• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    People need to understand that it’s possible to vote against genocide.

    Donald Trump is Genocide at home and abroad.

    Joe Biden is “only” Genocide abroad, and probably less of it.

    Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.

    No, it doesn’t matter that he’s an active participant in the apparatus that’s creating the genocide, because if he’s in office there’s less genocide. Which is the important part, and pretending otherwise is sophistry. If you abstain from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide and if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the amount of genocide.

    The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes more genocide less likely, and discouraging people from voting for Biden makes more genocide more likely. Therefore, discouraging people from voting for Biden is a pro-genocide strategy and voting for Biden in battleground states is an anti-genocide strategy. You should vote for Biden unless you live in a solid blue state, and even then it’s not a bad idea.

    • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah yes the “I’m not Trump so I can be relatively better but still shitty so y’all better fall in line by November” strat. Classic.

    • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I also agree that it would be better if Biden actually did something to lessen the genocide

      You do recognize where this was posted, yeah?

      I can’t believe you’re justifying it as “only genocide abroad.” Like wtaf?

      Tell the DNC to take their head out of their ass or you’re getting the fucking orange you dork.

      • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ah damn good point forgot leftists had actually lost their minds and forgot that abstaining from voting is basically endorsing whoever wins

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The utility calculation

      voting for bad people is bad. utilitarianism literally says the ends justify the means and most people don’t believe that. i’m one of “most people”.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Alright, what ethics system are you using to reduce questions of morality to questions of fact? Kantian deontology? The principles of Nicomachean Ethics? The Bible?

        most people don’t believe that [the ends justify the means]

        Why do you say this? Is there a study that says that? What were it’s methods? Was it a single question, or were people subjected to a series of moral dilemmas?

        In my experience, most people when faced with the trolly problem will conclude you should pull the lever, so I’m very curious as to the basis of your reasoning.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          The PhilPapers survey shows the professional philosophers prefer deontological ethics. many people are not professional philosophers, but they do have religion. religion is almost universally divine command theory. that, too, is deontological.

          • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m not really concerned with what professional philosophers prefer, I’m concerned with having self-consistent ethical axioms that are largely agreeable. I find deontology to be a generally poor approach to this problem, and so I don’t use it. As for most people identifying with a religion, I believe it is a false inference to then claim that this means most people prefer deontology, and it would especially be false to say that most people prefer a specific deontological code (as I suspect you’re already aware). Simply put: what people say they believe, and the beliefs we can infir from people’s actions and opinions often contradict each other. People largely behave and argue as if they are naive utilitarians, and so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that most people disagree with it.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              of course it doesn’t actually matter whether I’m right about most people being abhorred by claims like “the ends justify the means”, though I am. what matters is whether you can actually prove the utility value of your proposed course of action BEFORE the consequences have come to fruition. and since you can’t, since you can’t have proof about the future, utilitarianism boils down to overwrought hedonism.

              • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                you can’t have proof about the future

                I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve educated yourself about utilitarianism only insofar as you need to in order to make coherent (though not necessarily accurate) complaints about it. I’m also beginning to suspect that you don’t really have a firm understanding of philosophy in general. Apologies if that’s inaccurate.

                Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist. That is a fact; it’s impossible to prove that our senses represent reality, and so it is a fundamental fact that nothing about reality can truly be proven. However, retreating to this fact in the face of an argument about whether something is true or not is obvious sophistry. I am aware that you did not make this argument, but I want to make sure that you understand because it’s an important part of epistemology. If you want to know more, look up “solipsism”.

                With that in mind, it’s easy to see that I don’t actually need to prove anything about the future; I just need to have a good justification for believing that my predictions are probable, and have a rough idea of how certain actions increases or decrease the probabilities of the ranges of utility values. I already stated my justification in the above comment.

                Now, could I use my knowledge of statistics and probability to estimate the odds of a Biden victory, his future actions, etc. using available data? Yeah, probably. But frankly that’s too much work because the differences in outcomes are stark enough that getting a more precise estimate won’t change anything. It’s like giving me a gun and politely asking me to shoot myself. I could figure out how likely I am to survive, but I don’t need to do that before deciding to not comply for obvious reasons.

                overwrought hedonism

                WTF is wrong with hedonism that transfers over to utilitarianism?

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    hang in there Palestine, i found you another warrior to come defend you… this memer is on his way to fight… he’s no longer satisfied with just making memes in your defense… he’s packing his shit and getting on the bus with the other memers, and heading your way…

      • theodewere@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        and now you sound worried, which i understand… but i’m not worried about a thing now that i know you’re headed to Palestine to defend those Palestinians…

            • LazyPhilosopher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              So now you’re actively praising a guy who’s helping assisting in genocide… Take a good, long hard look in the mirror buddy. Why should I respect you anymore than I respect dumb ass fascist Republicans? You’re just a dick Rider for the less funny fascist. 🖕

              • theodewere@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Joe is doing the best job any man can in this situation, and that scares you… so you whine like a little baby, and try to make it all his fault… baby… you have no solution, you just want to bitch at somebody…

                send a letter to Hamas if you’re sad… tell them all about your feelings…

                • LazyPhilosopher@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You sound exactly like a trump supporter. Crazy how you don’t even realize you’re the same thing as them. 🤣🤣🤣

                  Have fun licking the boot dude.