouldn't have been any dialogue if I vote scolded and told him he "wasn't really black" or whatever such nonsense, as he clearly expected me to do. Only thinking within the confines of our political system leads to polarizing business as usual. We like to think if it weren't for these uniquely evil people supporting Trump things could work, but as people have noted these problems (climate change, genocide) are ever present and more about America than Trump. How many Americans are thinking of holding their nose and voting for Truml just because he's one of two real options? Just as we would have leftists do with Biden? That's what bugs me the most about this. I don't think its not a conversation that should be had, it's just thinkin strictly within your binary "choice" of a vote (that is yes largely worthless)* is a trap anyway. Like I don't care about climate change if I won't vote for Biden is particularly wrong headed. *If biden lost my state it would be a crazy earth shaking upset, while I'd be shocked if he won my county. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
As a european I sure would prefer if you guys voted in Biden over Trump though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Excuse my pasting the quote like this, for some reason trying to quote your post was coming up empty: I think you are incorrect because your entire position - that these people can only be coming to a different result than you because they are basing their decision on self image and not an actual moral position is not something you can actually know. You are just attributing this to them based on the fact that their moral calculus is not the same as yours. If we are going to operate in good faith, we need to assume you are both being genuine and it's not just that people that disagree with you don't have a real moral character and only operate on the basis of self-image. This is the entire point of my point which you keep dancing around: The assumption that people that care about the genocide are only doing it out of their self-image is unsupported, and your entire differentiation between you doing real moral calculus and them seeking to avoid compromise is based on it. If we stick to what people are actually doing and not just imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't engaged in real moral reasoning but simply looking out for their self image, it's obvious that the real disagreement isn't that they are dumb and bad because they don't want to vote for genocide and you are okay with it: It's that you are weighting the issues differently. If we aren't starting at that, frankly, ridiculous unsupported point, the real issue becomes clear: Everyone is giving different moral weights to the genocide. The reason this is important is: quote:Yes! Exactly! This is exactly my criticism, and I guess after all that your point is that you think I'm... correct? But you very much appear to have a problem with me pointing it out. This isn't your criticism. Your criticism is: quote:This is always what its about in the end, isnt it? Its not about trying to do good, or make things better - its about what is being "compromised" - your pride, your ego, your self image - and who and how badly you are willing to hurt innocent people on order to keep those intact. Unless there is something else the word could mean, here? I dont think there is, and think you just slipped up. That their moral calculus is purely based on self-image and not on actual morality. Again, this is something you can't actually know - you are just projecting it on people who are making a legitimate moral calculus that has different priorities than yours with regard to the genocide. You reiterate this here: quote:Someone's desire to see themselves as a good person is, itself, a moral failing. It is the thing you fall back on to appeal to instead when you've realized someone lacks any real sense of morality and values based arguments will not work but you still want them to do a thing. You can't actually know if they are operating 'without any real sense of morality'. Trying to make the discussion that you are operating from actual morality, and the people that disagree with you "lack any real sense of morality" is obfuscating the actual disagreement, which is the amount of weight the genocide should have on your vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Blaming Biden for what Israel is doing is a lot like blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing. It's a worldview wherein the liberals/moderates are the main characters of the world and they could fix everything if only they cared enough or tried enough or had better morals. Unfortunately, they are not nearly so powerful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Whoa, 230 new posts? I don't see a thing on CNN, I hope Trump finally had a heart attack ... Aw you fuckers resurrected the "Should you vote for Joe Biden" topic. I'll go ahead and assume everyone spent 6 pages finally reaching accord.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:As a european I sure would prefer if you guys voted in Biden over Trump though. That's the hosed up thing, the POTUS is still the most powerful individual human being in the world. Even if we grant the cartoon about what people think Obama does in office, and what he actually does, and so on, it really freaking matters to other countries who the POTUS is and what their priorities are. Trump is a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:Blaming Biden for what Israel is doing is a lot like blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing. It's a worldview wherein the liberals/moderates are the main characters of the world and they could fix everything if only they cared enough or tried enough or had better morals. Unfortunately, they are not nearly so powerful. If someone starts shooting up a neighborhood, they have the lion's share of the blame. If someone starts bypassing gun sale restrictions to give them more ammunition with which to do it, they certainly have a share of the blame. If we are related to the guy doing that, us being primarily concerned with the person we have some influence over isn't "making them the main character," it's being realistic about the aspect of the problem closest to our influence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:Blaming Biden for what Israel is doing is a lot like blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing. It's a worldview wherein the liberals/moderates are the main characters of the world and they could fix everything if only they cared enough or tried enough or had better morals. Unfortunately, they are not nearly so powerful. It seems that the greater drive is to blame the people not wanting to participate in the farce that is the US electoral system for everything Trump does, even though they have even less power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:Blaming Biden for what Israel is doing is a lot like blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing. It's a worldview wherein the liberals/moderates are the main characters of the world and they could fix everything if only they cared enough or tried enough or had better morals. Unfortunately, they are not nearly so powerful. Israel is murdering Gazans with weapons and ammunition produced in America. Joe Biden has circumvented congress multiple times to provide ammunition to the genocidal regime of Israel, and he is actively seeking $17.6 billion in additional funding for Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign. His administration also continues to gaslight the public about what is happening in Gaza. Biden not only deserves blame, but he is actively participating in the genocide of Gazans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Yes. My point is, that you are making the same trade-off. In your post, you said: No, because the choice is between "hurt Gaza" and "hurt Gaza and hurt Ukraine and restart the drone wars that Biden ended, etc." So one is objectively better than the other. Voting for Biden isn't a vote to hurt Gaza or making some kind of decision about whose lives we are valuing vs others because the only other alternative is the guy who will do a lot more damage. You'd have a point if there was a viable magical "don't hurt anyone" candidate (which is also impossible).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Raiad posted:It seems that the greater drive is to blame the people not wanting to participate in the farce that is the US electoral system for everything Trump does, even though they have even less power. The start of this argument was people saying Trump was a better vote than Biden, perhaps go back and read the thread. Senate Cum Dump posted:it's a sad commentary on the state of US (and world) politics that Donald Trump is the harm reduction candidate in 2024, particularly for foreign policy socialsecurity fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Raiad posted:It seems that the greater drive is to blame the people not wanting to participate in the farce that is the US electoral system for everything Trump does, even though they have even less power. I'm not blaming anyone or even suggesting/demanding they vote for Biden. It's what I'm going to do, but everyone has their own motivations. What is striking to me though is the extent to which conversations about Gaza place all significant agency with the US regime, instead of say, Netanyahu's. I see a lot of the same rhetoric when the Democrats fail to mind control the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
small butter posted:No, because the choice is between "hurt Gaza" and "hurt Gaza and hurt Ukraine and restart the drone wars that Biden ended, etc." So one is objectively better than the other. Voting for Biden isn't a vote to hurt Gaza or making some kind of decision about whose lives we are valuing vs others because the only other alternative is the guy who will do a lot more damage. You'd have a point if there was a viable magical "don't hurt anyone" candidate (which is also impossible). Right, so in your calculus, "hurt Gaza" has zero moral weight since you think it's inevitable. Others don't agree and think that voting, or threatening votes, can actually affect change, so they don't consider the genocide inevitable and thus worthy of consideration. It's not shocking that people attribute moral weight to a genocide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You can't actually know if they are operating 'without any real sense of morality'. Trying to make the discussion that you are operating from actual morality, and the people that disagree with you "lack any real sense of morality" is obfuscating the actual disagreement, which is the amount of weight the genocide should have on your vote. Arrrgh. I am also refusing to do that thing, so why does it matter if I can or can't know? Mormon Star Wars posted:That their moral calculus is purely based on self-image and not on actual morality. Again, this is something you can't actually know - you are just projecting it on people who are making a legitimate moral calculus that has different priorities than yours with regard to the genocide. I do not know if they have some underlying morality. I can not engage with on individuals. I can only engage with their actual arguments, and it is those arguments that I am criticising, and yes, I can know what arguments they are making. And the arguments I am responding to are specifically the arguments whose foundational assumption become clear the more they clarify them - arguments that only make sense if read as an ego argument. I am assuming they intend their arguments to make sense, so yes, there is an assumption there, and maybe I am wrong and they do not. But so far you have provided zero evidence they are making any "legitimate moral calculus", merely argued that I should assume they are, and have actually done the opposite, providing several reasons why we should think they aren't and that its okay if they aren't, which is just.... ??? Mormon Star Wars posted:The assumption that people that care about the genocide are only doing it out of their self-image I care about the genocide. Do you think I'm "assuming" that I only care about it out of my self-image? Do you even realize that your argument here is based on me not caring? You have to, right? Mormon Star Wars posted:Others don't agree and think that voting, or threatening votes, can actually affect change If this is the argument they wanted to make, this is the argument they would be making, but it's not. I already explicitly said my criticism would not apply to such arguments. Other criticisms might, but the arguments I'm responding to are not making that sort of claim. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1756685744356172144 86% think that Biden is too old and he is. This includes 59% who think both Biden and Trump are too old and they are. 27% believes that only Biden is too old and not Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:This is what I’m scared of, the sacrificing of certain communities for the “greater good”. Right now, people are weighing the dignity and lives of one community against the potential degradation of others and coming down on selling out one community. But will it stop there? Right now it’s Palestinians and asylum seekers at the border. But in the future it could be the LGBT community or another oppressed community. Will we have to keep sacrificing specific groups for the greater good? Bringing this up in the context of an electoralism debate is pretty ironic. Making arguments for not voting for Biden because of his views on Israel/Palestine is literally throwing all of the other issues that differentiate him and Trump under the bus in this moment. Now, maybe you think that those differences aren't large enough to impact anyone (I hope this isn't the case), your specific/individual vote doesn't matter, or whatever else. But the greater discussion is about electoralism in general, so it seems useless to me to look at it from a theoretical "future" point of view 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
It should be noted that the United States is not officially a two-party system. This argument about "realistic possibilities" is doing a lot of assumptions. It would behoove posters to make affirmative cases for their chosen candidate as opposed to pretending a gun is against their head that isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It should be noted that the United States is not officially a two-party system. This argument about "realistic possibilities" is doing a lot of assumptions. It would behoove posters to make affirmative cases for their chosen candidate as opposed to pretending a gun is against their head that isn't there. I don't think anyone posting here is under the illusion that the United States is officially a two-party system. It's a first past the post, winner take all system. That arrangement seems to favor two parties. Parties can rise and fall, and have in the past, but we seem to continue to coalesce into two major parties over the history of the country. In the 2024 presidential election, which is the topic at hand, there is not a realistic scenario where the winner is neither the Democratic or Republican candidate. If you think otherwise, I'd be curious to hear why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:I'm not blaming anyone or even suggesting/demanding they vote for Biden. It's what I'm going to do, but everyone has their own motivations. What is striking to me though is the extent to which conversations about Gaza place all significant agency with the US regime, instead of say, Netanyahu's. I see a lot of the same rhetoric when the Democrats fail to mind control the Republicans. What gets me is that Gaza is the only genocide that matters. We know Trump will enable the genocide of trans people with his judicial and executive branch picks. We know his foreign policy will enable the genocide of Kurds, Ukrainians, and throw Eastern Europeans directly in harm's way. But there's only one genocide that factors into their calculus, and that's Gaza. Sure, Biden can prevent the other genocides from happening... and not voting or voting third party doesn't stop the genocide in Gaza... but just trust them. Their moral calculus vibes makes sense to them and you should be ashamed of voting for Biden and stop shaming them even if you have loved one or colleagues that can be directly harmed by Trump. Just don't harsh their vibes, man!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/abc/status/1756685744356172144 So we're zoning in on the precise age where you shouldn't be President. 80? Honestly makes sense to me, even though I'd personally say 65
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The start of this argument was people saying Trump was a better vote than Biden, perhaps go back and read the thread. Ok, but I was not responding to that, but to Xalidur's respectful reply. Xalidur posted:I'm not blaming anyone or even suggesting/demanding they vote for Biden. It's what I'm going to do, but everyone has their own motivations. What is striking to me though is the extent to which conversations about Gaza place all significant agency with the US regime, instead of say, Netanyahu's. I see a lot of the same rhetoric when the Democrats fail to mind control the Republicans. It would be unfair to blame Biden and the Democrats for every aspect of what Israel and Netanyahu is doing, but the gushing, unconditional support that American politicians have been giving Israel is actively feeding the genocidal rhetoric that is driving Israel's actions. Biden providing material aid to atrocities will be a focus point when considering to support him. It would be a bit more of a 1:1 analogy if the Democrats were actively campaigning for and providing financial aid to Republicans to do the things that Republicans do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It should be noted that the United States is not officially a two-party system. This argument about "realistic possibilities" is doing a lot of assumptions. It would behoove posters to make affirmative cases for their chosen candidate as opposed to pretending a gun is against their head that isn't there. This is a stupid line of argument, even if it's not the de jure status of the US. The last time a third party candidate got over 50 EV was over a hundred years ago. The only way this will change is alternative actions that aren't immediately applicable to the question of the 2024 vote. You should absolutely go and support changing how we vote - I helped get an RCV measure on the ballot in 2020 - but it's immaterial to this conversation. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Arrrgh. I am also refusing to do that thing, so why does it matter if I can or can't know? You aren't refusing to do the thing, you are doing it. The post you were responding to was: quote:I think that if one of the things that we're wanting that we can't always get is "at least the lesser evil isn't contributing to a genocide," it might be time to admit that there are no actual depths to what we're supposed to be willing to compromise. It certainly does not make me think that I will actually be protecting any of the vulnerable groups by siding with people willing to facilitate genocide to maintain power. What, in this post, indicates that it isn't coming from a real morality and instead just from ego? "If we compromise on genocide and let it slide, where do we draw the line?" is a very pertinent moral question when the discussion is "we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." Him saying that letting the genocide slide makes him think he won't actually be protecting other vulnerable groups if the line is dissolved isn't an argument from ego, it's an argument about the consequences (the implication here is that if they won't draw the line on genocide, it makes him think they won't actually draw the line on anything else.) This is not an ego based argument. This is an argument that he is weighing the behavior of the people involved, and based on that behavior, he doubts their motivation to protect other vulnerable groups. Your response was: quote:"This is always what its about in the end, isnt it? Its not about trying to do good, or make things better - its about what is being "compromised" - your pride, your ego, your self image - and who and how badly you are willing to hurt innocent people on order to keep those intact. Unless there is something else the word could mean, here? I dont think there is, and think you just slipped up." However, his post wasn't about him avoiding compromise. It's that he thinks the Democrats compromising on such a big issue means that they could also compromise on issues that aren't as bad as genocide, that still affect other vulnerable groups. The compromise isn't even about his choice in that post, it's about the Democrats! But you immediately throw in - aha, so this is about your ego to dismiss his legitimate point. edit: I have been very clear that this is about how much weight the issue is given in terms of voting. You may care about it - again, I can't know your heart, like you can't know the heart of the people you think only care about their ego based on the fact that they factor the issue into their voting decision, so i'll give you that - but whether you personally care about it, you are excluding it as a factor in voting, which is what the discussion has been about. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Posting for a new page because I guess Mormon didn't see it (or the other 2 guys pointing out the same thing) and apologize here:PC LOAD LETTER posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It should be noted that the United States is not officially a two-party system. This argument about "realistic possibilities" is doing a lot of assumptions. It would behoove posters to make affirmative cases for their chosen candidate as opposed to pretending a gun is against their head that isn't there. Of course we're not a two-party system, but there is literally a 0% chance of a non-Biden/Trump candidate winning in 2024. But, to fulfill your request, I'm happy to also make an affirmative case of why I'm voting for Biden. Biden has done a lot of material good for the general populace, such as:
And the list goes on and on of great things he's accomplished in his first term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:This is a stupid line of argument, even if it's not the de jure status of the US. The last time a third party candidate got over 50 EV was over a hundred years ago. The only way this will change is alternative actions that aren't immediately applicable to the question of the 2024 vote. You should absolutely go and support changing how we vote - I helped get an RCV measure on the ballot in 2020 - but it's immaterial to this conversation. Hey, lets not forget about other successful third party candidates like George Wallace who got 46 electoral votes in 1968 on a platform of "Segregation Now. Segregation Forever." Or billionaire Ross Perot who got the most third party votes in 1992 by being so rich, he could buy his own ads on primetime network television.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Right, so in your calculus, "hurt Gaza" has zero moral weight since you think it's inevitable. Others don't agree and think that voting, or threatening votes, can actually affect change, so they don't consider the genocide inevitable and thus worthy of consideration. It's not shocking that people attribute moral weight to a genocide. No, it has moral weight, it's just that the outcome is the same for this particular conflict (and arguably worse) but much worse for the others, not to mention everything else domesrically like the millions of people suffering because, say, Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid in their states that the Democratic president gave money for and created a law allowing them to do so. It doesn't matter who's in agreement with the reality that only Biden or Trump will be president in 2025. Also, the October 7 attack that led to the Israeli campaign in Gaza was not inevitable, but it was stirred by Trump via various policies and declarations when he was President. By the way, voting shaming is moral, good, and just, and should be done more frequently . I shame people for many things like saying racist poo poo all the time and will continue to do so. So if I shame a racist because of their personal views, why wouldn't I shame someone who will help enact said racist policies like deporting protesting Palestinians and enacting another Muslim Ban by staying home or actively campaigning against Biden "but from the left"? Shame these people. Shame all of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
small butter posted:No, it has moral weight, it's just that the outcome is the same for this particular conflict (and arguably worse) but much worse for the others, not to mention everything else domesrically like the millions of people suffering because, say, Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid in their states that the Democratic president gave money for and created a law allowing them to do so. It doesn't matter who's in agreement with the reality that only Biden or Trump will be president in 2025. Okay. Please stop stealing votes from Jill Stein to prop up the Democratic Party's failing attempt to keep Donald Trump out of office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Okay. Please stop stealing votes from Jill Stein to prop up the Democratic Party's failing attempt to keep Donald Trump out of office. I also like to ignore reality sometimes but I don't bring my comforting delusions to the discussion forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:I also like to ignore reality sometimes but I don't bring my comforting delusions to the discussion forum. If one group refuses to vote for Biden, even if Trump becomes president again, and another group views Trump as an existential threat that must be stopped at all costs, it makes more strategic sense for the latter group to join the former group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Posting for a new page because I guess Mormon didn't see it (or the other 2 guys pointing out the same thing) and apologize here: Demanding performative apologies for other posters is weird. If that poster feels that I should apologize, let him say ask for it. I am not going to apologize to third parties. Especially when the thing that you are jumping on (That he starts with "voting") immediately continues with "or more importantly as some of you tend to do, nakedly campaign to reelect Trump by being unfairly anti-Biden and push "don't vote/vote third party", you are PRO-genocide and there is no way to deny it. " As a Muslim, our guide about the required moral actions when we see something wrong is clear: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say, “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.” Asking Muslims to go immediately to "the weakest of faith," lest their "unfair anti-Biden rhetoric" hurt his chances, is still something that interferes with how "choosing the lesser evil" works in terms of sharia jurisprudence, which is the context of my post. But since Pleasant Friend hasn't actually been aggro: If I have hurt your feelings by using your post as an example, when you do not believe that we are required to say good things about Biden, but merely refrain from saying things that are "unfair," (and that saying things that are "unfair" makes us pro-genocide"): I apologize. I still think that agreeing to be silent and refusing to say something is haram in in order to secure a victory is sinful, but in that post you are not saying that we are required to positively praise Biden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
small butter posted:No, it has moral weight, it's just that the outcome is the same for this particular conflict (and arguably worse) but much worse for the others, not to mention everything else domesrically like the millions of people suffering because, say, Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid in their states that the Democratic president gave money for and created a law allowing them to do so. It doesn't matter who's in agreement with the reality that only Biden or Trump will be president in 2025. It cannot have moral weight under this thinking, because the ultimate conclusion is that as long as the two candidates hold the same position, the position is irrelevant, no matter how odious. It ceases to be a factor. I think it's entirely evident that for every moral individual there must be a line that cannot be crossed; a line which would lead a person to withhold their support regardless of what any other candidate is doing. Otherwise, that would say your sense of morality is entirely farmed out to external forces and you are incapable of choosing for yourself what is and is not moral. The underlying argument here is simply that the genocide in Gaza does not cross that line. That must be accepted before all of the "and here is what else Trump would do" arguments become relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Raiad posted:If one group refuses to vote for Biden, even if Trump becomes president again, and another group views Trump as an existential threat that must be stopped at all costs, it makes more strategic sense for the latter group to join the former group. Except those are the groups on this forum, not in US society at large so what you're left with is most people voting for Biden and trump anyway. Coming up with stupid rhetorical tricks which ignore the reality of the situation at large is worthless. The former group is best served by voting for Biden anyway and then spending time over the next four years getting as much voting reforms pushed through as possible while also influencing the Democrats to put candidates forward who won't support a genocide in case those don't work out. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It cannot have moral weight under this thinking, because the ultimate conclusion is that as long as the two candidates hold the same position, the position is irrelevant, no matter how odious. It ceases to be a factor. That's how dichotomous choices work, and that's what voting in the US is! You're still giving your tacit support by not voting. Inaction is not absolving and is still an active choice, you just view it as something it isn't. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I'm kind of surprised some Republican adjacent operatives haven't gotten the idea of going into leftist online spaces and just done a bunch of posts going "if you vote for Biden you are pro-Genocide" and similar kind of posting just to stir poo poo up before the election. This is done a lot verifiably, and also specifically targeting black communities to try to convince them for whatever reason of the day that voting Democratic is specifically morally unallowable The goal is always to get these groups to own themselves and elect conservatives
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You aren't refusing to do the thing, you are doing it. What are you actually accusing me of doing? I thought you were accusing me of doing the thing I described in the quote, which I... very obviously am not, so it's gotta be something else. Mormon Star Wars posted:What, in this post, indicates that it isn't coming from a real morality and instead just from ego? "If we compromise on genocide and let it slide, where do we draw the line?" is a very pertinent moral question when the discussion is "we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." I explained the indication in my original post. The word "compromise" only makes sense in that context if you're making an image argument, and not a moral argument. I am pointing out that it is an image argument. You are now attempting to frame even its opposition as an imahe argument, but it is not, and your attempt to reframe it as such as recognized. Image arguments are not "very pertinent moral question"s. They are only tangentially related to moral questions at all. "we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." is not an actual argument anyone has raised made except you, because the people you are disagreeing with are making moral arguments, and that is an image argument. Unless there's a meaning of compromise you're moving here that fits but I am not familiar with. quote:Him saying that letting the genocide slide makes him think he won't actually be protecting other vulnerable groups if the line is dissolved isn't an argument from ego quote:it's an argument about the consequences (the implication here is that if they won't draw the line on genocide, it makes him think they won't actually draw the line on anything else.) Mormon Star Wars posted:edit: I have been very clear that this is about how much weight the issue is given in terms of voting. You may care about it - again, I can't know your heart, like you can't know the heart of the people you think only care about their ego based on the fact that they factor the issue into their voting decision, so i'll give you that - but whether you personally care about it, you are excluding it as a factor in voting, which is what the discussion has been about. You have been clear about absolutely nothing, and no? I suspect you are using a definition of "excluding it is a factor" that also means something different from what is obvious, since you've already explained twice at this point that my argument includes it as a factor and describes how it does so. So by whatever definition you are using here, can you explain (from a moral, not image based, foundation) why it should be/is "included as a factor" in the way you seem to think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Of course, this applies to you, too: By voting for Biden, you are showing you you care about and who you don't - and they are a price you are willing to pay. Which is fine, but it's silly how people get offended at Muslims when that same standard is being used against us! Not really, no, because Trump is going to do absolutely nothing to stop the genocide in Palestine. I don't particularly care to throw every single minority group in America under the bus for a meaningless protest vote that will also do nothing to help Palestinians. Giving in to self-delusion isn't going to save lives! I'm not saying "Only Arabs or Muslims who directly lost relatives can have a beef about this". I'm saying "defend your own voting choices yourself, stop trying to hide behind Arab-Americans in Michigan". If someone says "Arab-Americans in Michigan should vote for Biden", we can talk about the things that might be impacting their voting decision. When someone says "you, poster in this thread, should vote for Biden", hearing them respond with "are you telling Arab-Americans in Michigan to vote for Biden?" is very tiresome. If Arab-Americans in Michigan don't want to vote for Biden because their families have been endangered, that's their choice - not our choice. I also like how you've completely ignored the fact that the genocide didn't start in October 2023 and won't end when a ceasefire happens. Agitating for a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons is one thing, but don't pretend it'll end the genocide in Gaza. Trump and Obama both supported the genocide in Gaza, along with almost every member of Congress in the last few decades, and all of a sudden it's becoming a dealbreaker in only this one particular election? I'm deeply worried that people on the left are going to use Gaza as an excuse to help get Trump back into office, and then go back to not caring about Gaza at all, secure in the knowledge that they managed to find themselves an excuse to not vote for Biden despite the fact that he's responded to most of their domestic policy demands. It's nice that supporting genocides has suddenly become a dealbreaker among people who've happily voted for pro-genocide presidents and members of Congress in the past, but I can't help but notice how often it's coming from people who've hated Biden since 2019 and have consistently taken every excuse they can find to advocate opposing him. It's not exactly persuasive when someone with a NoJoe 2020 tag suggests that an event that happened in 2023 is the reason they can't possibly justify voting for Biden. I'm rather concerned that all the leftists who suddenly discovered a deep concern about Gaza a few months ago are going to express that concern solely through leaving the "President" slot on their ballot blank, pat themselves on the back for doing their part to stop genocide, and then forget all about Palestine and go back to ranting about student loans or railroad unions or something. Overturning the overwhelming American political consensus in favor of Israel is a large undertaking that'll probably take several Congressional election cycles (because the true root of it is in Congress, not in the presidency!). JoylessJester posted:Could of just posted this and saved yourself a lot of time. Every presidential election in your entire life is going to involve voting for the lesser of two evils, unless we end first-past-the-post voting. Condensing the entirety of politics down into two candidates means that most people will never be able to vote for a general-election candidate whose positions completely match all of their own on every single issue. You're just going to have to suck it up and vote for the person who agrees with you on more issues than the other guy does. If you're not happy with that, then either push for the end of FPTP voting (good luck with that), or start persuading large chunks of America to share your views (the more people strongly agree with you on any given issue, the more likely it is that you'll get at least one presidential candidate who shares that view). Till then, if you actually give even the slightest actual poo poo about the evils that would result, go out and vote for the lesser evi. Uncle Boogeyman posted:If you vote for Joe Biden, that is also a pro-genocide vote. Neither of those two candidates are anti-genocide. Like, vote for him if you want but let’s be real here. I can't think of the last time the US had an anti-genocide president. Trump certainly wasn't one, and Obama did plenty to soak his hands in blood directly and indirectly too. The Clinton administration's long been panned for its insistence that "acts of genocide" happening in Rwanda didn't mean that a "genocide" was happening there. HW Bush was the former head of the CIA. Reagan heavily backed the Guatemalan genocide, and probably others as well. And so on. If you've ever voted in a US presidential election, you've voted for genocide. Bit late to start pretending you can have clean hands now, ain't it? Digamma-F-Wau posted:I feel like one core thing on why these arguments go in circles is that both sides are viewing the opposite viewpoint as an existential threat The reason why they go in circles forever is that they're basically the trolley problem, a well-known ethical thought experiment that famously does not have a clear solution. The trolley named America is barreling down a track toward hurting a fuckton of people. Will you pull the lever to vote for Biden and redirect the trolley to another track which will hurt a lot fewer people, or do you think that this would make you morally culpable for those deaths in a way that refusing to pull the lever wouldn't? Of course, the difference is that this isn't a thought experiment, it's real life. Those people on the metaphorical tracks aren't imaginary numbers for the purpose of a meaningless thought experiment on utilitarianism. That trolley is barreling full speed toward a homophobic, patriarchical white supremacist dictatorship, and the only thing that can save us is enough people deciding they dislike that enough to pull that lever directing us away from it (and in the long term, to keep pulling that lever every two years, and to work to convince other people to go pull that lever too). I personally don't have much patience for people who want to sit at home and jerk off about how they've maintained their moral purity by refusing to touch that lever - especially if they were happy to come out and pull that lever every four years before 2016, but want to pretend they've suddenly discovered deep moral qualms about it now that there's a lot more bodies on the straight-ahead track. Another difference is that the two tracks are represented by individual human beings here, and in this case they're both rather uncharismatic and have a lot of people who have deep personal dislikes for them. So in addition to all the moral and philosophical arguments for pulling or not pulling that lever, there's also a fair number of people who make their decision based on their personal feelings for the people representing those two tracks, and then lie about why they did it because they're embarrassed to admit the moral considerations didn't really play a large role for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Except those are the groups on this forum, not in US society at large so what you're left with is most people voting for Biden and trump anyway. Coming up with stupid rhetorical tricks which ignore the reality of the situation at large is worthless. At this point, I think that we should put "voting reforms" in the same bucket of things that are not feasibly possible, such as a non-conservative supreme court or not supporting genocide in Gaza. This carrot loses value when it is a transparent false promise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Demanding performative apologies for other posters is weird. Other people can see and read what you're saying too. And none of it is all that good. So you can apologize to all of us for spamming the thread over nonsense, and you know, cut it out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Except those are the groups on this forum, not in US society at large so what you're left with is most people voting for Biden and trump anyway. Coming up with stupid rhetorical tricks which ignore the reality of the situation at large is worthless. I just want to point out that this argument is coming from the Chief Tonal Architect Kagrenek, of the dwemer, whose blasphemous attempts to ensure their victory by meddling with the heart of lorkhan resulted in the disappearance of every dwemer present in the mundus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:52
|
|