You should vote for the candidate who supports the political actions that you do. Every single election cycle we see the same "vote for whoever you want next election, this one is super duper...
You should vote for the candidate who supports the political actions that you do. Every single election cycle we see the same "vote for whoever you want next election, this one is super duper important so you have to vote for who I say so the enemy doesn't win."
I'm voting for the candidate who best supports renewable energy, decarbonization, affordable housing growth. If I have to go 3rd party I will.
I am tired of pretending it's okay to vote for someone awful because the other person is more awful. It's still voting for someone awful, I'm just not doing it anymore. It feels like the two...
I am tired of pretending it's okay to vote for someone awful because the other person is more awful. It's still voting for someone awful, I'm just not doing it anymore. It feels like the two parties want us to be hostages. Either way we are zooming rapidly toward some super not good shit. I'll be voting third party from now on.
I know there's always a lot of annoying hysteria about these following elections being the most important elections ever, but it's not really about pretense, it's about acknowledging the...
I know there's always a lot of annoying hysteria about these following elections being the most important elections ever, but it's not really about pretense, it's about acknowledging the consequences of the vote and making the decision accordingly.
In my opinion specifically presidential elections offer some of the worst tradeoffs between a possible effect on the popularity of a third party or the popularity of third-party political opinions, and the effect of objectively helping the worse of two evils by voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance.
I understand completely. I just feel like this argument, that voting third party objectively helps an evil, shifts the responsibility for that evil onto voters. The responsibility lies with the...
I understand completely. I just feel like this argument, that voting third party objectively helps an evil, shifts the responsibility for that evil onto voters. The responsibility lies with the candidates. I am tired of carrying that around... the consequences of this vote don't belong to me. I just can't in good conscience cast a vote for a party who funded a genocide. That is so deeply against who I am as a human being. But I do get where you're coming from and understand why it makes sense.
I've voted third party before, so I can understand why people decide to do it even if not a practical choice, but I feel there is a contradiction in your comment. Why should how you vote impact...
I've voted third party before, so I can understand why people decide to do it even if not a practical choice, but I feel there is a contradiction in your comment. Why should how you vote impact your conscience if you think the consequences of voting are not the responsibility of voters?
I don't support this administration. And I can say that and mean it theoretically, like I don't believe in their ideals or I don't agree with their views, that's all mental stuff. If I vote for...
Exemplary
I don't support this administration. And I can say that and mean it theoretically, like I don't believe in their ideals or I don't agree with their views, that's all mental stuff. If I vote for them, I can't say it anymore because I will have done an action that does support them in a real way. That part is not about the results of an election it's about who I am as a person and what my values are. It would force me to change how I think about myself in a way that is unacceptable to me. If I truly don't support it, then my actions can't, otherwise I'm just lying to myself. I am not a person who will not support a genocide with a thought or with an action, and I need that to be true.
The consequences of this vote in particular are not the responsibility of the voters. The parties put up candidates against the wishes of the majority of their base, the majority of all citizens did not want these to be the choices. If we were choosing between different options than this, if we had actual choices, then I would feel that the consequences depended on voters. Civic duty and all that. It's just not what we're doing this round.
If that's what works for your conscience, do what you gotta do. For me, if I am taking the action (or inaction) that will be worse for the Palestinian people, that is what will weigh on me....
If that's what works for your conscience, do what you gotta do. For me, if I am taking the action (or inaction) that will be worse for the Palestinian people, that is what will weigh on me. Washing my hands of that isn't something I can do in good conscience.
Advocating for voting for Joe Biden out of concern for the people of Palestine is an absurd joke. I'm not saying you should instead vote for Trump, but looking at a genocide and saying "I've got...
Advocating for voting for Joe Biden out of concern for the people of Palestine is an absurd joke.
I'm not saying you should instead vote for Trump, but looking at a genocide and saying "I've got to do my part to keep this going, because maybe it could be worse with the other guy?" is the product of a broken system that I won't participate in.
Let's not pretend that it's maybe. Trump is actively campaigning on making life for Palestinians worse than it is already. He's literally staring in black and white what he'll do if he gets...
Let's not pretend that it's maybe. Trump is actively campaigning on making life for Palestinians worse than it is already. He's literally staring in black and white what he'll do if he gets elected, and it's the exact opposite of "prevent innocent suffering"
Saying I need to vote for the guy who enabled the genocide in the first place because his opponent said he'll continue it isn't very convincing. I'm not voting for anyone who, through word or...
Saying I need to vote for the guy who enabled the genocide in the first place because his opponent said he'll continue it isn't very convincing. I'm not voting for anyone who, through word or deed, supports genocide.
What degree of supporting genocide is too much? If Bernie Sanders was elected President, he's now at the helm of the genocide machine. Would he be immediately supporting genocide? How about in a...
What degree of supporting genocide is too much? If Bernie Sanders was elected President, he's now at the helm of the genocide machine. Would he be immediately supporting genocide? How about in a month? If he hasn't changed the entire administration of the United States to avoid anything that supports genocide anywhere in the world to any degree, is he supporting genocide because it's been a month? If someone is running for president and they were the governor of a state and in that role they didn't ban any economic interactions with any region where there was a genocide happening, are they supporting genocide because there were economic benefits to their state? Are you supporting genocide by ever purchasing something manufactured in China, where there is an active genocide occuring? Can you ever vote for anyone?
Continuing to directly supply the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much....
What degree of supporting genocide is too much?
Continuing to directly supply the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much.
The examples of grey area you provide are all well and good, obviously there are very few certainties in the geopolitics of a viscous and deeply interconnected world, but seeing a genocide unfold before your eyes and continuing to provide material support for it is evil and unforgivable.
Ok, so the US has stepped back from that line. Within the last 48 hours Biden has specifically said that if Israel attacks Rafa it's not going to be with US weapons, and has delayed further...
Ok, so the US has stepped back from that line. Within the last 48 hours Biden has specifically said that if Israel attacks Rafa it's not going to be with US weapons, and has delayed further transfers. And it's entirely due to people like you saying through words and protests that it's not acceptable. Does that change your opinion on Biden?
The 'genocide line' is not one you get to step back from, lmao. Tens of thousands of children have been murdered with our weapons and support, there is nothing he can do to reverse that.
The 'genocide line' is not one you get to step back from, lmao. Tens of thousands of children have been murdered with our weapons and support, there is nothing he can do to reverse that.
You just said that continuing to do so was the degree that was too much, and now that they're not continuing to do so, you're moving the goalposts? It's not really interesting to discuss things if...
Continuing to directly supply the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much.
You just said that continuing to do so was the degree that was too much, and now that they're not continuing to do so, you're moving the goalposts? It's not really interesting to discuss things if you're just going to move the goalposts to be unhappy regardless of the positive changes that are occurring.
This is a little pedantic, but I'll amend it for you. "Directly supplying the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the...
This is a little pedantic, but I'll amend it for you.
"Directly supplying the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much"
Of course continuing to do this would be bad also, but having done it in the first place is bad enough. My apologies for the confusion.
I think for most of us this is a limp gesture. The US has shown that sanctions/embargos work. Hell, Israel has shown it with Gaza. We don't just need to take away the carrots (which we're already...
I think for most of us this is a limp gesture. The US has shown that sanctions/embargos work. Hell, Israel has shown it with Gaza. We don't just need to take away the carrots (which we're already not doing considering the absolutely massive increase in funding and arms support we provided) but also give them the stick (economic sanctions). It's not like we don't have a playbook for it, we do it to Communist leaning countries all the time.
Yeah, absolutely. From my perspective this is absolutely below the bare minimum I'd like to see out of the situation. I brought it up because it was specifically the line that the person I was...
Yeah, absolutely. From my perspective this is absolutely below the bare minimum I'd like to see out of the situation. I brought it up because it was specifically the line that the person I was responding to cited as their line in the sand, and it just so happened that the US had walked to the right side of it. It's a nice first gesture, but there's so much more that needs to be done. But the fact that there's any motion at all after decades of unquestioning support of Israel is in itself basically miraculous. It's worth saying that this is a good move in the right direction, even as it's clear that it's not enough.
I get where you're coming from but I think Feels more like poor placation. The Fed has so many tools at their disposal and this is bandaid on a bullet wound. It functionally does nothing but...
I get where you're coming from but I think
It's worth saying that this is a good move in the right direction, even as it's clear that it's not enough.
Feels more like poor placation. The Fed has so many tools at their disposal and this is bandaid on a bullet wound. It functionally does nothing but expects the kudos of attempting a solution. And that is pretty frustrating.
You're totally right that Biden's statement technically answers WhistlePig's "line" but I think you may be missing the forest through the trees from our perspective. Biden returns to good graces when he applies enough pressure for a cease fire, a legitimate one. But that is also just my own perspective.
There's been a lot of work within the state department pushing for a ceasefire or a more moderate response. Even the military advisors they sent were people who had been at Fallujah and knew...
There's been a lot of work within the state department pushing for a ceasefire or a more moderate response. Even the military advisors they sent were people who had been at Fallujah and knew exactly how awful what the Israelis were planning was going to be, and were trying to convince Israel to be more considered in what they were doing. It's basically all come to nothing. The work to build a pier to start bringing in aid to try to mitigate the outright famine that's already present is the only thing I know of that's directly taking place within Israel, but I'm not clear what sanctions are going to do within the next week while people are outright starving to death each day.
I'm not advocating voting for joe biden, only explaining my reasoning for doing so. I've made my choice based on my conscience, you should do the same. If that means not voting or voting third...
I'm not advocating voting for joe biden, only explaining my reasoning for doing so. I've made my choice based on my conscience, you should do the same. If that means not voting or voting third party for you, you should do that. Like I said, I've done the same thing in the past.
But consider the value of your vote as a percentage of the impact that the elected president will have; your third party candidate for president will not win. I'm not going to say that showing...
But consider the value of your vote as a percentage of the impact that the elected president will have; your third party candidate for president will not win. I'm not going to say that showing increasing third party voting doesn't have some impact indicating to the person that does get elected that there may be votes to be won over in the direction of that third party, but as far as making sure that there's support for renewable energy, decarbonization, affordable housing growth, etc, it's as important to consider the distance between the actual viable candidates for president as it is to consider the distance between the viable candidate that most closely fits your desires and your actual ideal president.
Practically, the only way to one day get a third party president who can do what you want is to spend 20+ years developing a local ground game and building support and representation in congress. A third party president with the current congress would get very little done, far less than Biden has, since both existing parties would want him or her visibly hamstrung.
Presidential candidates look towards other candidates to see what policies are getting support, voting for a 3rd party shows people like Biden that those politics are more important than the ones...
Presidential candidates look towards other candidates to see what policies are getting support, voting for a 3rd party shows people like Biden that those politics are more important than the ones they're currently supporting. Voting blindly democrat just lets them keep getting away with the same bullshit they've been pulling for 50 years.
Ok, sure. And voting for someone else in the primary like with that major protest vote in Illinois is a great way to engage in that sort of signaling behavior. The question I have for you is...
Ok, sure. And voting for someone else in the primary like with that major protest vote in Illinois is a great way to engage in that sort of signaling behavior. The question I have for you is whether the signaling potential of someone voting for a third party in the general election is an effective way to see their desired policy outcomes borne out. Maybe, if the more acceptable of the two actually viable candidates has a significant lead, but in a run as tight as this it seems like it's an open question as to whether their signaling will matter very much if the candidate who will support actions they'd like even less happens to win.
Vote blue no matter who is a recipe for keeping the status quo. I'm tired of it and I'm no longer giving into the fear mongering that happens every 4 years. If Biden wants my vote he's going to...
Vote blue no matter who is a recipe for keeping the status quo. I'm tired of it and I'm no longer giving into the fear mongering that happens every 4 years. If Biden wants my vote he's going to have to earn it by actually supporting policies that are left wing. I'm voting for who I want to vote for, not "the lesser of two evils"
That's exactly the bet the authoritarian candidate is taking; that enough people will refuse to vote for the incumbent. Look, I get it - I really do; I'm still bitter for not even getting to vote...
That's exactly the bet the authoritarian candidate is taking; that enough people will refuse to vote for the incumbent. Look, I get it - I really do; I'm still bitter for not even getting to vote in the primary in 2020 because our state wasn't in the handful of those that get to vote in the primary early (which is messed up, primaries should happen nationally). Had Dems elected Sanders we would have made a lot more progress against plenty of the issues that plague us simply for the difference in values and veracity.
But the opposition is literally thirsty for a shot at killing our American Experiment, at becoming the supreme ruler. To me this is more born from the effect caused by a party who's so wholly bent on obtaining power they put up candidates like Trump - forcing a two-party system to much more resemble a one-party system for most rational voters.
I'm angry at the Right Wing for putting us into this position, which they do because they are confident they've got a shot due to enough on the left feeling left out. They are confident their candidate can win. The way I see it we need to show them candidates like that have horrible turn out - so much so they stop thinking this is a path to success - and put up less extremist candidates.
And if they win as a result of people not voting for the incumbent then everything I care about will become worse. Palestinians will be worse off. Ukrainians will be worse off. Our action on climate change will be worse off. Our wealth disparity will be worse off. Or democracy, if it survives, will be worse off.
It's not blue no matter who for me - it's Biden vs Trump. History has already shown us what someone like Trump does after returning to power.
I'm not sure I ever even said which candidate you should vote for. I'm just talking about my theory of how to get what you want out of voting for president. That said, Biden's done a decent bit...
I'm not sure I ever even said which candidate you should vote for. I'm just talking about my theory of how to get what you want out of voting for president.
That said, Biden's done a decent bit that's further left than I expected. Pot is getting rescheduled, he's forgiven $143.6 billion in student debt for nearly 4 million Americans, he got a major infrastructure bill passed that includes significant funds for renewable energy, he's sealed more of Alaska to oil extraction, he's pushing back on the previously unassailable partnership with Israel, he made it possible for undocumented child immigrants to qualify for free healthcare, he's publicly supported the unions... When you say that a candidate would need to earn your vote by supporting policies that are left wing and then say that Biden doesn't qualify, I'm wondering whether our definitions of left wing are different or if you don't know what he's done.
Not OP, but the thing that drives me nuts is saying Biden is "pushing back against Israel" Without US support, the genocide in Palestine could stop tomorrow. US provides weapons to kill children,...
Not OP, but the thing that drives me nuts is saying Biden is "pushing back against Israel" Without US support, the genocide in Palestine could stop tomorrow. US provides weapons to kill children, it provides monetary aid to support Israeli government, it provides training for Israeli troops (and the NYPD has an office in Israel), and most importantly, the US vetos or undermines any attempt of the UN to stop the violence.
I'm not saying it wouldnt ruin Bidens support politically. But what's more important? Staying in office or keeping children from dying? I know what's more important to me. And that blood is on his hands.
This is simply not true. I don't usually comment in these threads but I really cannot leave this left unsaid - if Israel has to, it will commit war crimes using sticks and stones. The precision...
Exemplary
Without US support, the genocide in Palestine could stop tomorrow.
This is simply not true.
I don't usually comment in these threads but I really cannot leave this left unsaid - if Israel has to, it will commit war crimes using sticks and stones. The precision weapons supplied by the US only make their campaign less destructive.
I'm really not sure why anyone in this thread thinks that the country that openly threatened nuclear strikes against its assailants in the past will somehow be responsive to a lack of support. The US is the only thing keeping Israel from turning Gaza into a flat patch of dirt.
Biden has pushed back more than almost any president I'm aware of. I'm not sure anyone here really fully appreciates how many things were blocked from happening due to US veto. The entire region would be up in flames without pressure from the administration, which is obvious to anyone living here but evidently not to the rest of the world.
People can vote for whoever they want, but at the very least don't make claims that the US can switch a flip a "genocide" switch. The world is more complicated than that and Israel is way, way, WAY more willing than you think to sacrifice its troops and use dumb bombs to make up for a lack of backing.
You say "less destructive", but the whole myth of US precision bombs saving lives is pushed by Raytheon, Boeing and others but doesn't hold true on the ground. Look at all the destroyed mosques...
You say "less destructive", but the whole myth of US precision bombs saving lives is pushed by Raytheon, Boeing and others but doesn't hold true on the ground. Look at all the destroyed mosques and universities. When US forces backed up Iraqi and Rojava fighters against ISIS, we said we used precision bombs to save civilian lives. Entire grid squares were vaporized. The cities are still being rebuilt.
Part of Israels plan is to level buildings, so even if they are stopped, walked back, families will have no homes to return to. The racist myth of "Palestine was uncivilized before Israel came alone and built infrastructure" is just that, a myth. People have lived there for millennia. They want it to be leveled so they can show off fancy new Israeli structures to media and say they are improving things, elevating the living standards.
Israel would still conduct a genocide with sticks and stones? Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with a stick or a stone? The SS had to stop shooting Jews and other victims of the Holocaust because too many of their soldiers were turning to drug use or alcoholism. A genocide needs to remove the humanity of their victims, to other them. It's far, far easier to press a button and drop a bomb on a house than to go room by room, shooting people. If the hatred runs deep enough to kill a fellow human with a rock, that's all the more reason to get involved.
I wasn't born when the Rwandan Genocide happened. I wasn't paying enough attention when Syria started to massacre civilians. I'll be damned if I don't speak up now. How could I live with myself.
Almost every single news source right of center in Israel has done nothing but curse out the US for its involvement in reducing the scale of the offensive. People in Israel that do want a genocide...
Exemplary
Almost every single news source right of center in Israel has done nothing but curse out the US for its involvement in reducing the scale of the offensive. People in Israel that do want a genocide want nothing more than for the US to leave us alone, which is exactly the future that you're advocating for. I'm really unsure how else to drive the point home that left without oversight Israel will become an even bigger monster. If you're okay with that so long as you don't have "blood on your hands", then I guess there's little more I can really say.
I can't continue engaging, and I'm sorry if this came off too aggressive, but words cannot describe how much I dread what Trump would allow to happen here. Our fascists are foaming at the mouth for him to get elected.
I have blood on my hands, I didn't say anything sooner. I didn't protest when this started, and I even said "I'm sure Biden will limit this" in regards to this genocide. In my earlier comment I...
I have blood on my hands, I didn't say anything sooner. I didn't protest when this started, and I even said "I'm sure Biden will limit this" in regards to this genocide.
In my earlier comment I pointed out how the US is the reason the UN has no teeth in stopping the slaughter. I'm not asking for the US to be uninvolved, though I'm sure the world is tired of us playing world police. I want a UN intervention. I want a permanent peace, decided by locals, not white men thousands of miles away.
I don't want Trump to win. I'm sure it will make things worse in a lot of countries, including mine. But I can fight Trumps facism locally. I can't stop facism in Israel through my direct actions, other than showing the Democratic party that this is a make or break issue.
The US is right now delaying sending more bombs, and over the last month has opted not to veto other countries' resolutions regarding Israeli actions. Is it everything I would want? No. Is it more...
The US is right now delaying sending more bombs, and over the last month has opted not to veto other countries' resolutions regarding Israeli actions. Is it everything I would want? No. Is it more than Trump would do? Hell yes. So do you want your outrage vote, or do you want to work towards the best * likely* outcome, which is a slow walkdown of the US alliance with Israel, replacing it with, in all likelihood, Saudi Arabia. The US is going to keep a few regional powers in the middle east as allies. The question is which ones. If Israel is on the way out, who would you prefer?
None of this is good. It's all shitty. But some things you want are things that need a decade of preparation to pull off. Demanding that the president entirely overhaul the US alliance structure in the middle east in a year or he won't get your vote... You can demand that, but don't be shocked Pikachu when it doesn't happen.
How much blood are you comfortable with on your hands? How many dead children? Biden went ahead with Trump's overnight pullout of Afghanistan. Even now, he gives Israel leeway to kill with "major"...
How much blood are you comfortable with on your hands? How many dead children? Biden went ahead with Trump's overnight pullout of Afghanistan. Even now, he gives Israel leeway to kill with "major" in front of offensive.
I can't fly over to Palestine and pull people out of bombed buildings. I can't hand out aid or find housing. I cant get in between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian children. But I can vote. And my vote is not beholden to anyone just because of their name or party.
Yes. You can vote for whoever you want. I've never argued against that. I'm just trying to provide a perspective on how you might get the most of what you want to see happen out of your vote....
Yes. You can vote for whoever you want. I've never argued against that. I'm just trying to provide a perspective on how you might get the most of what you want to see happen out of your vote. Barring a real surprise, one of Trump or Biden is going to be the next president. So your choice is in how you deal with that when it comes to voting. There is some signalling power in voting third party, and perhaps there's some personal satisfaction in giving in to your outrage and making a protest vote for a third party, but if you're further right than Trump and Biden wins, you're not getting anything you want. If you're further left than Biden and Trump wins, you're not getting anything you want.
So. Do you want to pull things a little ways towards your preferred outcome, or do you want to insist on having it exactly your way without putting in the time to build a national base of power from which to support the president you want to elect? Or do you just want to rage about the state of the world without taking the steps that might change it? It's much, much easier to just do that.
You're getting a Democratic Party that knows that in the future it can't fund a genocide and expect its voters to show up afterward, and who will thereafter be disincentivized from doing so....
If you're further left than Biden and Trump wins, you're not getting anything you want.
You're getting a Democratic Party that knows that in the future it can't fund a genocide and expect its voters to show up afterward, and who will thereafter be disincentivized from doing so. That's more than a little something. Whether you think that outweighs whatever you imagine to be the consequences of Trump winning is another question, but it's very clear what Democrats who are withholding their votes are hoping to get, and it's a Democratic Party that doesn't do genocides.
Yes, as the system selects for results that receive the most votes (ignoring the electoral college, and all that does is mean that Dems need even more votes). I don't know what your argument is...
Yes, as the system selects for results that receive the most votes (ignoring the electoral college, and all that does is mean that Dems need even more votes). I don't know what your argument is for why the Democrats would see an electoral loss with low turnout from their own voters who have expressed through polling that this issue is significant and they overwhelmingly disagree with Joe Biden doing genocide, and conclude something other than that doing a genocide cost them the election.
Because there's plenty of other concerns for voters? Take this Harvard Institute of Politics poll of voters in the 18-29 range. When asked how important Israel/Palestine was to them as compared to...
Because there's plenty of other concerns for voters? Take this Harvard Institute of Politics poll of voters in the 18-29 range. When asked how important Israel/Palestine was to them as compared to other issues, it won out only 1/3 of the time. So if Democrats lose, will they blame it on the thing that was second from the bottom, only beaten out for last place by student debt, or will they blame inflation, healthcare, and housing, things about which far more people are concerned?
I would take those things too, but given that protests related to this have sucked all the oxygen out of the media atmosphere for weeks now, and the genocide for months now, probably yes. I would...
I would take those things too, but given that protests related to this have sucked all the oxygen out of the media atmosphere for weeks now, and the genocide for months now, probably yes. I would also direct you to the results of question 2 in your first link.
Right, most people are in favor of a ceasefire or a permanent peace. There's a reason why the Biden administration has been trying to talk Israel down for months, and has advanced to other actions...
Right, most people are in favor of a ceasefire or a permanent peace. There's a reason why the Biden administration has been trying to talk Israel down for months, and has advanced to other actions to limit Israel's atrocities as things have gotten so much worse. But that people are broadly in favor of peace doesn't change how close to the top of the pile the issue is. From looking at that data, do you really think that a losing Democratic party's takeaway would be that they needed to break with Israel faster than they're already doing?
I don't know what to say to this except that if you don't think people are really withholding their votes due to Gaza, you don't have anything to worry about. So that's good!
I don't know what to say to this except that if you don't think people are really withholding their votes due to Gaza, you don't have anything to worry about. So that's good!
You're remarkably slippery when it comes to answering a simple question, aren't you? My goal here isn't to convince people to vote for Biden. I'm trying to talk practically about how to get the...
You're remarkably slippery when it comes to answering a simple question, aren't you? My goal here isn't to convince people to vote for Biden. I'm trying to talk practically about how to get the most of of your vote when it comes to this particular election. In the longer term, the way to get what you want is to spend the next couple of decades building a groundswell of support at the local/state levels to be able to bring people into the national electoral scene in a way that provides them the necessary support to significantly push the national narrative. Trying to change things from the top first is like trying to push over a redwood by pushing at the tip of the tree. You've got to start at the roots if you want to tip it.
Yes, if you want to get the most out of your vote, and your goal is to disincentivize the Democratic Party from committing further genocide, you should not vote for Biden (whether you then vote...
Yes, if you want to get the most out of your vote, and your goal is to disincentivize the Democratic Party from committing further genocide, you should not vote for Biden (whether you then vote for a third party or not), because the alternative is to directly incentivize the Democratic Party to commit further genocide. There is a groundswell of support already, and it is reflected in the polls you have posted. The national narrative right now is entirely about Gaza, turn on the nearest TV or ask your coworkers what the big issue is right now. If Biden loses, it will be widely attributed to Gaza. I don't know how you think that's even debatable.
You live in a two party system, that's the reality of the situation. Voting for a 3rd party because Biden isn't left enough may encourage the Democratic party to make a leftward turn in the...
You live in a two party system, that's the reality of the situation. Voting for a 3rd party because Biden isn't left enough may encourage the Democratic party to make a leftward turn in the future, or it could as easily encourage them to become more conservative in an attempt to gobble up more moderates.
The one thing that it would do in the upcoming election would be to help Donald Trump get elected, who I think we can all agree would not show the same level of restraint towards Israeli foreign policy as Biden has. So who really has blood on their hands?
Well, considering the Democratic party has been drifting right for decades, I think it's time to try. Trying to cater to imaginary centrists and playing both sides plays right into the fascist...
Well, considering the Democratic party has been drifting right for decades, I think it's time to try. Trying to cater to imaginary centrists and playing both sides plays right into the fascist playbook. And we've been letting that cook for years.
With a first past the post system, with the US electoral system, the President is not beholden to voters the moment they are elected. There is no popular impeachment, and as a second term seeker, this would be his end in politics anyways. The only time to push for change is now, before the election.
If you stretch it to 40 years ago, Clinton really throttled any support for the poor and unfortunate in the name of cost savings, but that's a lifetime ago at this point.
If you stretch it to 40 years ago, Clinton really throttled any support for the poor and unfortunate in the name of cost savings, but that's a lifetime ago at this point.
I'm thinking more towards the future than the two ancient fucks we have to choose from today. Biden will only change for those donating to the DNC's coffers, but the next presidential candidate...
I'm thinking more towards the future than the two ancient fucks we have to choose from today. Biden will only change for those donating to the DNC's coffers, but the next presidential candidate may take the actual will of the people into account.
That's only true if you believe that politics begins and ends with voting. And I don't think you do believe that. Honestly my vote for president doesn't matter that much, I'm in a solidly blue...
That's only true if you believe that politics begins and ends with voting. And I don't think you do believe that.
Honestly my vote for president doesn't matter that much, I'm in a solidly blue state. I withheld my vote in 2016, as I'm sure many people did. We all saw where that got us. I'm not defending Hillary, but my point is that if harm reduction is your goal in voting, pinch your nose, vote for the dem, and then get back to whatever activism you were doing. That is how you move the needle. People put way too much stock in presidential elections. It's all a dog and pony show. The real politics happens, for us the plebs, in the streets.
It's so refreshing to hear this, I have personally moved to this position and feel good about it. I'm sort of shocked more people don't simply vote for the candidate that best represents their...
It's so refreshing to hear this, I have personally moved to this position and feel good about it. I'm sort of shocked more people don't simply vote for the candidate that best represents their values rather than being guilt tripped into the lesser of two evils dichotomy.
I'm not going to be shamed into voting blue no matter who anymore. I would consider voting for a Democrat in the future, but I'm certainly not going to vote for anyone who has helped enable a genocide.
Its everywhere, even in this comment section; people trying to brow beat you into voting for the candidate they want you to because the other candidate will do irreparable harm. Maybe I'm just too...
Its everywhere, even in this comment section; people trying to brow beat you into voting for the candidate they want you to because the other candidate will do irreparable harm. Maybe I'm just too jaded but between voting for a 3rd party and not voting at all like I normally do, I'll vote for the 3rd party.
It makes me wonder where they draw the line, if not at genocide. What would have to happen for them to stop thinking it's worth it to sacrifice their values for a "lesser evil"? I am suspicious of...
It makes me wonder where they draw the line, if not at genocide. What would have to happen for them to stop thinking it's worth it to sacrifice their values for a "lesser evil"?
I am suspicious of someone who would encourage others not to make whatever stand they can against an ethnic cleansing.
I think for most people status quo works for them. Why rock the boat when you're in first class? I don't hold or agree with the view but I see why they they do.
I think for most people status quo works for them. Why rock the boat when you're in first class? I don't hold or agree with the view but I see why they they do.
I know it's a rhetorical question but: Because the Biden camp is anxious about the young vote. If they think changing course on Gaza is necessary politically, then maybe. Probably it would be a...
I know it's a rhetorical question but: Because the Biden camp is anxious about the young vote.
If they think changing course on Gaza is necessary politically, then maybe. Probably it would be a token change, but that's better than nothing.
The actual act of voting for anyone but Biden is objectively worse for Gaza (Trump will support Israel) but votes are the only leverage most people have.
I disagree with the strategy but the logic is sound.
The question of whether one should vote for an objectionable candidate to prevent a worse candidate being elected is precisely the Trolley Problem: should you participate in a harm in order to...
The question of whether one should vote for an objectionable candidate to prevent a worse candidate being elected is precisely the Trolley Problem: should you participate in a harm in order to reduce it?
Reasonable people can and do disagree on the answer. Personally I lean utilitarian, but it seems we have a lot of deontologists and/or virtue ethicists on Tildes. I'm surprised at the vitriol that this question elicits, even on here.
This is going to be very long and I'm sorry. But I think a large part of it is that it's arguably a more complicated situation than the trolley problem as it's depicted in that simplistic cartoon...
Exemplary
This is going to be very long and I'm sorry. But I think a large part of it is that it's arguably a more complicated situation than the trolley problem as it's depicted in that simplistic cartoon people sarcastically post, or as the trolley problem is traditionally posed in ethics classes. Abstract away issues other than Palestine for now. If you think that the choice is between "guy who is funding a genocide" and "guy who will likely also fund a genocide", that's not really an obvious decision. Will Trump winning help? Almost certainly not, but we know Biden winning will at best keep things the same. Meanwhile, the argument that Biden losing will actually hurt is just vague "obviously Trump would be worse, he's, like, a bad guy" speculation, which seems to be pretty clearly undercut by the factual reality that both of these guys have been the president before and only one of them actually did anything like this. To repeat, Trump will not be better, but Biden is infamously far more pro-Israel than basically anyone else in American politics and has been for his entire career. It was pretty widely understood back in '08 that Biden became Obama's running mate in part because the Israel lobby was scared of Obama (for both racist reasons and reasons related to Obama's very mildly pro-Palestinian-lives politics) and they wanted to balance him out with a true believer. Which track is worse? All of the facts suggest Biden, all of the vibes (I totally agree, and I feel it too!) suggest Trump, even though it's pretty hard to imagine how that's even conceptually possible.
So the mere reality that a situation can be modeled as a type of trolley problem does not make that decision obvious, even if you take utilitarianism as a given, because the choices of how you evaluate each track are completely speculative and on some level vibes-oriented. But then you can move beyond even that to the structure of your trolley problem. Sure, you can model the situation as the trolley problem, but all trolley problems are not made equally. Here, for example, you can just choose to see it as a bogstandard trolley problem: the thousands of people we imagine Biden is going to continue to kill because it is what he has been doing all along are weighed against the thousands of people we imagine Trump is going to start to kill because he's also pro-Israel and feels like a worse guy. Both tracks just sort of awkwardly end in 2027. Under this model, if you (again) choose to imagine that the number of thousands Trump is going to kill is greater than the number of thousands Biden is going to kill, then I guess that gives the problem an easy answer.
But you could also, maybe even accurately, choose to model it as a modified trolley problem where after each track with thousands of people on it there is another switch with another pair of tracks. The two tracks have, again, comparable and ill-defined numbers of corpses on them. But now, on the track where Biden wins, Democrat politicians learn that they can do a genocide and get away with it, and both of the downstream tracks get substantially worse. Meanwhile, on the track where Biden loses, polling shows (as it does already) that this is a massive issue, everyone in his own party was mad at him about it, and many people who held their noses and voted for him in 2020 were unwilling to do so in 2024 because he did a genocide. If that happens, both downstream tracks get substantially better, because it has been established that teaming up with Israel to commit a genocide is not something that is politically survivable. If you're someone who finds this model more convincing, then the simple model is not only wrong but also actively harmful, because, if believed by a critical mass of people, it ensures that all of the downstream tracks get worse every election forever.
And then you might even move beyond that to the artificiality of the trolley problem as it has been imposed on this situation to begin with. When the trolley problem is posed in an ethics class, "Wait, why the hell are there people strapped to these tracks, and why is choosing between these two tracks my only option?" is not an interesting question, because it's a thought experiment so that's not the point. When a situation comparable to the trolley problem happens in real life, the question of who strapped everyone to the tracks and whether your behavior is rewarding or even incentivizing them to continue strapping people to the tracks becomes very real and has practical downstream consequences that can be modeled as their own separate trolley problem.
You can choose to see people saying "my values are that genocide is too far" as deontological, but you could just as easily see it as a utilitarian choice, a trolley problem weighing a future where "Palestinians keep dying at an accelerating rate" is written on both tracks in the cartoon in every future election against a future where that isn't the case. You don't have to agree with any of the arguments I've given -- you might have some set of facts that you think makes it obvious that Trump would be worse, or that Democrats won't stop doing genocides just because of their voters revolting, or whatever other specific point you want to disagree on. That's a fight that's hard to have on Tildes and I'm not going to get into it because it will inevitably turn into a demented flamewar.
But the point of what I'm saying is that what you imagine the structure of the trolley tracks to be is necessarily subjective, how and in what terms you evaluate the utility value assigned to each track is necessarily subjective, and your choice of how far along the track to stop looking for tied up bodies is necessarily subjective. That is all within a perfectly utilitarian framework, whether you think people who answer those questions differently than you are right or wrong. To suggest as you have that all of the people who refuse to vote for genocide are just choosing to make bad things happen in order to assert their values seems nonsensical -- they have an argument in their head for why voting for genocide makes bad things happen and not voting for genocide avoids those bad things!
This, and the rest of the reasoning derived from it, only makes sense if one puts blinders on and ignores the multitudes of other differences between the candidates, including the body count...
Exemplary
If you think that the choice is between "guy who is funding a genocide" and "guy who will likely also fund a genocide", that's not really an obvious decision.
This, and the rest of the reasoning derived from it, only makes sense if one puts blinders on and ignores the multitudes of other differences between the candidates, including the body count difference in every other aspect of their policies, both domestic and international.
As a simple example, Trump will cease support for Ukraine, roll back climate action, and carry out mass deportations. So already the false equivalence is broken.
If that happens, both downstream tracks get substantially better, because it has been established that teaming up with Israel to commit a genocide is not something that is politically survivable. If you're someone who finds this model more convincing, then the simple model is not only wrong but also actively harmful, because, if believed by a critical mass of people, it ensures that all of the downstream tracks get worse every election forever.
This is extremely optimistic conjecture. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take power, keep power, and do all of the things they have publicly promised to do. The most likely lesson that will be learned is “the people want right wing authoritarianism.” The options in a future election being better as a result is not a more likely outcome than the fascists abusing administrative power to ensure they win future elections.
And any sort of “well then the public would rise up and overthrow them” reasoning (which often follows, I have learned) glosses over the immense bloodshed that would bring, which again invalidates the earlier false equivalence.
When the trolley problem is posed in an ethics class, "Wait, why the hell are there people strapped to these tracks, and why is choosing between these two tracks my only option?" is not an interesting question, because it's a thought experiment so that's not the point. When a situation comparable to the trolley problem happens in real life, the question of who strapped everyone to the tracks and whether your behavior is rewarding or even incentivizing them to continue strapping people to the tracks becomes very real and has practical downstream consequences that can be modeled as their own separate trolley problem.
Asking those questions is necessary but is not in any way mutually exclusive with spending a moment to pull the lever. One of the most reliable ways to keep fascists out of power is to not let them win elections. The other 364 days and 22 hours of the year are free for any and all other forms of action.
Like I said, to anyone who is thinking about this election as a referendum on whether the US should keep doing a genocide, it very much is mutually exclusive, because in utilitarian terms...
Asking those questions is necessary but is not in any way mutually exclusive with spending a moment to pull the lever.
Like I said, to anyone who is thinking about this election as a referendum on whether the US should keep doing a genocide, it very much is mutually exclusive, because in utilitarian terms answering those questions avoids harm and pretending those questions don't exist causes it. Again, I'm not really planning to start a fight on here where we spit random facts at each other to try to convince each other that one of the tracks will have more corpses on it. But your argument for why we can't try to tell Democrats to stop doing genocide seems to be some kind of weird conspiracy theory about how the next time a Republican becomes president they will become a dictator forever? I don't really think that is coherent enough to demand a response, but if that's your argument, is your plan to make sure a Republican is literally never president again for the rest of time? I have news for you, a Republican will some day be president again, maybe even this time around. They're a large and popular political party! You can think that when that happens they're going to enshrine dictatorial rule immediately or whatever you believe, and I guess I can't do anything about that, but I don't think any of what you're saying matches with reality or makes much internal sense.
Wowzer, this is a wild misrepresentation. I contended that: The two trolley tracks here are not equivalent. They're not even equivalent vis-a-vis Palestine. I don't want to get into that, however,...
Exemplary
But your argument for why we can't try to tell Democrats to stop doing genocide seems to be some kind of weird conspiracy theory about how the next time a Republican becomes president they will become a dictator forever?
Wowzer, this is a wild misrepresentation. I contended that:
The two trolley tracks here are not equivalent.
They're not even equivalent vis-a-vis Palestine. I don't want to get into that, however, lest that nuance get spun and misrepresented into me supporting Biden's awful handling of the genocide in Gaza, which I very much do not. Biden has blood on his hands.
The most likely message sent by right-wing authoritarians winning the election is that the electorate wants right-wing authoritarians.
It is wildly optimistic to think that allowing the right-wing authoritarians to take power will lead to better choices down the line. That is just one of 10,000 possible outcomes, and it's much less likely than things like them tilting the electoral system further in their favor, as they have done in the states they control, and have praised other global leaders (like Viktor Orban of Hungary) for doing. These are extremely public actions and declarations, and to dismiss them as "conspiracy" is absurd.
Even if that path does lead to a better endpoint - which, again, is optimistic conjecture - it would involve much more harm and bloodshed in the meantime, which further invalidates the equivalence of the trolley problem you presented, and calls into question its utilitarian justification.
I don't really think that is coherent enough to demand a response, but if that's your argument, is your plan to make sure a Republican is literally never president again for the rest of time?
My plan, as always, is to do what I can, within the circumstances I'm given and the power I have, to minimize suffering and harm in my world. No more, no less. A utilitarian mindset through and through.
I did not choose the circumstances, I did not choose this shitty electoral system, I did not choose this broken world, but I am stuck living within them for now. When presented with a trolley problem I will pull the lever for less harm. And for the other 364 days and 22 hours of the year I will do what I can to stop future trolleys and future people getting tied to the tracks.
I have news for you, a Republican will some day be president again, maybe even this time around. They're a large and popular political party!
Without a doubt. But the fact that there will be harm in the future is no reason to allow greater harm now.
(and the large popularity of Republicans that you cite here further reinforces my point that letting them win will primarily send a message of "yes, this is what the electorate wants")
You can think that when that happens they're going to enshrine dictatorial rule immediately or whatever you believe, and I guess I can't do anything about that, but I don't think any of what you're saying matches with reality or makes much internal sense.
I believe they will do the things they have publicly laid out and committed to do in documents such as Project 2025. Herearejusta fewmore examples.
When authoritarians tell us what they want to do we should listen.
To be clear: if one is so upset about what's happening in Gaza that they cannot engage with electoral politics in a calculated, utilitarian way then, frankly, I get it. I especially understand for those that are Palestinian, whose grief I can only imagine.
The philosophical case you're presenting here, however, is built on a foundation of false equivalence, optimistic conjecture, and hand-waving public policy declarations as "conspiracy." It is not utilitarian.
Yeah I don't think I can keep going with you because I'm having a hard time convincing myself you believe any of the things you're saying and the tone will only get more aggressive, but when I...
Without a doubt. But the fact that there will be harm in the future is no reason to allow greater harm now.
Yeah I don't think I can keep going with you because I'm having a hard time convincing myself you believe any of the things you're saying and the tone will only get more aggressive, but when I said that Republicans would
eventually win an election, I was not saying any of the stuff you're implying I was saying. I was pointing out that the political horizon you're describing is that the apocalypse is coming the next time a Republican wins and this is unavoidable but could maybe be delayed, and the political action this has led you to is rewarding the Democrats for committing genocide indefinitely. If its your actual belief that the options are Democrats win indefinitely or Republicans destroy the country forever, the politics that leads you to is a politics where the Republicans and Democrats both continue to do genocide. The alternative is a project of reforming the Democrats to not commit genocide. Your original argument that this is wrong because the Democratic Party would instead learn the lesson that voters want fascism doesn't make sense, since they have at their disposal ample polling data showing that their own voters are in revolt over the genocide, and not because they secretly want fascism. Have a nice day and I'll see you in Nineteen Eighty-Four I guess.
My friend, you ignored the substance of my post about the utilitarian framework you presented - including a bullet point summary - in order to quote one bit out of context and cut it down. If I...
Yeah I don't think I can keep going with you because I'm having a hard time convincing myself you believe any of the things you're saying and the tone will only get more aggressive, but when I said that Republicans would
eventually win an election, I was not saying any of the stuff you're implying I was saying
My friend, you ignored the substance of my post about the utilitarian framework you presented - including a bullet point summary - in order to quote one bit out of context and cut it down.
If I misunderstood or misquoted you then I apologize for that.
I was pointing out that the political horizon you're describing is that the apocalypse is coming the next time a Republican wins
I did not say the apocalypse is coming. I have great concern about the specific publicly professed policies outlined in the sources I linked. Those are an extremely important part of the utilitarian calculus you presented, and cannot be dismissed as “conspiracy” or “apocalypse.”
If its your actual belief that the options are Democrats win indefinitely or Republicans destroy the country forever, the politics that leads you to is a politics where the Republicans and Democrats both continue to do genocide.
My actual belief, as outlined in the first sentence of my first post, is that if Republicans win there will be much more harm, and if Democrats with there will be much less harm. Please refrain from setting up caricatures of what others say.
The alternative is a project of reforming the Democrats to not commit genocide.
A project I strongly support, including primarying awful politicians like Fetterman.
Your original argument that this is wrong because the Democratic Party would instead learn the lesson that voters want fascism doesn't make sense, since they have at their disposal ample polling data showing that their own voters are in revolt over the genocide, and not because they secretly want fascism.
First of all, the polling data we have shows that foreign policy concerns like what’s happening in Gaza rank far behind domestic issues like inflation and immigration for voters, and even when narrowed down to just Democrats’ foreign policy concerns it’s in 6th place (though it’s gaining). If you have other polling data showing it as a top concern please share - I would love to see it.
Second, the point isn’t that there will be zero lesson about support for genocide in the results, or that the Dems will take up fascism. It’s that that lesson of “we should support less genocide” sticking and affecting future trolley problems in a positive way as a result of this fall’s election, as you originally posited, is far less likely than things like:
Democrats learning the wrong lessons, like moving to the right on immigration since it was a top priority in an election they lost.
Authoritarians viewing their electoral win as a mandate and public endorsement.
Authoritarians taking power and causing massive harm with that power
Future elections being tilted towards worse choices by said authoritarians
and so on
If you want to roll the dice on the optimistic scenarios you outlined then you are free to do that. But that very clearly is not utilitarian, for the reasons summarized in my previous post.
Have a nice day and I'll see you in the post-apocalypse I guess.
I come to Tildes to get away from sarcastic shit like this in serious discussions 😕
Thoughtful post, thank you. I definitely agree that the implications of a Trump win, at least long term, are not clear. To give some balance though, one could point to the fact that Trump and the...
Thoughtful post, thank you.
I definitely agree that the implications of a Trump win, at least long term, are not clear. To give some balance though, one could point to the fact that Trump and the GOP in general seem even more "pro-Israel" than Biden (Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem, etc), or the non-Middle East issues you set aside.
So, I was clearly simplifying. Still I think the thought has some value.
It's definitely true that some people actually believe that the externalities far into the future of a third-party vote will be worth it, and those people are operating in a utilitarian way, by definition. Others are definitely voting based on a conscientious objection or an unwillingness to participate in the democratic party, and those choices are mostly virtue ethical/deontological. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
I want to push back on your characterisation of those who vote democrat as "voting for genocide": I don't think it's fair. Analagously, it's like saying that those who pull the lever are "committing murder": it's an ungenerous interpretation of a hard-thought ethical decision and is mostly said to make the other person feel bad.
What I'm saying is that I think you're seeing people say "I won't vote for a party doing a genocide" or "I won't participate in the Democratic Party", and ascribing deontological motives onto it,...
What I'm saying is that I think you're seeing people say "I won't vote for a party doing a genocide" or "I won't participate in the Democratic Party", and ascribing deontological motives onto it, and I'm not certain why given that the utilitarian motive of not wanting the Democratic Party to do a genocide is already implied in those statements.
Not wanting some bad consequence is not unique to utilitarianism. Deontologists also do not want bad things to happen. On the one hand, there are people who say "I cannot bring myself to vote...
Not wanting some bad consequence is not unique to utilitarianism. Deontologists also do not want bad things to happen.
On the one hand, there are people who say "I cannot bring myself to vote democrat": I think it's clear that in most cases, those people feel that they don't want to be complicit, that their vote is morally an endorsement. This is a deontological thing to do.
On the other hand, there are those who say "I will not vote democrat because I think sending this protest vote will effect positive change overall" (perhaps on a longer timescale). Those people are probably acting in a utilitarian way.
Obviously, I am not a mind reader; I don't know everybody's moral frameworks. But actually I think the deolontogical justification is much more reasonable! I don't think there's much evidence to think that voting third-party will have a positive long-term effect (it doesn't seem to have done in 2016) and I frankly suspect that many people justifying their decision as utilitarian are trying to rationalise it.
Welllll, I think outside the context of voting this is a fine way to separate deontological motives from utilitarian ones, but the thing is that voting is conceptually about expressing endorsement...
On the one hand, there are people who say "I cannot bring myself to vote democrat": I think it's clear that in most cases, those people feel that they don't want to be complicit, that their vote is morally an endorsement. This is a deontological thing to do.
Welllll, I think outside the context of voting this is a fine way to separate deontological motives from utilitarian ones, but the thing is that voting is conceptually about expressing endorsement or discontent. But not as its own end. The idea is supposed to be that collective expressions of endorsement and discontent impact government policy (how little or much is more than debatable), which is how you get to people concocting complicated trolley problems in their head about the impact of individual votes on that policy. In the context of voting, expressing endorsement or discontent is a means aimed at some utilitarian end, or you wouldn't even go. I've never heard someone say that they go and vote purely to indirectly imply some expression of their beliefs on paper. Maybe voting is all about pouring out your heart on paper for some people but I don't think that's as obviously implied by those kinds of statements as you do.
To be clear, I agree with this! I lean utilitarian, and the consequences of what I do at the ballot box are "the point", and more important to me than my conscience. Some people don't agree with...
To be clear, I agree with this! I lean utilitarian, and the consequences of what I do at the ballot box are "the point", and more important to me than my conscience.
Some people don't agree with this though, and that's the point.
...[voting] is a means aimed at some utilitarian end, or you wouldn't even go
This is precisely an expression of the utilitarian worldview rather than some unique property of voting :)
Alright, that's certainly fair. Obviously I'm not denying that deontologists exist, although my personal experience is just that all of the many Dems in my life who say they're withholding their...
This is precisely an expression of the utilitarian worldview rather than some unique property of voting
Alright, that's certainly fair. Obviously I'm not denying that deontologists exist, although my personal experience is just that all of the many Dems in my life who say they're withholding their votes consciously perceive it as an act of protest aimed at the end of the Dems not being genocidal anymore. All I was saying in the last post was that someone referring to their own endorsement doesn't point to a deontological motive given that endorsement is a universal description of what a vote is, independent of moral framework. If I wanted to phrase it more precisely I should have said
the thing is that voting is conceptually about expressing endorsement or discontent. But not NECESSARILY as its own end.
Not to sound cavalier, but does anyone understand that Palestinian genocide is not on the ballot this fall? Abortion access is on the ballot this fall. Climate change mitigation and reversal is on...
Not to sound cavalier, but does anyone understand that Palestinian genocide is not on the ballot this fall?
Abortion access is on the ballot this fall. Climate change mitigation and reversal is on the ballot this fall. The fate of Ukraine is on the ballot this fall. Student debt relief is on the ballot this fall.
Not to sound cavalier, but can you understand how some people might have a moral opposition to supporting, in any way, a candidate who has helped enable a genocide? I personally feel like there...
Not to sound cavalier, but can you understand how some people might have a moral opposition to supporting, in any way, a candidate who has helped enable a genocide? I personally feel like there will be blood on my hands if I vote for either Biden or Trump, so I'll vote for neither (not that I'd ever consider voting for a Republican).
Also, if you think Biden's climate policies will "reverse" climate change, I've got bad news for you. His lame half-measures are hardly worth overlooking a genocide for.
I certainly believe that Biden’s climate policies will be far better than the climate policies of Trump, considering that he asked oil CEOs for $1 billion last month. (gift article) Unfortunately,...
No one said Trump's (non-existant) climate policies would be better? I said Biden's policies won't come close to "reversing" climate change like the comment I replied to stated. If you choose to...
No one said Trump's (non-existant) climate policies would be better? I said Biden's policies won't come close to "reversing" climate change like the comment I replied to stated.
If you choose to forever perpetuate the "vote for the lesser of two evils" paradigm, that's up to you, but there are literally are other options. I personally don't owe my vote to any party and won't be guilted into voting for anyone.
I understand that you can’t vote for either candidate. I can at least understand that rationale. We all do have our own fights in this arena. I can understand Macklemore not voting for Biden, as I...
I understand that you can’t vote for either candidate. I can at least understand that rationale.
We all do have our own fights in this arena. I can understand Macklemore not voting for Biden, as I doubt there is a high likelihood of that state going to Trump in November. I also sincerely wish that more states would operate on a ranked-choice or similar voting scheme, so that we may effectively vote against one candidate while also voting for another.
However, in my experience, I have a different fight. I live in a swing state, and in a part of it that tends to lean Republican. Every day, I have to spend my energy convincing my neighbors that racism exists, and that illegal immigration isn’t to blame for our economic woes. I have to choose to burn my energy in those arenas, instead of this one.
I think I have a better chance there, because I can interface with people in a way that’s more personal.
You can vote as you want to, but please consider that my honest options may be more limited than yours.
We seem to have deontological intuitions rubbing up against consequentialist ones in this thread. Consequentialists, generally, think we have a duty to perform actions to avoid negative...
Not to sound cavalier, but can you understand how some people might have a moral opposition to supporting, in any way, a candidate who has helped enable a genocide? I personally feel like there will be blood on my hands if I vote for either Biden or Trump, so I'll vote for neither (not that I'd ever consider voting for a Republican).
We seem to have deontological intuitions rubbing up against consequentialist ones in this thread.
Consequentialists, generally, think we have a duty to perform actions to avoid negative consequences (e.g., the consequences for Palestinians under a Trump administration, climate change, etc.)
Deontologists, generally, think our duties are related to the actions themselves. It's wrong to vote for Biden even if it saves countless lives in Palestine or even if it prevents worse outcomes related to climate change, because this would be support for someone who supported genocide.
Admittedly, my own intuitions are deeply consequentialist, so this attitude of tolerating climate change and worse outcomes for Palestinians to maintain a personal moral high ground seems insane. But I'm sure one with deontological intuitions view my support of a "war criminal" (I'm not exactly a huge fan of Biden, but will vote for him begrudgingly) as insane as well.
I appreciate your thoughtful response but still see things differently. Categorizing actions into philosophical schools of thought is an interesting mental exercise, but doesn't change a lot about...
I appreciate your thoughtful response but still see things differently. Categorizing actions into philosophical schools of thought is an interesting mental exercise, but doesn't change a lot about the realities on the ground for me at least.
I wonder if the argument you ascribe to deontologists is too sure of the outcomes we'd see under Trump? It seems to me like there's been an incredible amount of death and destruction on Biden's watch, but the main message I hear from his supporters is "Oh yeah, well imagine how bad it would be under the other guy!". Trump is evil but wildly incompetent. There's a real chance his chaotic and inept administration couldn't even execute the things he's talking about, as bad as they sound.
Also, as a consequentialist, do you ever get to promote positive consequences? Or are you always bound to vote for the lesser of two evils as things get worse and worse over time? This seems like an excellent way to forever entrench the two-party system and lock in the trend of slow decline.
I'm merely using the terms to describe a difference of moral intuitions, I'm not saying anyone is following some framework. However whenever one talks about what one "ought" to do they are indeed...
Categorizing actions into philosophical schools of thought is an interesting mental exercise, but doesn't change a lot about the realities on the ground for me at least.
I'm merely using the terms to describe a difference of moral intuitions, I'm not saying anyone is following some framework. However whenever one talks about what one "ought" to do they are indeed doing philosophy.
I wonder if the argument you ascribe to deontologists is too sure of the outcomes we'd see under Trump?
You're free to think the consequences for Palestinians and the climate would be better under Trump, but I don't think such a position would be worth refuting.
Gotcha. I was wondering why you posted the Istagram version. I changed the link back to Ista. If anyone wants the YouTube version they can find it in my comment.
Gotcha. I was wondering why you posted the Istagram version. I changed the link back to Ista. If anyone wants the YouTube version they can find it in my comment.
Man, everyone has been talking about the quality of Kendrick Lamar's dis tracks, but boy howdy is this a banger too! I can't believe Macklemore was able to cover such a wide scope of topics, with...
Man, everyone has been talking about the quality of Kendrick Lamar's dis tracks, but boy howdy is this a banger too! I can't believe Macklemore was able to cover such a wide scope of topics, with some pretty difficult language, and make it flow so well.
Kudos to Macklemore for putting this is and another massive kudos to the student's protesting.
If you are a University of California Alumni please consider joining the No Donations Until Divestment Group. There aren't many way ways we can support to bring about a ceasefire but we can support the students who are doing the heavy lifting here.
You should vote for the candidate who supports the political actions that you do. Every single election cycle we see the same "vote for whoever you want next election, this one is super duper important so you have to vote for who I say so the enemy doesn't win."
I'm voting for the candidate who best supports renewable energy, decarbonization, affordable housing growth. If I have to go 3rd party I will.
I am tired of pretending it's okay to vote for someone awful because the other person is more awful. It's still voting for someone awful, I'm just not doing it anymore. It feels like the two parties want us to be hostages. Either way we are zooming rapidly toward some super not good shit. I'll be voting third party from now on.
I know there's always a lot of annoying hysteria about these following elections being the most important elections ever, but it's not really about pretense, it's about acknowledging the consequences of the vote and making the decision accordingly.
In my opinion specifically presidential elections offer some of the worst tradeoffs between a possible effect on the popularity of a third party or the popularity of third-party political opinions, and the effect of objectively helping the worse of two evils by voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance.
I understand completely. I just feel like this argument, that voting third party objectively helps an evil, shifts the responsibility for that evil onto voters. The responsibility lies with the candidates. I am tired of carrying that around... the consequences of this vote don't belong to me. I just can't in good conscience cast a vote for a party who funded a genocide. That is so deeply against who I am as a human being. But I do get where you're coming from and understand why it makes sense.
I've voted third party before, so I can understand why people decide to do it even if not a practical choice, but I feel there is a contradiction in your comment. Why should how you vote impact your conscience if you think the consequences of voting are not the responsibility of voters?
I don't support this administration. And I can say that and mean it theoretically, like I don't believe in their ideals or I don't agree with their views, that's all mental stuff. If I vote for them, I can't say it anymore because I will have done an action that does support them in a real way. That part is not about the results of an election it's about who I am as a person and what my values are. It would force me to change how I think about myself in a way that is unacceptable to me. If I truly don't support it, then my actions can't, otherwise I'm just lying to myself. I am not a person who will not support a genocide with a thought or with an action, and I need that to be true.
The consequences of this vote in particular are not the responsibility of the voters. The parties put up candidates against the wishes of the majority of their base, the majority of all citizens did not want these to be the choices. If we were choosing between different options than this, if we had actual choices, then I would feel that the consequences depended on voters. Civic duty and all that. It's just not what we're doing this round.
If that's what works for your conscience, do what you gotta do. For me, if I am taking the action (or inaction) that will be worse for the Palestinian people, that is what will weigh on me. Washing my hands of that isn't something I can do in good conscience.
Advocating for voting for Joe Biden out of concern for the people of Palestine is an absurd joke.
I'm not saying you should instead vote for Trump, but looking at a genocide and saying "I've got to do my part to keep this going, because maybe it could be worse with the other guy?" is the product of a broken system that I won't participate in.
Let's not pretend that it's maybe. Trump is actively campaigning on making life for Palestinians worse than it is already. He's literally staring in black and white what he'll do if he gets elected, and it's the exact opposite of "prevent innocent suffering"
Saying I need to vote for the guy who enabled the genocide in the first place because his opponent said he'll continue it isn't very convincing. I'm not voting for anyone who, through word or deed, supports genocide.
What degree of supporting genocide is too much? If Bernie Sanders was elected President, he's now at the helm of the genocide machine. Would he be immediately supporting genocide? How about in a month? If he hasn't changed the entire administration of the United States to avoid anything that supports genocide anywhere in the world to any degree, is he supporting genocide because it's been a month? If someone is running for president and they were the governor of a state and in that role they didn't ban any economic interactions with any region where there was a genocide happening, are they supporting genocide because there were economic benefits to their state? Are you supporting genocide by ever purchasing something manufactured in China, where there is an active genocide occuring? Can you ever vote for anyone?
Continuing to directly supply the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much.
The examples of grey area you provide are all well and good, obviously there are very few certainties in the geopolitics of a viscous and deeply interconnected world, but seeing a genocide unfold before your eyes and continuing to provide material support for it is evil and unforgivable.
Ok, so the US has stepped back from that line. Within the last 48 hours Biden has specifically said that if Israel attacks Rafa it's not going to be with US weapons, and has delayed further transfers. And it's entirely due to people like you saying through words and protests that it's not acceptable. Does that change your opinion on Biden?
The 'genocide line' is not one you get to step back from, lmao. Tens of thousands of children have been murdered with our weapons and support, there is nothing he can do to reverse that.
You just said that continuing to do so was the degree that was too much, and now that they're not continuing to do so, you're moving the goalposts? It's not really interesting to discuss things if you're just going to move the goalposts to be unhappy regardless of the positive changes that are occurring.
This is a little pedantic, but I'll amend it for you.
"Directly supplying the bombs that are dropped on tens of thousands of innocent children, families, journalists, NGO workers, etc. is the degree of supporting genocide that is too much"
Of course continuing to do this would be bad also, but having done it in the first place is bad enough. My apologies for the confusion.
I think for most of us this is a limp gesture. The US has shown that sanctions/embargos work. Hell, Israel has shown it with Gaza. We don't just need to take away the carrots (which we're already not doing considering the absolutely massive increase in funding and arms support we provided) but also give them the stick (economic sanctions). It's not like we don't have a playbook for it, we do it to Communist leaning countries all the time.
Yeah, absolutely. From my perspective this is absolutely below the bare minimum I'd like to see out of the situation. I brought it up because it was specifically the line that the person I was responding to cited as their line in the sand, and it just so happened that the US had walked to the right side of it. It's a nice first gesture, but there's so much more that needs to be done. But the fact that there's any motion at all after decades of unquestioning support of Israel is in itself basically miraculous. It's worth saying that this is a good move in the right direction, even as it's clear that it's not enough.
I get where you're coming from but I think
Feels more like poor placation. The Fed has so many tools at their disposal and this is bandaid on a bullet wound. It functionally does nothing but expects the kudos of attempting a solution. And that is pretty frustrating.
You're totally right that Biden's statement technically answers WhistlePig's "line" but I think you may be missing the forest through the trees from our perspective. Biden returns to good graces when he applies enough pressure for a cease fire, a legitimate one. But that is also just my own perspective.
There's been a lot of work within the state department pushing for a ceasefire or a more moderate response. Even the military advisors they sent were people who had been at Fallujah and knew exactly how awful what the Israelis were planning was going to be, and were trying to convince Israel to be more considered in what they were doing. It's basically all come to nothing. The work to build a pier to start bringing in aid to try to mitigate the outright famine that's already present is the only thing I know of that's directly taking place within Israel, but I'm not clear what sanctions are going to do within the next week while people are outright starving to death each day.
I'm not advocating voting for joe biden, only explaining my reasoning for doing so. I've made my choice based on my conscience, you should do the same. If that means not voting or voting third party for you, you should do that. Like I said, I've done the same thing in the past.
But consider the value of your vote as a percentage of the impact that the elected president will have; your third party candidate for president will not win. I'm not going to say that showing increasing third party voting doesn't have some impact indicating to the person that does get elected that there may be votes to be won over in the direction of that third party, but as far as making sure that there's support for renewable energy, decarbonization, affordable housing growth, etc, it's as important to consider the distance between the actual viable candidates for president as it is to consider the distance between the viable candidate that most closely fits your desires and your actual ideal president.
Practically, the only way to one day get a third party president who can do what you want is to spend 20+ years developing a local ground game and building support and representation in congress. A third party president with the current congress would get very little done, far less than Biden has, since both existing parties would want him or her visibly hamstrung.
Presidential candidates look towards other candidates to see what policies are getting support, voting for a 3rd party shows people like Biden that those politics are more important than the ones they're currently supporting. Voting blindly democrat just lets them keep getting away with the same bullshit they've been pulling for 50 years.
Ok, sure. And voting for someone else in the primary like with that major protest vote in Illinois is a great way to engage in that sort of signaling behavior. The question I have for you is whether the signaling potential of someone voting for a third party in the general election is an effective way to see their desired policy outcomes borne out. Maybe, if the more acceptable of the two actually viable candidates has a significant lead, but in a run as tight as this it seems like it's an open question as to whether their signaling will matter very much if the candidate who will support actions they'd like even less happens to win.
Vote blue no matter who is a recipe for keeping the status quo. I'm tired of it and I'm no longer giving into the fear mongering that happens every 4 years. If Biden wants my vote he's going to have to earn it by actually supporting policies that are left wing. I'm voting for who I want to vote for, not "the lesser of two evils"
That's exactly the bet the authoritarian candidate is taking; that enough people will refuse to vote for the incumbent. Look, I get it - I really do; I'm still bitter for not even getting to vote in the primary in 2020 because our state wasn't in the handful of those that get to vote in the primary early (which is messed up, primaries should happen nationally). Had Dems elected Sanders we would have made a lot more progress against plenty of the issues that plague us simply for the difference in values and veracity.
But the opposition is literally thirsty for a shot at killing our American Experiment, at becoming the supreme ruler. To me this is more born from the effect caused by a party who's so wholly bent on obtaining power they put up candidates like Trump - forcing a two-party system to much more resemble a one-party system for most rational voters.
I'm angry at the Right Wing for putting us into this position, which they do because they are confident they've got a shot due to enough on the left feeling left out. They are confident their candidate can win. The way I see it we need to show them candidates like that have horrible turn out - so much so they stop thinking this is a path to success - and put up less extremist candidates.
And if they win as a result of people not voting for the incumbent then everything I care about will become worse. Palestinians will be worse off. Ukrainians will be worse off. Our action on climate change will be worse off. Our wealth disparity will be worse off. Or democracy, if it survives, will be worse off.
It's not blue no matter who for me - it's Biden vs Trump. History has already shown us what someone like Trump does after returning to power.
I'm not sure I ever even said which candidate you should vote for. I'm just talking about my theory of how to get what you want out of voting for president.
That said, Biden's done a decent bit that's further left than I expected. Pot is getting rescheduled, he's forgiven $143.6 billion in student debt for nearly 4 million Americans, he got a major infrastructure bill passed that includes significant funds for renewable energy, he's sealed more of Alaska to oil extraction, he's pushing back on the previously unassailable partnership with Israel, he made it possible for undocumented child immigrants to qualify for free healthcare, he's publicly supported the unions... When you say that a candidate would need to earn your vote by supporting policies that are left wing and then say that Biden doesn't qualify, I'm wondering whether our definitions of left wing are different or if you don't know what he's done.
Not OP, but the thing that drives me nuts is saying Biden is "pushing back against Israel" Without US support, the genocide in Palestine could stop tomorrow. US provides weapons to kill children, it provides monetary aid to support Israeli government, it provides training for Israeli troops (and the NYPD has an office in Israel), and most importantly, the US vetos or undermines any attempt of the UN to stop the violence.
I'm not saying it wouldnt ruin Bidens support politically. But what's more important? Staying in office or keeping children from dying? I know what's more important to me. And that blood is on his hands.
This is simply not true.
I don't usually comment in these threads but I really cannot leave this left unsaid - if Israel has to, it will commit war crimes using sticks and stones. The precision weapons supplied by the US only make their campaign less destructive.
I'm really not sure why anyone in this thread thinks that the country that openly threatened nuclear strikes against its assailants in the past will somehow be responsive to a lack of support. The US is the only thing keeping Israel from turning Gaza into a flat patch of dirt.
Biden has pushed back more than almost any president I'm aware of. I'm not sure anyone here really fully appreciates how many things were blocked from happening due to US veto. The entire region would be up in flames without pressure from the administration, which is obvious to anyone living here but evidently not to the rest of the world.
People can vote for whoever they want, but at the very least don't make claims that the US can switch a flip a "genocide" switch. The world is more complicated than that and Israel is way, way, WAY more willing than you think to sacrifice its troops and use dumb bombs to make up for a lack of backing.
You say "less destructive", but the whole myth of US precision bombs saving lives is pushed by Raytheon, Boeing and others but doesn't hold true on the ground. Look at all the destroyed mosques and universities. When US forces backed up Iraqi and Rojava fighters against ISIS, we said we used precision bombs to save civilian lives. Entire grid squares were vaporized. The cities are still being rebuilt.
Part of Israels plan is to level buildings, so even if they are stopped, walked back, families will have no homes to return to. The racist myth of "Palestine was uncivilized before Israel came alone and built infrastructure" is just that, a myth. People have lived there for millennia. They want it to be leveled so they can show off fancy new Israeli structures to media and say they are improving things, elevating the living standards.
Israel would still conduct a genocide with sticks and stones? Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with a stick or a stone? The SS had to stop shooting Jews and other victims of the Holocaust because too many of their soldiers were turning to drug use or alcoholism. A genocide needs to remove the humanity of their victims, to other them. It's far, far easier to press a button and drop a bomb on a house than to go room by room, shooting people. If the hatred runs deep enough to kill a fellow human with a rock, that's all the more reason to get involved.
I wasn't born when the Rwandan Genocide happened. I wasn't paying enough attention when Syria started to massacre civilians. I'll be damned if I don't speak up now. How could I live with myself.
Almost every single news source right of center in Israel has done nothing but curse out the US for its involvement in reducing the scale of the offensive. People in Israel that do want a genocide want nothing more than for the US to leave us alone, which is exactly the future that you're advocating for. I'm really unsure how else to drive the point home that left without oversight Israel will become an even bigger monster. If you're okay with that so long as you don't have "blood on your hands", then I guess there's little more I can really say.
I can't continue engaging, and I'm sorry if this came off too aggressive, but words cannot describe how much I dread what Trump would allow to happen here. Our fascists are foaming at the mouth for him to get elected.
I have blood on my hands, I didn't say anything sooner. I didn't protest when this started, and I even said "I'm sure Biden will limit this" in regards to this genocide.
In my earlier comment I pointed out how the US is the reason the UN has no teeth in stopping the slaughter. I'm not asking for the US to be uninvolved, though I'm sure the world is tired of us playing world police. I want a UN intervention. I want a permanent peace, decided by locals, not white men thousands of miles away.
I don't want Trump to win. I'm sure it will make things worse in a lot of countries, including mine. But I can fight Trumps facism locally. I can't stop facism in Israel through my direct actions, other than showing the Democratic party that this is a make or break issue.
The US is right now delaying sending more bombs, and over the last month has opted not to veto other countries' resolutions regarding Israeli actions. Is it everything I would want? No. Is it more than Trump would do? Hell yes. So do you want your outrage vote, or do you want to work towards the best * likely* outcome, which is a slow walkdown of the US alliance with Israel, replacing it with, in all likelihood, Saudi Arabia. The US is going to keep a few regional powers in the middle east as allies. The question is which ones. If Israel is on the way out, who would you prefer?
None of this is good. It's all shitty. But some things you want are things that need a decade of preparation to pull off. Demanding that the president entirely overhaul the US alliance structure in the middle east in a year or he won't get your vote... You can demand that, but don't be shocked Pikachu when it doesn't happen.
How much blood are you comfortable with on your hands? How many dead children? Biden went ahead with Trump's overnight pullout of Afghanistan. Even now, he gives Israel leeway to kill with "major" in front of offensive.
I can't fly over to Palestine and pull people out of bombed buildings. I can't hand out aid or find housing. I cant get in between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian children. But I can vote. And my vote is not beholden to anyone just because of their name or party.
Yes. You can vote for whoever you want. I've never argued against that. I'm just trying to provide a perspective on how you might get the most of what you want to see happen out of your vote. Barring a real surprise, one of Trump or Biden is going to be the next president. So your choice is in how you deal with that when it comes to voting. There is some signalling power in voting third party, and perhaps there's some personal satisfaction in giving in to your outrage and making a protest vote for a third party, but if you're further right than Trump and Biden wins, you're not getting anything you want. If you're further left than Biden and Trump wins, you're not getting anything you want.
So. Do you want to pull things a little ways towards your preferred outcome, or do you want to insist on having it exactly your way without putting in the time to build a national base of power from which to support the president you want to elect? Or do you just want to rage about the state of the world without taking the steps that might change it? It's much, much easier to just do that.
You're getting a Democratic Party that knows that in the future it can't fund a genocide and expect its voters to show up afterward, and who will thereafter be disincentivized from doing so. That's more than a little something. Whether you think that outweighs whatever you imagine to be the consequences of Trump winning is another question, but it's very clear what Democrats who are withholding their votes are hoping to get, and it's a Democratic Party that doesn't do genocides.
Are you? Will a protest vote in this year's general election actually provide that result?
Yes, as the system selects for results that receive the most votes (ignoring the electoral college, and all that does is mean that Dems need even more votes). I don't know what your argument is for why the Democrats would see an electoral loss with low turnout from their own voters who have expressed through polling that this issue is significant and they overwhelmingly disagree with Joe Biden doing genocide, and conclude something other than that doing a genocide cost them the election.
Because there's plenty of other concerns for voters? Take this Harvard Institute of Politics poll of voters in the 18-29 range. When asked how important Israel/Palestine was to them as compared to other issues, it won out only 1/3 of the time. So if Democrats lose, will they blame it on the thing that was second from the bottom, only beaten out for last place by student debt, or will they blame inflation, healthcare, and housing, things about which far more people are concerned?
I would take those things too, but given that protests related to this have sucked all the oxygen out of the media atmosphere for weeks now, and the genocide for months now, probably yes. I would also direct you to the results of question 2 in your first link.
Right, most people are in favor of a ceasefire or a permanent peace. There's a reason why the Biden administration has been trying to talk Israel down for months, and has advanced to other actions to limit Israel's atrocities as things have gotten so much worse. But that people are broadly in favor of peace doesn't change how close to the top of the pile the issue is. From looking at that data, do you really think that a losing Democratic party's takeaway would be that they needed to break with Israel faster than they're already doing?
I don't know what to say to this except that if you don't think people are really withholding their votes due to Gaza, you don't have anything to worry about. So that's good!
You're remarkably slippery when it comes to answering a simple question, aren't you? My goal here isn't to convince people to vote for Biden. I'm trying to talk practically about how to get the most of of your vote when it comes to this particular election. In the longer term, the way to get what you want is to spend the next couple of decades building a groundswell of support at the local/state levels to be able to bring people into the national electoral scene in a way that provides them the necessary support to significantly push the national narrative. Trying to change things from the top first is like trying to push over a redwood by pushing at the tip of the tree. You've got to start at the roots if you want to tip it.
Yes, if you want to get the most out of your vote, and your goal is to disincentivize the Democratic Party from committing further genocide, you should not vote for Biden (whether you then vote for a third party or not), because the alternative is to directly incentivize the Democratic Party to commit further genocide. There is a groundswell of support already, and it is reflected in the polls you have posted. The national narrative right now is entirely about Gaza, turn on the nearest TV or ask your coworkers what the big issue is right now. If Biden loses, it will be widely attributed to Gaza. I don't know how you think that's even debatable.
You live in a two party system, that's the reality of the situation. Voting for a 3rd party because Biden isn't left enough may encourage the Democratic party to make a leftward turn in the future, or it could as easily encourage them to become more conservative in an attempt to gobble up more moderates.
The one thing that it would do in the upcoming election would be to help Donald Trump get elected, who I think we can all agree would not show the same level of restraint towards Israeli foreign policy as Biden has. So who really has blood on their hands?
Well, considering the Democratic party has been drifting right for decades, I think it's time to try. Trying to cater to imaginary centrists and playing both sides plays right into the fascist playbook. And we've been letting that cook for years.
With a first past the post system, with the US electoral system, the President is not beholden to voters the moment they are elected. There is no popular impeachment, and as a second term seeker, this would be his end in politics anyways. The only time to push for change is now, before the election.
What policies do you feel the Democrats have drifted right on compared to 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
If you stretch it to 40 years ago, Clinton really throttled any support for the poor and unfortunate in the name of cost savings, but that's a lifetime ago at this point.
That assumes Biden will still win regardless. Or if you think Trump would be swayed... I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm thinking more towards the future than the two ancient fucks we have to choose from today. Biden will only change for those donating to the DNC's coffers, but the next presidential candidate may take the actual will of the people into account.
That's only true if you believe that politics begins and ends with voting. And I don't think you do believe that.
Honestly my vote for president doesn't matter that much, I'm in a solidly blue state. I withheld my vote in 2016, as I'm sure many people did. We all saw where that got us. I'm not defending Hillary, but my point is that if harm reduction is your goal in voting, pinch your nose, vote for the dem, and then get back to whatever activism you were doing. That is how you move the needle. People put way too much stock in presidential elections. It's all a dog and pony show. The real politics happens, for us the plebs, in the streets.
Not so long as the right keeps putting up extremist candidates, turning a two-party system into more of a one-party system.
It's so refreshing to hear this, I have personally moved to this position and feel good about it. I'm sort of shocked more people don't simply vote for the candidate that best represents their values rather than being guilt tripped into the lesser of two evils dichotomy.
I'm not going to be shamed into voting blue no matter who anymore. I would consider voting for a Democrat in the future, but I'm certainly not going to vote for anyone who has helped enable a genocide.
Its everywhere, even in this comment section; people trying to brow beat you into voting for the candidate they want you to because the other candidate will do irreparable harm. Maybe I'm just too jaded but between voting for a 3rd party and not voting at all like I normally do, I'll vote for the 3rd party.
It makes me wonder where they draw the line, if not at genocide. What would have to happen for them to stop thinking it's worth it to sacrifice their values for a "lesser evil"?
I am suspicious of someone who would encourage others not to make whatever stand they can against an ethnic cleansing.
I think for most people status quo works for them. Why rock the boat when you're in first class? I don't hold or agree with the view but I see why they they do.
I know it's a rhetorical question but: Because the Biden camp is anxious about the young vote.
If they think changing course on Gaza is necessary politically, then maybe. Probably it would be a token change, but that's better than nothing.
The actual act of voting for anyone but Biden is objectively worse for Gaza (Trump will support Israel) but votes are the only leverage most people have.
I disagree with the strategy but the logic is sound.
The question of whether one should vote for an objectionable candidate to prevent a worse candidate being elected is precisely the Trolley Problem: should you participate in a harm in order to reduce it?
Reasonable people can and do disagree on the answer. Personally I lean utilitarian, but it seems we have a lot of deontologists and/or virtue ethicists on Tildes. I'm surprised at the vitriol that this question elicits, even on here.
This is going to be very long and I'm sorry. But I think a large part of it is that it's arguably a more complicated situation than the trolley problem as it's depicted in that simplistic cartoon people sarcastically post, or as the trolley problem is traditionally posed in ethics classes. Abstract away issues other than Palestine for now. If you think that the choice is between "guy who is funding a genocide" and "guy who will likely also fund a genocide", that's not really an obvious decision. Will Trump winning help? Almost certainly not, but we know Biden winning will at best keep things the same. Meanwhile, the argument that Biden losing will actually hurt is just vague "obviously Trump would be worse, he's, like, a bad guy" speculation, which seems to be pretty clearly undercut by the factual reality that both of these guys have been the president before and only one of them actually did anything like this. To repeat, Trump will not be better, but Biden is infamously far more pro-Israel than basically anyone else in American politics and has been for his entire career. It was pretty widely understood back in '08 that Biden became Obama's running mate in part because the Israel lobby was scared of Obama (for both racist reasons and reasons related to Obama's very mildly pro-Palestinian-lives politics) and they wanted to balance him out with a true believer. Which track is worse? All of the facts suggest Biden, all of the vibes (I totally agree, and I feel it too!) suggest Trump, even though it's pretty hard to imagine how that's even conceptually possible.
So the mere reality that a situation can be modeled as a type of trolley problem does not make that decision obvious, even if you take utilitarianism as a given, because the choices of how you evaluate each track are completely speculative and on some level vibes-oriented. But then you can move beyond even that to the structure of your trolley problem. Sure, you can model the situation as the trolley problem, but all trolley problems are not made equally. Here, for example, you can just choose to see it as a bogstandard trolley problem: the thousands of people we imagine Biden is going to continue to kill because it is what he has been doing all along are weighed against the thousands of people we imagine Trump is going to start to kill because he's also pro-Israel and feels like a worse guy. Both tracks just sort of awkwardly end in 2027. Under this model, if you (again) choose to imagine that the number of thousands Trump is going to kill is greater than the number of thousands Biden is going to kill, then I guess that gives the problem an easy answer.
But you could also, maybe even accurately, choose to model it as a modified trolley problem where after each track with thousands of people on it there is another switch with another pair of tracks. The two tracks have, again, comparable and ill-defined numbers of corpses on them. But now, on the track where Biden wins, Democrat politicians learn that they can do a genocide and get away with it, and both of the downstream tracks get substantially worse. Meanwhile, on the track where Biden loses, polling shows (as it does already) that this is a massive issue, everyone in his own party was mad at him about it, and many people who held their noses and voted for him in 2020 were unwilling to do so in 2024 because he did a genocide. If that happens, both downstream tracks get substantially better, because it has been established that teaming up with Israel to commit a genocide is not something that is politically survivable. If you're someone who finds this model more convincing, then the simple model is not only wrong but also actively harmful, because, if believed by a critical mass of people, it ensures that all of the downstream tracks get worse every election forever.
And then you might even move beyond that to the artificiality of the trolley problem as it has been imposed on this situation to begin with. When the trolley problem is posed in an ethics class, "Wait, why the hell are there people strapped to these tracks, and why is choosing between these two tracks my only option?" is not an interesting question, because it's a thought experiment so that's not the point. When a situation comparable to the trolley problem happens in real life, the question of who strapped everyone to the tracks and whether your behavior is rewarding or even incentivizing them to continue strapping people to the tracks becomes very real and has practical downstream consequences that can be modeled as their own separate trolley problem.
You can choose to see people saying "my values are that genocide is too far" as deontological, but you could just as easily see it as a utilitarian choice, a trolley problem weighing a future where "Palestinians keep dying at an accelerating rate" is written on both tracks in the cartoon in every future election against a future where that isn't the case. You don't have to agree with any of the arguments I've given -- you might have some set of facts that you think makes it obvious that Trump would be worse, or that Democrats won't stop doing genocides just because of their voters revolting, or whatever other specific point you want to disagree on. That's a fight that's hard to have on Tildes and I'm not going to get into it because it will inevitably turn into a demented flamewar.
But the point of what I'm saying is that what you imagine the structure of the trolley tracks to be is necessarily subjective, how and in what terms you evaluate the utility value assigned to each track is necessarily subjective, and your choice of how far along the track to stop looking for tied up bodies is necessarily subjective. That is all within a perfectly utilitarian framework, whether you think people who answer those questions differently than you are right or wrong. To suggest as you have that all of the people who refuse to vote for genocide are just choosing to make bad things happen in order to assert their values seems nonsensical -- they have an argument in their head for why voting for genocide makes bad things happen and not voting for genocide avoids those bad things!
This, and the rest of the reasoning derived from it, only makes sense if one puts blinders on and ignores the multitudes of other differences between the candidates, including the body count difference in every other aspect of their policies, both domestic and international.
As a simple example, Trump will cease support for Ukraine, roll back climate action, and carry out mass deportations. So already the false equivalence is broken.
This is extremely optimistic conjecture. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take power, keep power, and do all of the things they have publicly promised to do. The most likely lesson that will be learned is “the people want right wing authoritarianism.” The options in a future election being better as a result is not a more likely outcome than the fascists abusing administrative power to ensure they win future elections.
And any sort of “well then the public would rise up and overthrow them” reasoning (which often follows, I have learned) glosses over the immense bloodshed that would bring, which again invalidates the earlier false equivalence.
Asking those questions is necessary but is not in any way mutually exclusive with spending a moment to pull the lever. One of the most reliable ways to keep fascists out of power is to not let them win elections. The other 364 days and 22 hours of the year are free for any and all other forms of action.
Like I said, to anyone who is thinking about this election as a referendum on whether the US should keep doing a genocide, it very much is mutually exclusive, because in utilitarian terms answering those questions avoids harm and pretending those questions don't exist causes it. Again, I'm not really planning to start a fight on here where we spit random facts at each other to try to convince each other that one of the tracks will have more corpses on it. But your argument for why we can't try to tell Democrats to stop doing genocide seems to be some kind of weird conspiracy theory about how the next time a Republican becomes president they will become a dictator forever? I don't really think that is coherent enough to demand a response, but if that's your argument, is your plan to make sure a Republican is literally never president again for the rest of time? I have news for you, a Republican will some day be president again, maybe even this time around. They're a large and popular political party! You can think that when that happens they're going to enshrine dictatorial rule immediately or whatever you believe, and I guess I can't do anything about that, but I don't think any of what you're saying matches with reality or makes much internal sense.
Wowzer, this is a wild misrepresentation. I contended that:
My plan, as always, is to do what I can, within the circumstances I'm given and the power I have, to minimize suffering and harm in my world. No more, no less. A utilitarian mindset through and through.
I did not choose the circumstances, I did not choose this shitty electoral system, I did not choose this broken world, but I am stuck living within them for now. When presented with a trolley problem I will pull the lever for less harm. And for the other 364 days and 22 hours of the year I will do what I can to stop future trolleys and future people getting tied to the tracks.
Without a doubt. But the fact that there will be harm in the future is no reason to allow greater harm now.
(and the large popularity of Republicans that you cite here further reinforces my point that letting them win will primarily send a message of "yes, this is what the electorate wants")
I believe they will do the things they have publicly laid out and committed to do in documents such as Project 2025. Here are just a few more examples.
When authoritarians tell us what they want to do we should listen.
To be clear: if one is so upset about what's happening in Gaza that they cannot engage with electoral politics in a calculated, utilitarian way then, frankly, I get it. I especially understand for those that are Palestinian, whose grief I can only imagine.
The philosophical case you're presenting here, however, is built on a foundation of false equivalence, optimistic conjecture, and hand-waving public policy declarations as "conspiracy." It is not utilitarian.
Yeah I don't think I can keep going with you because I'm having a hard time convincing myself you believe any of the things you're saying and the tone will only get more aggressive, but when I said that Republicans would
eventually win an election, I was not saying any of the stuff you're implying I was saying. I was pointing out that the political horizon you're describing is that the apocalypse is coming the next time a Republican wins and this is unavoidable but could maybe be delayed, and the political action this has led you to is rewarding the Democrats for committing genocide indefinitely. If its your actual belief that the options are Democrats win indefinitely or Republicans destroy the country forever, the politics that leads you to is a politics where the Republicans and Democrats both continue to do genocide. The alternative is a project of reforming the Democrats to not commit genocide. Your original argument that this is wrong because the Democratic Party would instead learn the lesson that voters want fascism doesn't make sense, since they have at their disposal ample polling data showing that their own voters are in revolt over the genocide, and not because they secretly want fascism. Have a nice day and I'll see you in Nineteen Eighty-Four I guess.
My friend, you ignored the substance of my post about the utilitarian framework you presented - including a bullet point summary - in order to quote one bit out of context and cut it down.
If I misunderstood or misquoted you then I apologize for that.
I did not say the apocalypse is coming. I have great concern about the specific publicly professed policies outlined in the sources I linked. Those are an extremely important part of the utilitarian calculus you presented, and cannot be dismissed as “conspiracy” or “apocalypse.”
My actual belief, as outlined in the first sentence of my first post, is that if Republicans win there will be much more harm, and if Democrats with there will be much less harm. Please refrain from setting up caricatures of what others say.
A project I strongly support, including primarying awful politicians like Fetterman.
First of all, the polling data we have shows that foreign policy concerns like what’s happening in Gaza rank far behind domestic issues like inflation and immigration for voters, and even when narrowed down to just Democrats’ foreign policy concerns it’s in 6th place (though it’s gaining). If you have other polling data showing it as a top concern please share - I would love to see it.
Second, the point isn’t that there will be zero lesson about support for genocide in the results, or that the Dems will take up fascism. It’s that that lesson of “we should support less genocide” sticking and affecting future trolley problems in a positive way as a result of this fall’s election, as you originally posited, is far less likely than things like:
If you want to roll the dice on the optimistic scenarios you outlined then you are free to do that. But that very clearly is not utilitarian, for the reasons summarized in my previous post.
I come to Tildes to get away from sarcastic shit like this in serious discussions 😕
Thank you.
Thoughtful post, thank you.
I definitely agree that the implications of a Trump win, at least long term, are not clear. To give some balance though, one could point to the fact that Trump and the GOP in general seem even more "pro-Israel" than Biden (Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem, etc), or the non-Middle East issues you set aside.
So, I was clearly simplifying. Still I think the thought has some value.
It's definitely true that some people actually believe that the externalities far into the future of a third-party vote will be worth it, and those people are operating in a utilitarian way, by definition. Others are definitely voting based on a conscientious objection or an unwillingness to participate in the democratic party, and those choices are mostly virtue ethical/deontological. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
I want to push back on your characterisation of those who vote democrat as "voting for genocide": I don't think it's fair. Analagously, it's like saying that those who pull the lever are "committing murder": it's an ungenerous interpretation of a hard-thought ethical decision and is mostly said to make the other person feel bad.
What I'm saying is that I think you're seeing people say "I won't vote for a party doing a genocide" or "I won't participate in the Democratic Party", and ascribing deontological motives onto it, and I'm not certain why given that the utilitarian motive of not wanting the Democratic Party to do a genocide is already implied in those statements.
Not wanting some bad consequence is not unique to utilitarianism. Deontologists also do not want bad things to happen.
On the one hand, there are people who say "I cannot bring myself to vote democrat": I think it's clear that in most cases, those people feel that they don't want to be complicit, that their vote is morally an endorsement. This is a deontological thing to do.
On the other hand, there are those who say "I will not vote democrat because I think sending this protest vote will effect positive change overall" (perhaps on a longer timescale). Those people are probably acting in a utilitarian way.
Obviously, I am not a mind reader; I don't know everybody's moral frameworks. But actually I think the deolontogical justification is much more reasonable! I don't think there's much evidence to think that voting third-party will have a positive long-term effect (it doesn't seem to have done in 2016) and I frankly suspect that many people justifying their decision as utilitarian are trying to rationalise it.
Welllll, I think outside the context of voting this is a fine way to separate deontological motives from utilitarian ones, but the thing is that voting is conceptually about expressing endorsement or discontent. But not as its own end. The idea is supposed to be that collective expressions of endorsement and discontent impact government policy (how little or much is more than debatable), which is how you get to people concocting complicated trolley problems in their head about the impact of individual votes on that policy. In the context of voting, expressing endorsement or discontent is a means aimed at some utilitarian end, or you wouldn't even go. I've never heard someone say that they go and vote purely to indirectly imply some expression of their beliefs on paper. Maybe voting is all about pouring out your heart on paper for some people but I don't think that's as obviously implied by those kinds of statements as you do.
To be clear, I agree with this! I lean utilitarian, and the consequences of what I do at the ballot box are "the point", and more important to me than my conscience.
Some people don't agree with this though, and that's the point.
This is precisely an expression of the utilitarian worldview rather than some unique property of voting :)
Alright, that's certainly fair. Obviously I'm not denying that deontologists exist, although my personal experience is just that all of the many Dems in my life who say they're withholding their votes consciously perceive it as an act of protest aimed at the end of the Dems not being genocidal anymore. All I was saying in the last post was that someone referring to their own endorsement doesn't point to a deontological motive given that endorsement is a universal description of what a vote is, independent of moral framework. If I wanted to phrase it more precisely I should have said
Yep, & Trump will do far less for the people of Palestine.
I haven't seen one person advocate for voting for Trump, so what's your point?
Not to sound cavalier, but does anyone understand that Palestinian genocide is not on the ballot this fall?
Abortion access is on the ballot this fall. Climate change mitigation and reversal is on the ballot this fall. The fate of Ukraine is on the ballot this fall. Student debt relief is on the ballot this fall.
Not to sound cavalier, but can you understand how some people might have a moral opposition to supporting, in any way, a candidate who has helped enable a genocide? I personally feel like there will be blood on my hands if I vote for either Biden or Trump, so I'll vote for neither (not that I'd ever consider voting for a Republican).
Also, if you think Biden's climate policies will "reverse" climate change, I've got bad news for you. His lame half-measures are hardly worth overlooking a genocide for.
I certainly believe that Biden’s climate policies will be far better than the climate policies of Trump, considering that he asked oil CEOs for $1 billion last month. (gift article)
Unfortunately, I do believe that these are the only two options available to us.
No one said Trump's (non-existant) climate policies would be better? I said Biden's policies won't come close to "reversing" climate change like the comment I replied to stated.
If you choose to forever perpetuate the "vote for the lesser of two evils" paradigm, that's up to you, but there are literally are other options. I personally don't owe my vote to any party and won't be guilted into voting for anyone.
I understand that you can’t vote for either candidate. I can at least understand that rationale.
We all do have our own fights in this arena. I can understand Macklemore not voting for Biden, as I doubt there is a high likelihood of that state going to Trump in November. I also sincerely wish that more states would operate on a ranked-choice or similar voting scheme, so that we may effectively vote against one candidate while also voting for another.
However, in my experience, I have a different fight. I live in a swing state, and in a part of it that tends to lean Republican. Every day, I have to spend my energy convincing my neighbors that racism exists, and that illegal immigration isn’t to blame for our economic woes. I have to choose to burn my energy in those arenas, instead of this one.
I think I have a better chance there, because I can interface with people in a way that’s more personal.
You can vote as you want to, but please consider that my honest options may be more limited than yours.
I also live in a swing state. My options are still not limited to genocide enabler or verbal genocide supporter.
Have you written to your local and national representatives, telling them about the importance of Gaza?
Yes.
Good. Thank you.
We seem to have deontological intuitions rubbing up against consequentialist ones in this thread.
Consequentialists, generally, think we have a duty to perform actions to avoid negative consequences (e.g., the consequences for Palestinians under a Trump administration, climate change, etc.)
Deontologists, generally, think our duties are related to the actions themselves. It's wrong to vote for Biden even if it saves countless lives in Palestine or even if it prevents worse outcomes related to climate change, because this would be support for someone who supported genocide.
Admittedly, my own intuitions are deeply consequentialist, so this attitude of tolerating climate change and worse outcomes for Palestinians to maintain a personal moral high ground seems insane. But I'm sure one with deontological intuitions view my support of a "war criminal" (I'm not exactly a huge fan of Biden, but will vote for him begrudgingly) as insane as well.
I appreciate your thoughtful response but still see things differently. Categorizing actions into philosophical schools of thought is an interesting mental exercise, but doesn't change a lot about the realities on the ground for me at least.
I wonder if the argument you ascribe to deontologists is too sure of the outcomes we'd see under Trump? It seems to me like there's been an incredible amount of death and destruction on Biden's watch, but the main message I hear from his supporters is "Oh yeah, well imagine how bad it would be under the other guy!". Trump is evil but wildly incompetent. There's a real chance his chaotic and inept administration couldn't even execute the things he's talking about, as bad as they sound.
Also, as a consequentialist, do you ever get to promote positive consequences? Or are you always bound to vote for the lesser of two evils as things get worse and worse over time? This seems like an excellent way to forever entrench the two-party system and lock in the trend of slow decline.
I'm merely using the terms to describe a difference of moral intuitions, I'm not saying anyone is following some framework. However whenever one talks about what one "ought" to do they are indeed doing philosophy.
You're free to think the consequences for Palestinians and the climate would be better under Trump, but I don't think such a position would be worth refuting.
That’s fine but both candidates have.
If your answer is to not vote or vote 3rd party, ok.
Be aware that should trump win, it will get worse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Hind_Rajab
Official YouTube version (since Ista kinda sucks on PC):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgDQyFeBBIo
This is behind an age-verification gate which is why I posted the Instagram link. I see that the mods have updated my post to point to YouTube.
Gotcha. I was wondering why you posted the Istagram version. I changed the link back to Ista. If anyone wants the YouTube version they can find it in my comment.
Man, everyone has been talking about the quality of Kendrick Lamar's dis tracks, but boy howdy is this a banger too! I can't believe Macklemore was able to cover such a wide scope of topics, with some pretty difficult language, and make it flow so well.
Kudos to Macklemore for putting this is and another massive kudos to the student's protesting.
If you are a University of California Alumni please consider joining the No Donations Until Divestment Group. There aren't many way ways we can support to bring about a ceasefire but we can support the students who are doing the heavy lifting here.