Trump is a clear supporter of the genocide. He wants Israel to destroy Palestine and he wants the US to do more to help them accomplish this. Harris is nowhere near as bad as this. She’s not going to withdraw support for Israel, but she’s at least going to try to rein them in and return to the pre-war status. Not great, but realistically the best that we can hope for with how supportive our politicians are of Israel in general.
These are the only two people that have a chance at the White House. If you don’t want to support the genocide, don’t waste your vote on somebody that is absolutely, without a doubt, going to lose. Instead, use it to vote for the one candidate that is possibly able to win over the person that is explicitly, unequivocally supportive of the genocide.
In my eyes, not voting for Harris is supporting the genocide. Anything that allows Trump into office is supporting the genocide.
You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.
Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.
So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?
Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?
That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.
Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?
As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.
Vote for a candidate who has demonstrated in front of my eyes that they will support disgusting mass annihilation of human life
Or
Vote for a candidate who it seems like would be worse on the issue somehow.
I’m accepting your framing but it’s really hard to be more concerned about how hypothetically bad trump will be when Ive been seeing a lot of nonhypothetical horrific mass slaughter for 12 months and the “lesser evil” is regularly defending it on tv
Edit: to be clear I won’t be voting for either genocidal candidate
When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.
I understand but that’s still pitting trump’s words (which aren’t clear, he’s never said anything specific about what he’d do) against the thousands of pounds of very real bombs that biden/harris have provided for mass slaughter. I believe you that there’s a good chance trump will be worse but once again that’s just speculation whereas I don’t have to speculate about biden/harris I’ve been seeing the horror they create on tv for 12 months now.
I’ll consider believing there’s a difference between Kamala and Joe when Kamala says there’s a difference. Until then, you’re just making up a reality in your mind where she is somehow better than him on this despite showing no indication of that.
Supporting genocide crosses a line for me that I am unwilling to compromise on. If that makes me a wanker I’ll call myself a wanker proudly.
Trump is a clear supporter of the genocide. He wants Israel to destroy Palestine and he wants the US to do more to help them accomplish this. Harris is nowhere near as bad as this. She’s not going to withdraw support for Israel, but she’s at least going to try to rein them in and return to the pre-war status. Not great, but realistically the best that we can hope for with how supportive our politicians are of Israel in general.
These are the only two people that have a chance at the White House. If you don’t want to support the genocide, don’t waste your vote on somebody that is absolutely, without a doubt, going to lose. Instead, use it to vote for the one candidate that is possibly able to win over the person that is explicitly, unequivocally supportive of the genocide.
In my eyes, not voting for Harris is supporting the genocide. Anything that allows Trump into office is supporting the genocide.
So the only thing I can do if I want to end the genocide is to vote for the person currently doing the genocide?
The “democracy” isn’t worth saving at this point
“My vote can’t end the genocide immediately, so I might as well accelerate it”
What an asshole position.
Removed by mod
You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.
Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.
So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?
Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?
That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.
Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?
As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.
Vote for a candidate who has demonstrated in front of my eyes that they will support disgusting mass annihilation of human life
Or
Vote for a candidate who it seems like would be worse on the issue somehow.
I’m accepting your framing but it’s really hard to be more concerned about how hypothetically bad trump will be when Ive been seeing a lot of nonhypothetical horrific mass slaughter for 12 months and the “lesser evil” is regularly defending it on tv
Edit: to be clear I won’t be voting for either genocidal candidate
https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu
When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.
I understand but that’s still pitting trump’s words (which aren’t clear, he’s never said anything specific about what he’d do) against the thousands of pounds of very real bombs that biden/harris have provided for mass slaughter. I believe you that there’s a good chance trump will be worse but once again that’s just speculation whereas I don’t have to speculate about biden/harris I’ve been seeing the horror they create on tv for 12 months now.
Who do you think the US president is right now?
I’ll consider believing there’s a difference between Kamala and Joe when Kamala says there’s a difference. Until then, you’re just making up a reality in your mind where she is somehow better than him on this despite showing no indication of that.
You either think Joe Biden is still running for re-election or you don’t understand the powers of the vice president.
https://lemmy.ml/post/21576643/14405087
Got it. It’s the latter.