Lmao can you imagine if the world worked like that? So funny. Anyway, back to reality. You’re doing work that only benefits the fascists, so maybe stop being a fasc op
wild to me how many people are upset by “i find genocide unacceptable and won’t vote for anyone who has it as part of their policies”
they treat it as if it’s some kind of insane opinion and not, like, the bare fucking minimum in terms of ethics???
I feel like there was a time when voting for the “lesser genocide” would have just been presented as a hypothetical to show the logical extreme of lesser evil voting, but somewhere along the line people just started advocating that openly and unironically.
i’m convinced that it’s because people considered it in theory only; disconnected from the real human preventable tragedy that it is.
now social media is making it difficult to ignore the impact of this human tragedy and it’s forcing people to add their humanity to that theoretical consideration.
i’m also convinced that the age/id verification systems that all western gov’ts are currently implementing are geared towards returning us to a state of giving greater emphasis on theory rather than humanity.
I think there’s also an element of online spaces promoting the “extreme” version of every idea. The same way the right is so much more overt and unapologetic about racism, the “centrist” types go to the unapologetic extreme of, “The lesser evil, no matter how evil” with no concern about alienating people who aren’t on board with that. It’s like the one thing they get to have a “this but unironically” or “yes Chad” response to.
agreed. if they stopped and realized that lesser evil is still evil, they would stop trying to defend it.
Probably because it does nothing to actually keep those who accept genocide out of office. Don’t get me wrong, the intentions are noble, it’s just impotent as a strategy. The genocide rages on, indifferent to noble intentions. But now lots of additional people are suffering too.
The opinion makes sense to deontologists, but to the teleologists of the world it rightfully seems insane.
The opinion makes sense to deontologists, but to the teleologists of the world it rightfully seems insane.
from a deontologist’s view, refusing to play along with a system that enables genocide is the only moral move. you don’t need it to be effective. you need to not be complicit. that’s the intention and goal that you seem to be miss understanding.
teleologists call that insane because they only care about outcomes. but that’s exactly the problem – their framework treats genocide as just another variable to optimize around instead of the human & ethical tragedy it is in irl and it’s not a bug; it’s the system working as designed.
so when people choose not to operate inside the american system’s confines – where genocide is a natural outcome – they aren’t being naive. they’re rejecting that system entirely. they’re acting like deontologists in a world that only rewards teleologists. that’s not a misunderstanding. that’s a refusal.
it’s a refusal and the only sane response to a system that has genocide and ethnic-cleansing baked into its logic.
The failure in understanding here is that “refusing to play along” is STILL playing along. You are making a choice that you’re ok with whatever the uneducated masses decide. This is like basic trolly problem shit. You are given two terrible choices, there is no option for a magical third choice. You can’t get out of it by saying you just refuse to participate, because that’s just choosing not to pull the lever.
you’re conflating “refusing to play” with “choosing not to pull the lever.” choosing not to pull the lever still accepts the framing. it still says “these are the only tracks, this is the only lever, so my only choice is yes or no.”
actual refusal means rejecting the premise entirely. it means organizing outside the trolley and/or building a world where the trolley doesn’t run in the first place.
you say there’s no magical third choice. that’s exactly what people said to the abolitionists and the suffragettes and to everyone else who ever refused a rigged game, but built a new one anyway.
so no, refusing to play isn’t playing along. it’s the first real move anyone makes when they stop believing the lever is the only tool in existence.
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night. I can’t help it if you completely fail to understand Baby’s First Moral Philosophy Question.
Maybe stop trying to emulate the moral intelligence of an infant
there is no option for a magical third choice.
There’s no lever you can pull as a third choice because the lever only operates inside the bounds of the “system” of the rail network. It’s working as designed. So break the rails if it is an inevitability that people get tied to the tracks.
The system is just as immutable as the divine right of kings. Choosing to campaign on lever pulls within the system instead of focusing on systemic restructuring tells me a couple of things: 1) You aren’t tied to both sides of the track. 2) You’re fine with giving validity to a system that bakes genocide into itself because your comfort relies on someone being tied to the both tracks, and at the moment, that isn’t you.
Refusing to pull the lever doesn’t prevent you from working outside the bounds of the rail network. It might be worth considering that instead of the belief in slowly changing the democrats with slow constant pressure, the system is changing you to be more accepting of the unacceptable.
Oh, so you managed to destroy the tracks last election? No? Hmm, sounds like you did nothing then and the trolley continued down the path its currently on. A path that numerous people tried to tell you was worse than the other path. But it’s ok! You chose to dismantle the system and operate outside of it!
Except you didn’t do that. You had no ability to do that. Your actions are the exact same as someone who chose not to pull the lever, and the outcome is the exact same as if you chose not to pull the lever. To anyone observing, you are just as worthless as someone who didn’t pull the lever. Because at the end of the day, there WAS a lever and you DIDN’T pull it.
I see you didn’t even manage to get that lever pulled last election because genocide isn’t very popular regardless of your cheerleading. Pulling the lever would’ve never stopped the genocide, but derailing the train would have. You didn’t want genocide to end, you just wanted to go back to brunch.
You know, at least back when Lincoln was president, voters at least had a spine to do something about issues they were ethically against. They were willing to completely abandon the Whig party to back the new republican party (which killed the Whig party). This isn’t a fundamental change to the system, but even still it is farther than you’d be willing to go to prevent genocide. Perhaps what leftists need is for people like you to be less chickenshit genocidal white supremacist sellouts who hem and haw about the correct way to do genocide to prevent as much blowback to yourselves as possible as you live in the luxury that has been paid in the blood of the global south.
Or maybe ask me which state my “lever” was in and realize how futile your argument is for the majority of states and the majority of the population. Even if we had universal popular vote to determine president, as you seem to assume, that doesn’t remove the fact that the two choices were both supporters of genocide and the train deserves to be derailed and the track destroyed.
you need to not be complicit. that’s the intention and goal that you seem to be miss understanding.
I completely understand that intention and goal. But it’s literally just virtue signaling. Teleology is concerned with securing the most favorable outcome, deontology only cares about preserving individual moral superiority. The teleologists obviously recognize the ethical tragedy, they’re just more interested in trying to save as many people as they can than keeping their hands clean and pure.
Deontology is self-centered and immature. It’s feels over reals. Who cares how many people suffer and die, at least you personally didn’t participate.
so when people choose not to operate inside the american system’s confines – where genocide is a natural outcome – they aren’t being naive. they’re rejecting that system entirely
Except that rejection accomplishes nothing. It does nothing to stop, or even slow, ongoing genocide. It’s a the ethical equivalent of shutting your eyes and plugging your ears.
The situation isn’t even really comparable to the trolley problem, because Gaza was on both tracks. By not pulling the lever, Gaza was not spared. All inaction accomplished was the suffering of all the other people on the straight track.
you’re proving my point here without realizing it.
the two tracks are an american framing. pull the lever or don’t. vote for the lesser evil or don’t. those are the only choices your system lets you consider.
but here’s what you’re missing: both tracks were laid by the same people fostering the genocide. the lever is a prop. “pulling it” doesn’t stop the train; it just makes you feel like you did something.
and here’s the part many won’t touch: the same system you’re defending as “pragmatic” has a body count outside your borders that dwarfs anything it saves inside them. a conservative estimate puts the number of people killed by us sanctions alone at 38 million over 50 years (and that’s ignoring the genocides and ethnic cleansings). that’s not a rounding error. that’s more people than the population of canada. that’s the cost of your “realism.”
furthermore, consider the numbers most americans care about: how many americans has the system saved by being “pragmatic” inside the voting booth? because 38 million dead outside vs. dramatically less inside – that’s not a trade-off; that’s a slaughter masked as strategy.
western teleologists have self groomed themselves into thinking pragmatism means picking between two options handed down by the ruling class. anything outside that frame gets called “virtue signaling” or “immature” because it threatens the real game: managing genocide, not ending it.
deontology isn’t about clean hands. it’s about refusal to legitimize a system where genocide is a natural outcome. and that refusal isn’t inaction – it’s the foundation of any actual alternative. you can’t build a track that doesn’t lead to a better destination if you keep praising people for getting good at pulling the lever.
also the person who refuse isn’t plugging their ears; they’re saying the whole track-switching game is rigged so they’re not going to cooperate. that’s not self-centered. that’s the only sane response to a system that made you believe the two tracks is the only world that exists.
you’re proving my point here without realizing it.
No, I’m not. You’re just trying to reframe reality in a deliberately deceitful way.
both tracks were laid by the same people fostering the genocide. the lever is a prop. “pulling it” doesn’t stop the train; it just makes you feel like you did something.
Stopping the train wasn’t an option that any voter had the power to effect. Just because pulling the lever fails to solve one particular problem doesn’t mean it’s a useless prop. The choice was doom Gaza, or doom Gaza and also a bunch of other people. Not pulling it also doesn’t stop the train, but it also doesn’t mitigate the damage at all.
Pulling the lever does do something. Not a lot, certainly not enough, but something. Not pulling the lever is what actually does nothing, all it does is delude the deontologists into feeling like they took a stand.
that’s the cost of your “realism.”
No, it isn’t. Those are consequences outside my power to prevent. Refusing to vote does nothing to reduce that body count.
western teleologists have self groomed themselves into thinking pragmatism means picking between two options handed down by the ruling class. anything outside that frame gets called “virtue signaling” or “immature” because it threatens the real game: managing genocide, not ending it.
Deontologists have self-groomed themselves into thinking refusing to choose stops the outcome. It’s immature virtue signaling precisely because it neither manages nor ends genocide. Managing genocide is far better than literally doing nothing.
deontology isn’t about clean hands. it’s about refusal to legitimize a system where genocide is a natural outcome.
I see this word, “legitimize”, frequently used in this argument, which I think is the main problem. Refusing to participate does not “delegitimize” the system. It does not change the system in any way. “Legitimacy” is not a metric which has any effect at all. It is precisely about clean hands over an actual change in outcome.
also the person who refuse isn’t plugging their ears; they’re saying the whole track-switching game is rigged so they’re not going to cooperate
That is precisely plugging their ears. Yes, the game is rigged. No, it isn’t fair. But refusing to cooperate doesn’t suddenly unrig the game. It doesn’t save Palestinian children. It just makes you feel smugly superior for not cooperating, for not doing what you can to mitigate damage while you work on building an alternate track.
When you have a strategy to actually make a difference, I’m all ears. Until then, I stand by the obvious conclusion: refusing to participate is childish and self-centered. It’s not about building a better world, it’s about not feeling guilty in the current one. That’s not going to save anyone, it just deludes you into feeling better about yourself.
now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure. not a word. that’s not an accident or an oversight. that’s how this system wants you to see it. that’s the body count of your “pragmatism” – people killed by us sanctions, not genocides or ethnic cleansing like everyone else is talking about here. just policy, managed death and you call it “mitigating damage.”
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you’re defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that’s not a trade-off. that’s a slaughter you’ve learned to call realism.
you say “managing genocide is better than nothing.” but managing genocide IS genocide. slower, cleaner, easier to ignore like the democrats prefer it. you’re not pulling a lever to save people. you’re pulling a lever to feel like you tried while simultaneously legitmizing more tracks getting laid.
and here’s the biggest dodge: you say “when you have a strategy to actually make a difference, i’m all ears.” i don’t have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it’s been around for almost 2 centuries now. it’s called refusing to legitimize the system, building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome. it’s fine to disagree with it, but don’t pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
you’ve already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn’t a strategy. that’s not pragmatism; it’s learned helplessness with a moral license.
also refusal to cooperate isn’t plugging your ears. refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don’t delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that’s not childish; it’s literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started – by refusing to play.
so no, i don’t have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you. the difference is i’m not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your “realism.” and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure.
Still you, because your refusal to participate does nothing to reduce that figure.
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you’re defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that’s not a trade-off. that’s a slaughter you’ve learned to call realism.
Refusing to vote didn’t save those 38 million, it just condemned others. Voting helped install people who at least rendered some degree of aid, which again is better than the literally nothing that refusing to vote accomplishes. The 38 million is only relevant to your choice if you can make a choice that saves them. You made your choice, they were not saved. It’s a purely emotional attack with no actual bearing on the choice.
i don’t have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it’s been around for almost 2 centuries now. it’s called refusing to legitimize the system
Around for 2 centuries with no actual material success. It’s time to stop pretending that this is a useful strategy. It’s time to stop pretending that it’s anything other than childish self-soothing.
building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome
This is closer to an effective strategy, but it’s in no way incompatible with voting lesser evil in the meantime. The only ones who think it is are self-centered deontologists who forever let perfect be the mortal enemy of better. Do you think leftist voters don’t also organize? Don’t also try to build dual power? Don’t also try to abolish genocidal conditions? They’re just wise enough to use all the tools at their disposal to the degree that they can be used. Refusing to use a tool because it doesn’t solve every problem is asinine.
it’s fine to disagree with it, but don’t pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
When you’re standing at the lever, those are the only choices. That doesn’t mean you can’t take other actions, but those are your only actual choices in terms of lever pulling.
you’ve already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn’t a strategy. that’s not pragmatism; it’s learned helplessness with a moral license.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. That precisely describes refusing to vote because the system is rigged. You can’t fix every problem with voting, so abandon voting so you can feel morally superior.
refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don’t delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that’s not childish; it’s literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started – by refusing to play.
No it isn’t. Again, “delegitimization” isn’t a real thing with any actual material effect, and you need to divest yourself of the illusion that it is. Withdrawing cooperation doesn’t dismantle the system, it just forfeits your ability to give input. The illegitimate system is going to keep chugging along without you.
so no, i don’t have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you.
I never claimed to. I only claim to have some small input to mitigate damage. Solving the problem requires other actions, but voting is one action to make the problem easier to solve, and less damaging in the meantime.
the difference is i’m not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your “realism.” and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
Except your non-lever-pulling is equally responsible for 38 million dead. I am a leftist, I am actually building something. I just haven’t internalized your helplessness to believe that managing the bleeding is incompatible with that. Managing the bleeding is what preserves something to save. You’re content letting the world go up in flames so you can have a revolution in the ashes. I’d like for there to be people left to save by the time the left gets its act together.
Allow me to clarify the position
Again, a noble intention, but it did not actually accomplish that goal.
Sometimes things do not happen instantly, and we should not lower ourselves to supporting genocide just because doing that is instant.
That doesn’t mean that this strategy will ever work. It won’t happen instantly, but it also won’t even happen eventually.
Allow me to clarify the position. It’s like a child that learns their mother has cancer; even with expensive treatment, there’s no guarantee treatment will end her suffering or defeat the cancer. So the child decides to take the money for treatment and spend it instead on building a shrinking ship like in The Fantastic Voyage to go into their mother to attack the cancer directly.
Yes, a noble intention, but the strategy is a pure fantasy, and all it’s actually done is remove resources from a treatment that might actually accomplish something.
It’s a childish fantasy that directly harms people.
We get it. You chose not to pull the lever.
You can try to ease your conscience by saying that at some vague point in the future you can destroy the trolley entirely, but that is the future. The trolley problem already occurred. It already went past the switch, there’s no going back and changing that. You chose not to pull it, you have to live with that.
I think you’ve responded to the wrong person? I’m a lever-puller.
“But now lots of additional people are suffering too.”
Americans getting a taste of their own medicine.And it is the only good strategy.
You may not win the first time but voting for the uniparty with a choice between moving to the extreme-right fast or a bit slower is what got them there.
I guess your teleologists don’t see that’s the only purpose they are working towards.
It’s a guaranteed losing strategy and it’s totally their own fault.
If everyone would simply ignore the genocide, we could all eat brunch while the bombs fell eternally over in some other country, which is fine. /s in case it wasn’t obvious
And they will have democratic gas prices
we joke here; but that’s literally what the hasbara narrative seems to be on reddit like platforms.
comments deriding liberals for not voting for kamala harris are followed up by snarky comments denigrating people for showing concerns about the genocide and ethnic cleansing.
inb4 the liberals VoTE BlUE every1!!!
too late
I’m not responsible for this, I didn’t vote
Y’all our foreign policy towards Israel hasn’t changed in the last 65 years. Yes, both sides serve them.
So we have to strip that out of the system, since burning the system down doesn’t seem feasible.
Which party do you think is most likely to see the light on them… hmm
Which party do you think is most likely to see the light on them… hmm
PSL, duh.
Neither party can nor will see the light on this, as both are instruments of capital. The working classes need their own party.
Or we can be part of making that a condition of the democrats doing well. Not supporting a genocide isn’t something we can or should “strip out” of our expectations of politicians. If you’re right, then burning the system down is the only feasible thing. Nothing else is feasible.
It’s infeasible to expect decent people to rally around genocidiers.
Don’t let the people with power tell you what is or isn’t feasible. Not supporting a genocide is easy for them. They may lie to themselves about it, but it’s obvious.
our foreign policy towards Israel hasn’t changed in the last 65 years
Which party do you think is most likely to see the light
How’s that blue MAGA brunch going?
