this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
370 points (95.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43611 readers
1376 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you're saying one of them makes the world less worse, and is therefore preferable to the one that makes it more worse.
Not when genocide is one of the agreed upon actions.
Your argument is logically an argument of harm reduction.
It fails when you're trying to convince people that this genocide is better because the other sides genocide would be worse.
I will not vote for genocide.
No attempt to shame me and people like me for not voting for genocide will work.
Just by the by, genocide is a red line for a lot of people. Shame as a tactic for getting people to vote for your party works only up to a line.
When your options are:
50% dead
100% dead
Having only these options suck, but one of those is clearly worse, and if your tax dollars will be used for one your abstemiousness does the 50% who could have lived no favors.
So, to be clear, you would rather have more genocide than to acknowledge in this imperfect world, sometimes harm reduction is the best that is available to us. Do you think a trump admin would have been counseling Israel not to be flattening the West Bank? Because that's what the Biden admin has been doing, and I'm pretty sure that a trump admin would be cheering them on and demanding bloodshed, which to me seems worse. And yes, you'd get to feel better about not participating in the system, but your hands would in fact have more blood on them. You just wouldn't notice it.
Genocide is not harm reduction.
You're an idiot that thinks you can find an optimal strategy in the prisoners dilemma with a single iteration.
'Republicans fear their base, the Democratic party has contempt for theirs' is a quote for a reason. It's time to change that, otherwise things will just get slowly worse.
It also doesn't matter. The Arab population in the Midwest swing States are a large enough block within the Democratic party there that they are required.
Biden went from having a majority of them as voters to having a single percentage stating that they will vote for him because they correctly see him as committing genocide against an ethnic group they identify with. It is impossible for Biden to win the Midwest now.
The responsibility for Biden and the Democratic parties decision to commit genocide lies with them.
If they wanted to win, or walk away from that, they should have allowed debates and a vibrant primary election, instead of breaking their own rules to block them in at least 4 States so far.
Fucking dumb shit asshole trying to shift the blame for the consequences of the parties actions on to the voters. Voters owe the party nothing. The party needs to earn votes and fight for them.
Right so, you'd rather have the people who will make it more worse than the ones who will make it less worse. You still are making a choice here, and it is for more worse.