Using the trolley problem as an analogy, if you don’t pull the lever the people run over by it are not your fault but the trolley company’s, but if you do pull the lever the death of the guy on the other tracks is absolutely on you.
I assume you voted for Biden last election, to avoid the trolley running over the people in that proverbial track. Congratulations, you are guilty of murdering all those Palestinian children. Now, next election, if (when) Trump wins, your vote even for Biden is what gives legitimacy to his presidency.
After that news on research that a Trump victory would likely spell the end of NATO, don’t be surprised if the rightists starts to see this election as being about ending NATO and withdrawing from the UN.
Typical right-wing goals that maybe leftists don’t appreciate the strength of conviction that the hard-liners have.
That (and the obvious social conservative goals) are the only legitimacy that Drumpf really has.
edit: also, Trump trumped Biden on the Palestenian genocide when he moved the Israeli embassy. i’m sure that that emboldened Netanyahu to press even harder rightwards. Now look at it.
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing. It has literally never fought a defensive war in its history and the places its invaded and bombed are still hurting decades later.
withdrawing from the UN.
A UN where the US couldn’t veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I’d have to campaign for him.
If you at all care about the lives of trans people, black people, women, latin american people, and the other many targets of Trump & the republicans, then you must recognize that under no circumstances should Trump be given power.
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
A UN where the US couldn’t veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
The US is one of like, what, two countries in the entirety of the UN that haven’t yet ratified ICESCR after 50+ years. So, making some more sense there, too.
I’d not see us leave the UN, though, because then we would truly be screwed. The US would officially no longer embrace human rights, not being a member-state.
But point well taken.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I’d have to campaign for him.
I’d genuinely be right there with you if he came out as 100% in favor of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Not having that is an automatic disqualifier for me.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot that would be shocked once Russia started invading countries like Georgia, Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Finland…
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot
I’ll bite, as one would be an asshole to think one was an idiot for understanding a basic of diplomacy - engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
At face-value, recall, Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West. Do you want them to always be our enemy?
engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West.
That’s entirely due to Vladimir Putin. Neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin were ‘enemies’ of the west. (OTOH, the dismantling of the USSR really could have benefited from some help from the west; the oligarchs and political elites sacked the wealth of the country, which paved the way for Putin.) Capitulating to Putin would not soften his stance; he would still believe that all of the formerly Warsaw-pact countries ‘belong’ to the United Soviet Socialist Republics. He still believes that sections of Finland that Russia lost in the Continuation War belong to Russia. He still believes that all the Baltic countries belong to the USSR, despite the USSR not having existed for 30-odd years.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization. The NATO agreement is that IF Russia invades any member country, that all NATO signatories will come to the defense of that country. If a signatory invades Russia, then they’re on their own. The only think that NATO directly opposes is Russian aggression; all Russia has to do to avoid war with NATO is… Not invade a NATO country.
I appreciate your enthusiasm! You do make solid points, some of which I am well aware of, but as Russia is not a specific area of interest for me, I can’t match your level of enthusiasm.
However, in the interest of the spirit of brotherhood and interestimg conversation, I would ask this of you:
That’s entirely due to Vladimir Putin.
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades, isn’t it fair to say that we ought to continue to operate as-if he did speak for the whole country?
Building on that semi-rhetorical question, and especially in regard to your concession that the West could have helped more, and in a larger, more historical perspective, might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion, it might be the case that there are border towns that legitimately prefer to be part of Russia, given their local history, but were never represented properly at the fall of the USSR.
You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the specific mechanism by which the USSR was dismantled.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization.
No argument there. Again, though, I’d ask: when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
At this juncture, I presume it would be a long ways away, but one never knows what can come out of diplomatic negotiations, so maybe Ukraine solves the whole thing, if we are lucky.
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades,
…That’s because every time someone else comes even slightly close to having any kind of popular support, they ‘commit suicide’, or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia. E.g., Alexi Navalny. Moreover, he controls all the media in the country, and has largely managed to cut off significant access to any sources of information from outside the country. So that ‘strong level of domestic support’ is due to a dearth of options, rather than genuine support.
might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
No. That’s like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis. The region belongs to the country first and foremost, before it belongs to the region. Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair–and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced–it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion,
There are a lot of “ethnic Italians”, and “ethnic Irish” living in the US, and they were badly mistreated during the first part of the 20th C. That wouldn’t have given Ireland or Italy the right to invade New York, because, despite their ethnicity, they were Americans. Not Irish citizens, not Italian citizens. And, bluntly, Putin claiming to be concerned about the treatment of ethnic Russians is concern trolling. It was an excuse to invade, just like his claims of de-Nazification. The real issue was that Ukraine had left the USSR when the USSR failed, he wants it back, and any excuse that people can be suckered into buying is good enough for him.
when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
Again: no. You don’t improve your relationship with a bully and a criminal by capitulating. They are the one that is acting incorrectly, so it is incumbent on them to improve their own behaviour, rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing.
Not Voting is a Vote, just as not choosing is a choice. It is simply a Vote for the worse option based upon your judgment. You remain 100% responsible for enabling what happens simply because you didn’t do what you could to prevent it.
“In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.”
David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
The entire concept of Voting boycott is idiotic. The premise being, “less of a problem gets me noticed!”, astoundingly resulted in the protest Voter being ignored.
nope. Still lower numbers than the two established parties. However, what it would do is get the numbers high enough that the various monied and political interests involved paid attention to what those folks were thinking. Unlike the non-Voter whom everyone ignores as they don’t Vote.
No it isn’t, fuck that doublespeech. That’s like saying to the woman in op’s example ‘If you don’t choose between Niceguy and Chad and then one of them comes and rapes you it’s your fault for not choosing the other to protect you when you got the chance’.
That analogy was flawed from the start and doesn’t apply to anything. Stop using it, and stop even thinking about it.
With the current election, there are two choices, and only two choices. That is the reality you have to work with. We know that x number of Republican voters are going to turn out no matter what. So by not voting, you aren’t making any kind of moral stand. You are just deciding to let the greater of two evils win.
And the reason OP’s analogy falls apart is choosing nobody or someone else is actually valid when you are deciding who to date. But there is going to be a president, it is going to be one of those two people, and not voting/voting third party in 2024 does not change that.
100% does. You have voted to let the majority of those remaining to decide for you. That you did so is actually logged if you are eligible, IE registered. Sorry sunshine, reality happens no matter how hard you hold your breath and stamp your feet.
The whole point of the trolley problem is to illustrate how difficult culpability/blame is and how a single choice can be incredibly multi-faceted to the point where you can’t possibly untangle it and find the “correct” answer unless you adhere to a strict, well-defined moral framework. Which usually means making a choice to ignore other factors and other valid moral frameworks. Hence the conundrum. It’s real use is to test drive how each framework handles the situation and to see your reaction to it.
You’re missing the lesson here, or purposely obscuring it to win an internet argument in the hopes no one looks too closely because you cited a thoroughly-meme’d smart sounding philosophical question.
The ‘correct’ answer to the trolley problem is subjective, that’s the whole point. I used it to illustrate where I stand, not what the absolutely moral choice is.
I’ve been pointing how awful that trolley company is since I reached my teens, I’ve been out in the streets protesting the dangers of this very track, trying to stop the trolleys from running, I would burn down the Trolley Company’s headquarters if needed, but I am not killing that one guy no matter what.
I wasn’t trying to ‘win’ an argument or even convince the other commenter of anything, just trying to tell my point of view as a non voter (for ethical reasons). I see voting as a very meaningful action, if the person I vote wins everything they do while in power is going to be a bit either thanks to me or my fault. And they do a lot more bad than good, I would feel that some of that blood is in my hands.
The police officers in Uvalde had no legal responsibility to protect the children in the school. They were not required to charge in and stop–shoot–the person that murdered so many children. And yet, we quite rightly condemn their unwillingness to act, even though acting would placed them at risk of harm or death at the hands of the shooter. They had the ability to prevent mass murder, and they did not.
The person that refuses to act, when it puts them at no risk, and costs no more than the minor inconvenience of standing in line for a few minutes, is certainly no better than the police officers in Uvalde.
I’m opposed to killing ‘innocent’ people, if the guy in the trolley problem wanted to kill the people on the other track I would certainly pull the lever. But now that you bring children killers to the conversation, you are arguing not just for not getting into the school or stoping the killer but for voting him for more child-killing because the other child-killer is worst. I find all of that very twisted and I want no part in it.
Using the trolley problem as an analogy, if you don’t pull the lever the people run over by it are not your fault but the trolley company’s, but if you do pull the lever the death of the guy on the other tracks is absolutely on you.
I assume you voted for Biden last election, to avoid the trolley running over the people in that proverbial track. Congratulations, you are guilty of murdering all those Palestinian children. Now, next election, if (when) Trump wins, your vote even for Biden is what gives legitimacy to his presidency.
After that news on research that a Trump victory would likely spell the end of NATO, don’t be surprised if the rightists starts to see this election as being about ending NATO and withdrawing from the UN.
Typical right-wing goals that maybe leftists don’t appreciate the strength of conviction that the hard-liners have.
That (and the obvious social conservative goals) are the only legitimacy that Drumpf really has.
edit: also, Trump trumped Biden on the Palestenian genocide when he moved the Israeli embassy. i’m sure that that emboldened Netanyahu to press even harder rightwards. Now look at it.
But an end to NATO would be an unambiguously good thing. It has literally never fought a defensive war in its history and the places its invaded and bombed are still hurting decades later.
A UN where the US couldn’t veto a hundred demands for peace in Palestine, backed by threat of sanctions is also an unambiguously good thing.
If I genuinely believed Trump would bring about a peaceful dismantling of the American Empire, I’d have to campaign for him.
He is straight up using Hitler’s play book.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/04/trump-poison-blood-quote/
If you at all care about the lives of trans people, black people, women, latin american people, and the other many targets of Trump & the republicans, then you must recognize that under no circumstances should Trump be given power.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, they might lighten up a bit with less NATO.
The US is one of like, what, two countries in the entirety of the UN that haven’t yet ratified ICESCR after 50+ years. So, making some more sense there, too.
I’d not see us leave the UN, though, because then we would truly be screwed. The US would officially no longer embrace human rights, not being a member-state.
But point well taken.
I’d genuinely be right there with you if he came out as 100% in favor of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Not having that is an automatic disqualifier for me.
The US only embraces human rights of enemy states. We’ve got more prisoners than any other country and support the worst dictatorships.
Until we ratify the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the US, I’m inclined to agree.
If one were to take Russia at face-value, then one would be an idiot that would be shocked once Russia started invading countries like Georgia, Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Finland…
I’ll bite, as one would be an asshole to think one was an idiot for understanding a basic of diplomacy - engage with the opposite side in a constructive manner.
At face-value, recall, Russia is currently explicitly dedicated to being an enemy of the West. Do you want them to always be our enemy?
That’s entirely due to Vladimir Putin. Neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin were ‘enemies’ of the west. (OTOH, the dismantling of the USSR really could have benefited from some help from the west; the oligarchs and political elites sacked the wealth of the country, which paved the way for Putin.) Capitulating to Putin would not soften his stance; he would still believe that all of the formerly Warsaw-pact countries ‘belong’ to the United Soviet Socialist Republics. He still believes that sections of Finland that Russia lost in the Continuation War belong to Russia. He still believes that all the Baltic countries belong to the USSR, despite the USSR not having existed for 30-odd years.
NATO is strictly a defensive organization. The NATO agreement is that IF Russia invades any member country, that all NATO signatories will come to the defense of that country. If a signatory invades Russia, then they’re on their own. The only think that NATO directly opposes is Russian aggression; all Russia has to do to avoid war with NATO is… Not invade a NATO country.
I appreciate your enthusiasm! You do make solid points, some of which I am well aware of, but as Russia is not a specific area of interest for me, I can’t match your level of enthusiasm.
However, in the interest of the spirit of brotherhood and interestimg conversation, I would ask this of you:
Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades, isn’t it fair to say that we ought to continue to operate as-if he did speak for the whole country?
Building on that semi-rhetorical question, and especially in regard to your concession that the West could have helped more, and in a larger, more historical perspective, might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?
Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion, it might be the case that there are border towns that legitimately prefer to be part of Russia, given their local history, but were never represented properly at the fall of the USSR.
You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the specific mechanism by which the USSR was dismantled.
No argument there. Again, though, I’d ask: when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?
At this juncture, I presume it would be a long ways away, but one never knows what can come out of diplomatic negotiations, so maybe Ukraine solves the whole thing, if we are lucky.
…That’s because every time someone else comes even slightly close to having any kind of popular support, they ‘commit suicide’, or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia. E.g., Alexi Navalny. Moreover, he controls all the media in the country, and has largely managed to cut off significant access to any sources of information from outside the country. So that ‘strong level of domestic support’ is due to a dearth of options, rather than genuine support.
No. That’s like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis. The region belongs to the country first and foremost, before it belongs to the region. Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair–and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced–it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.
There are a lot of “ethnic Italians”, and “ethnic Irish” living in the US, and they were badly mistreated during the first part of the 20th C. That wouldn’t have given Ireland or Italy the right to invade New York, because, despite their ethnicity, they were Americans. Not Irish citizens, not Italian citizens. And, bluntly, Putin claiming to be concerned about the treatment of ethnic Russians is concern trolling. It was an excuse to invade, just like his claims of de-Nazification. The real issue was that Ukraine had left the USSR when the USSR failed, he wants it back, and any excuse that people can be suckered into buying is good enough for him.
Again: no. You don’t improve your relationship with a bully and a criminal by capitulating. They are the one that is acting incorrectly, so it is incumbent on them to improve their own behaviour, rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing.
Not Voting is a Vote, just as not choosing is a choice. It is simply a Vote for the worse option based upon your judgment. You remain 100% responsible for enabling what happens simply because you didn’t do what you could to prevent it.
“In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.”
David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
it’s not really a vote for the worse option, it’s a vote saying “i don’t know what’s best or don’t care, so i’ll take whatever happens”
The entire concept of Voting boycott is idiotic. The premise being, “less of a problem gets me noticed!”, astoundingly resulted in the protest Voter being ignored.
if all the people that don’t vote, voted third party: they’d win…
nope. Still lower numbers than the two established parties. However, what it would do is get the numbers high enough that the various monied and political interests involved paid attention to what those folks were thinking. Unlike the non-Voter whom everyone ignores as they don’t Vote.
Your argument relies on hordes of people suddenly, magically changing their behavior in a cohesive and coordinated way. Have fun with that.
Which ends up being an acceptance of the worst option, because the boomers who vote for Trump always vote every election.
It’s a trolley problem. The trolley is flying down the tracks. The boomers are itching to vote for Trump.
Standing by and doing nothing makes you complicit.
Yup. Evangelicals shall Vote every single election. You sure that not Voting is the flex you think it is?
No it isn’t, fuck that doublespeech. That’s like saying to the woman in op’s example ‘If you don’t choose between Niceguy and Chad and then one of them comes and rapes you it’s your fault for not choosing the other to protect you when you got the chance’.
That analogy was flawed from the start and doesn’t apply to anything. Stop using it, and stop even thinking about it.
With the current election, there are two choices, and only two choices. That is the reality you have to work with. We know that x number of Republican voters are going to turn out no matter what. So by not voting, you aren’t making any kind of moral stand. You are just deciding to let the greater of two evils win.
And the reason OP’s analogy falls apart is choosing nobody or someone else is actually valid when you are deciding who to date. But there is going to be a president, it is going to be one of those two people, and not voting/voting third party in 2024 does not change that.
100% does. You have voted to let the majority of those remaining to decide for you. That you did so is actually logged if you are eligible, IE registered. Sorry sunshine, reality happens no matter how hard you hold your breath and stamp your feet.
The whole point of the trolley problem is to illustrate how difficult culpability/blame is and how a single choice can be incredibly multi-faceted to the point where you can’t possibly untangle it and find the “correct” answer unless you adhere to a strict, well-defined moral framework. Which usually means making a choice to ignore other factors and other valid moral frameworks. Hence the conundrum. It’s real use is to test drive how each framework handles the situation and to see your reaction to it.
You’re missing the lesson here, or purposely obscuring it to win an internet argument in the hopes no one looks too closely because you cited a thoroughly-meme’d smart sounding philosophical question.
The ‘correct’ answer to the trolley problem is subjective, that’s the whole point. I used it to illustrate where I stand, not what the absolutely moral choice is.
I’ve been pointing how awful that trolley company is since I reached my teens, I’ve been out in the streets protesting the dangers of this very track, trying to stop the trolleys from running, I would burn down the Trolley Company’s headquarters if needed, but I am not killing that one guy no matter what.
I wasn’t trying to ‘win’ an argument or even convince the other commenter of anything, just trying to tell my point of view as a non voter (for ethical reasons). I see voting as a very meaningful action, if the person I vote wins everything they do while in power is going to be a bit either thanks to me or my fault. And they do a lot more bad than good, I would feel that some of that blood is in my hands.
The police officers in Uvalde had no legal responsibility to protect the children in the school. They were not required to charge in and stop–shoot–the person that murdered so many children. And yet, we quite rightly condemn their unwillingness to act, even though acting would placed them at risk of harm or death at the hands of the shooter. They had the ability to prevent mass murder, and they did not.
The person that refuses to act, when it puts them at no risk, and costs no more than the minor inconvenience of standing in line for a few minutes, is certainly no better than the police officers in Uvalde.
I’m opposed to killing ‘innocent’ people, if the guy in the trolley problem wanted to kill the people on the other track I would certainly pull the lever. But now that you bring children killers to the conversation, you are arguing not just for not getting into the school or stoping the killer but for voting him for more child-killing because the other child-killer is worst. I find all of that very twisted and I want no part in it.
Whether you want to be a part of it or not, if you are a US citizen, you are. Your only choice is to reduce hard, or not.