In a way, there’s an argument to be made there. If you’re not doing everything you can to help defeat evil, then you are allowing that evil some amount of support.
On the other hand, your vote is black and white. By not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, your actions are inarguably are supporting Trump.
These “red line” commenters are so blinded by their own purity tests that they can’t see they’re actually supporting the greater genocide. Every thread here on lemmy is full of them, and they all make the same case, but they refuse to acknowledge the actual reality, which is that not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, they’re actually supporting him. Not as much as they would if they actually voted for him, but still significantly.
If Trump wins by a narrow margin, it will be because of these red-liners who valued their own purity over the lives of others.
“Go and be a monkey for a bit.”
Works for me!
This is the weirdest take I’ve seen on Astarion…
He’s not part vampire, he is a vampire. He is definitionally an evil, undead monster.
But also, he’s not a rapist. He never rapes anyone in the game, and he never tries to rape anyone in the game. When he flirts with you, if you turn him down he backs down immediately and accepts that no means no. Hell, when he tries to bite you if you say no he backs down immediately and accepts that no means no too.
You’re also given plenty of chances to kick him out of your party and to even attack him, precisely because he is an evil undead monster. For Astarion to hang around, you have to explicitly allow him to do so.
Call him a monster, call him evil, but comparing him with a rapist is just so far out there and makes no sense at all.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
You should feel shame if your inaction supports the greatest evil.