this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
321 points (81.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43907 readers
1089 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're completely missing the point of the trolley problem:
Do you take an action that causes a direct harm, even if it's in service to reducing harm?
It's a valid moral stance to decide you will not personally perform a harmful action. That's not walking away from the trolley, that's refusing to throw the switch.
Your framing of the situation is false. Voting for Harris is throwing the switch and dooming Palestinians. Voting third party/not voting is not throwing the switch: you are not condoning the system that runs people over, you are not taking an action that directly harms people.
To be clear, throwong the switch is also a valid moral stance.
Personally, I believe voting for Harris prolongs our faulty political system. I voted for Kerry, then Obama (first willingly, then let myself be guilted into it). The Democrats have only gotten worse with time, and I won't vote for a party that represents me less with time instead of more.
Walking away from the switch is making a choice. You're exactly as complicit in the result as if you had flipped the switch.
When someone constructs a catch-22, the answer isn't to play their game, it's to build a new one, leave, or at the very least refuse to accept their false options. Genocide is not inevitable, no matter how many US democrats and republicans tell you that it is.
But this isn't a mental exercise, this is real life. The choice and all of its consequences are still happening regardless of your choice to disengage. They aren't "false options", they're printed on the ballot. The only way to reject the premise here is actual spontaneous massive revolution, and if you're suggesting that as an alternative to voting, well, I don't imagine you're of voting age anyway.
I printed two options on my ballot. Give your consent for one of these options!
Printing them on there makes it real.
Standard liberal smugness, decrying the backbreaking efforts and blood spent by hundreds of millions of mostly poor peasants who fought and succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of colonialism.
Right, I'm "decrying" successful revolutions because I don't believe that your armchair activism is going to start any actual movement capable of disturbing the status quo.
There's no action that's acceptable to you that you wouldn't label "armchair activism", other than voting for your genocide candidate. Just be honest with yourself and admit that.
There are plenty. But I do think it's performative as hell to withhold your vote within a couple months of a major election. There is no momentum for anything that could possibly disrupt the status quo in Palestine before the election, and letting Trump win isn't going to make that any easier afterward. Unless you're an actual accelerationist, in which case I'm glad you can so confidently accept the likely millions of excess deaths that will cause.