• DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      What if you really want a warm hug but you only have the choice between a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and not a poke in the eye?

      You still choose “not a poke in the eye”, dumbo.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Do you really want me to answer that for you? Is it really that hard to think for yourself?

          Alright then… You get either one or the other, there’s no way out of that whether you make a choice or not. Wouldn’t you still want to influence the choice so you get the one that hurts a lot less?

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I mean at that point you struggle to escape, but assuming that’s definitely not possible, then sharp sticks hurt less. 🤷‍♂️ “Optimal” does not necessarily mean “good” or “desirable”.

            • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah, equally deep and long injuries with a sharper implement destroy fewer cells (since they have a smaller cross-section), cause less trauma, and are less disruptive to the surrounding tissues. I know it’s unintuitive, but it’s true.

            • VOwOxel@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              The dull stick is going to gouge your eye out entirely. I have no frame of reference of what would hurt more, but I guess that would be it.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                No a dull stick would probably fuck your eye up, a sharp stick will absolutely destroy your eye.

                • VOwOxel@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That entirely depends on how deep the stick goes into your eye - though at some point it won’t matter anyway.

                  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Yes if fired the dull stick out of a fucking cannon it would destroy the eye, how many bits of criteria are we going to add to this (what should be anyway) very straightforward analogy?

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        How about the people who keep voting against the warm hug in the primaries get some of these lectures? Is that an option at some point?

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          David Attenborough voice: “We see here an ‘internet troll’ employing a strategy known as ‘whataboutism’. It shows that it’s desperate, and feels threatened by a stronger opponent.”

            • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Refusing to make the optimal play when lives are on the line isn’t brave, good, or noble. If you increase the danger of others to preserve your sense of pride, innocence, or purity then you commit a deep evil.

              • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I don’t want Biden to be president. So I’m not going to vote for him. It really is that simple. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to earn it by running a worthy candidate. My vote shouldn’t be taken for granted.

                • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don’t want Biden to be president.

                  Hey me too.

                  So I’m not going to vote for him.

                  Anti-fascism means doing everything we’re able to stop fascism Being against genocide means doing what we can to shift the probability of genocide increasing as low as possible. If you can’t put your petty feelings aside for long enough to push a few buttons, you shouldn’t call yourself either. It’s not about you.

                  • RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Wait which one is the genocidal maniac? I can’t keep up

                    What happened to Lemmy being a leftie safehaven?

              • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Refusing to make the optimal play when lives are on the line isn’t brave, good, or noble.

                I never claimed to be brave, good or noble. Personally I think we’re all pigs in the mud at this point.

                But frankly it’s irrelevant. I’m not voting for Biden again. Find some other way to elect your geriatric procorporate genocide supporting trash candidate.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Thinking that all information has been revealed, and therefore that anyone who plays a different move must have deliberately avoided the optimal one, is called “totalitarianism”.

                One of the important pieces of information that should not be ignored about the universe is that there is more information than can be process by the available information processing mechanisms.

                Also, there is no logical way to prioritize information for processing (at least in part because logic requires complete information).

                To deal with the fact that life is not even qualitatively like a textbook optimization problem, and cannot ever be due to limitations in how information works, we have developed cultural heuristics that ensure relevant information is not lost.

                One of those heuristics is having respect for others’ opinions, even when you think they’re wrong.

                The opposite of the totalitarian viewpoint is the humble viewpoint. That’s the one that says “I know I don’t understand this completely” and behaves accordingly.

                Tic tac toe is a good scenario to behave in a totalitarian way. It’s damned easy to see if a move is optimal or non-optimal in tic tac toe, because the number of possible permutations is pretty small.

                If an ongoing game of Tic Tac Toe were somehow linked to whether people lived or died, and I saw someone was about to make an un-optimal move on behalf of the rest of us, I’d say tie that idiot up and override his rights because he was about to kill us all.

                But games more complex than tic tac toe are harder to commit. Tic Tac Toe has nine spaces, so you have like 9! paths the game can take. But reality’s bigger than that. Hundreds of orders of magnitude bigger. I can’t be computed or grokked or boiled down to the point where you know what optimal is.

                Even deterministic small game like systems get hard to optimize quickly.

                It’s hard to get total knowledge of real life, so behaving in a totalitarian way is wrong, in real life. If real life were just one game of tic tac toe, maybe totalitarian attitude would be correct: “You are making a bad move, it’s going to cost us everything, it’s worth it to violate your rights because your rights are worthless when we’re all dead anyway”.

                • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  I’m a mathematician; I too am aware of game theory and the principles of logic. Furthermore, you’ve made several mistakes.

                  is called “totalitarianism”

                  Bullshit. This is a common tankie word game.

                  there is no logical way to prioritize information for processing

                  This is wrong

                  logic requires complete information

                  Partially because this is wrong. Logic can operate with incomplete information. Heuristics and the standard of “cogency” exist for this very purpose.

                  Furthermore, this criticism entirely ignores the context of:

                  Potential optimal play provided

                  “No I don’t wanna”

                  Which is a blatantly immoral thing to do, regardless of how much information is available because they have decided not to regardless of available information.

                  Furthermore, this is an internet argument; I’m not threatening violence, and so it’s absolutely asinine of you to act like I’m “violating [somone else’s] rights”. I’m making a argument online about the morality of someone else’s choices. Your entire argument is sophistry.

    • spoopy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Voting for someone in an election in the US is not an endorsement of that person. You have effectively two choices in many of the elections due to how the system is designed. You vote for the best choice of those two.

      Not voting, or voting for a non viable candidate, is a signal that you Do Not Care who is in power.

      Voting is a tool, and a civic duty. It’s one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.

      If you actually are against facism, don’t use misguided idealism to encourage people to throw away the little political power they have.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.

        Okay here’s my input: I don’t vote for people who support genocides or block strikes.

        If you want my vote work for it.

        • spoopy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s your prerogative, just recognize that if both options support genocide and block strikes, so you chose to vote for a non viable candidate, or to not vote, you’re effectively disenfranchising yourself.

          Your last point is very valid though. The DNC is very good at shooting themselves in the foot because they should know very well that people do get demotivated and just stop voting, yet continue to distance themselves from their voter base, resting on their laurels as “the only sane choice out of the two”.

          Supporting local candidates, where your vote also is more heavily weighted, is one of the ways to shift policy - the US govt isnt just the president, it’s representatives and senators and state governments.

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Advocating that people vote third party supports genocide more than quietly voting for Biden because you increase the probability of more genocide, while voting for Biden decreases the probability of more genocide.

          • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            This relies on the assumption that Trump wants to commit more genocide.

            I don’t think Trump will enable more genocide in Gaza than Biden. In fact, I think Trump will withdrawal all support for Ukraine and Israel to focus on starting to genocide the Chinese.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Right now the Democratic Party’s convention and local election Primaries haven’t happened. Best that can be done is to influence the party platform through this primary season to influence or change what a ‘typical’ Democrat may be.

      There’s a massive influx of money right now going towards keeping typical Democrats in line with Israel. So it appears that will predictably be a prevailing issue one way or another.

      So like: most of my local elections usually feature Democrats v Democrats so I’ll likely opt for the non-Zionist or at least the less Zionist of the two. That may send a message for the winner of the Presidential ticket, if anything.