I've seen many threads suggesting products but they often don't mention FOSS projects, which should always be preferred to corporate software. With FOSS you are already boycotting capitalism, on either side. Free and Open Source ignores borders and shouldn't be categorized in nationalist terms, no matter where some of the maintainers happen to live.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

All true. But the world also watched a huge amount of voters rejects dems over gaza. While trump had no better plans on gaxa.

Much like Ukraine his only argument is "i am better and every one else was stupid"

The argument often heard. "Voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting evil".

So yes these folks very much voted the greater of 2 evils by refusing to vote the lesser option. And much of the rest of the world is rightfully sorta pissed at the evil they allowed in.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Maybe a system that regularly gives us "evil vs lesser evil but still evil" as our only options isn't worth saving

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sorta like the trolly problem.

You can flip the lever to kill 5 or 1. But if you choose not to and also don't fucking bother to hit the breaks. Your still responsible for killing 5 instead of 1.

If you are not willing to actually stop the evil fai.ing to selects make you the bigger evil.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I actually hate how the trolley problem is misinterpreted. It's not a question of "will you kill one person or kill 5?". If you pull the lever, you are murdering somebody. If you do nothing, you killed no one, whoever put them on the tracks killed them. Whether it's morally acceptable to murder one person in order to save 5 is an interesting thought experiment but that's all it is.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

Amd its not misinterpreted. The whole point of using the trolly problem is as an example as it was designed. Thought experiments are there to help you interpret real actions by simplifying them. Not to be ignored as pointless.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are still the one making the choice.

Hence why the trolly problem is equivalent to a political vote. Not voting has the same effect as not making a choice between one or 5.

If you are there before they get tied to the track you do more. But that is not the situation you are in on election day.

On election day its to late to change candidates. Just as its to late to try and untie the victims. If you do not have correct of the breaks or the ability to stop the trolly on time.

Your only option is to choose or not to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Failing to choose is no less evil then choosing the worst.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hence why the trolly problem is equivalent to a political vote. Not voting has the same effect as not making a choice between one or 5.

There is no "not making a choice" in the trolley problem. You either don't murder someone, or you murder someone and rationalize it. Those are the only two possible options. Creating a third option out of thin air is exactly what I was describing when I said people often misinterpret it.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bollocks.

It is a thought experiment. Where you do not get to dobt murder someone.

That is the whole fucking point.

Just like not voting dosent stop evil running the nation.

You are the one misinterpreting. By some how inventing the dont murder somone option.

Just because you dont like it. Dos not mean you get to invent your own interpretations.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Where you do not get to dobt murder someone.

I've read this like 6 times and I can't figure out what you're trying to to say so I can't respond to it.

By some how inventing the dont murder somone option.

If you don't pull the lever you haven't murdered anyone. The person who tied them to the tracks murdered them. You were just standing there.

Just because you dont like it. Dos not mean you get to invent your own interpretations.

I'm interpreting it the way it's written. There's only 2 possibilities, murder one person or let 4 die by not murdering that person. "I choose not to decide" is the latter. It's not a third option. There is no third option.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You really seem to be failing to understand. And simple typos are easy to read around. I'm visually impaired so have little patience for that excuse.

As you said its a thought experiment. As you say you only have two options. Rejecting responsibility is the same as leaving the lever in the kill 5 position.

Pull or don't pull. If you pull 1 person dies. If you don't 5 die. There is no don't kill.

Yes the person tieing them to the track murdered them. But just like not voting you don't get to rewind time amd select better candidates. As the guy in the signal box. Your duty iss to direct the train. Just as your duty is to vote. Not wanting people to have been tied to the track is obviose but not an answer. Unless you are the one willing to invent a time machine. Your duty is still to direct the train.

Not voting leaves you with trump. Because you live in a fptp nation where 3rd parties just reduce the opposing vote.

Just like not pulling the lever means 5 folks died. You still had the task to direct the train. Refusing to pull the lever still leave you responsible for 5 rather then one dying.

Refusing to take responsibility dose not forgive you for failing to select the lesser evil. You are still directly responsible for choosing the greater evil by failing to pull the lever.

Rejecting responsibility and blaming others is not an option provided. Because the thought experiment recognises you live in a system where you have to make choices based on facts not your hopes and wishes. You live in a world where if you don't have the option to stop the train. Or prevent the arsehole tying people to the tracks. You still have responsibilities. I refuse to play still has an effect on the world you live in. Like it or not.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

You really seem to be failing to understand. And simple typos are easy to read around. I'm visually impaired so have little patience for that excuse.

It would probably help if the statement made sense to being with.

Pull or don't pull. If you pull 1 person dies. If you don't 5 die. There is no don't kill.

"5 people die" is not the same as "I killed 5 people". There is no option to kill the 5 people. They're already dead unless you murder someone to save them.

As the guy in the signal box.

There's no signal box nor is there verbiage in the trolley problem that implies you work for the railroad. You're just a guy in a position to pull the lever. There's no outside obligation to do anything at all.

Not voting leaves you with trump. Because you live in a fptp nation where 3rd parties just reduce the opposing vote.

I understand you want to crowbar the trolley problem into your metaphor about voting but I'm trying to stay on topic and discuss the problem itself.

Because the thought experiment recognises you live in a system where you have to make choices based on facts not your hopes and wishes.

No is not. It's based on personal morality, whether an individual is willing to murder someone to save 4 others. The whole thing could be boiled down to "do the ends justify the means?"

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago

I do imagine the thought experiment is more meaningful to those on the dying end, I'll give you that.