It's not a trolley problem, and even if it were the consequences of greenlighting democratic support for genocide are not fully represented appropriately in this image.
We all know what happens if the Republicans get in - they do what they want, and what they want is fervent, unquestioning support of Israel, and to continue trampling on the rights of millions of minorities.
That's where the Trolley goes if the leftwing can't agree on what it wants to do.
While I agree that you're right in stating that the long-term consequences of allowing democrats to get away with this aren't properly laid out, what's the alternative exactly?
You could argue to vote an independent, but if everybody disagrees on which independent to vote for, then you fragment the leftwing and the Republicans get a free lunch.
You could argue to refuse to vote to teach the democrat party a lesson, which sounds nice, but every lost vote against the Republicans only helps bring them closer to victory.
If you've got another idea, then by all means go ahead, but those are the two I hear over and over again.
Except communicating to Democratic leadership that this is acceptable moves us to the right, not to the left. I think it's time we all admit at least that we're past pretending Democrats are going to reform themselves without any meaningful pressure, no?
How far to the right do we let the DNC use fear to push us before being "left" only in relation to the extreme right doesn't cut it? If genocide is not where you draw the line what the fuck will be?
Voting or not voting by itself will not move democrats to the left. That can only be achieved by organizing. In the meantime, keeping republicans out of power is worthwhile.
Again, I agree with what you're saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
Both realistic outcomes of the election involve the US government continuing to support this genocide in one way or another - that's why OP's meme is drawn out like it is, because people arguing your exact viewpoint seem to think there's some magical third track everybody else has missed that sidetracks this issue entirely.
Everybody loses this election no matter what happens, but I guarantee you the loss will be worse with the Republicans in the driving seat.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
There will never be a perfect time to draw the line, because the DNC will always play chicken with its own base as long as that continues to get them elected, they will always be putting us in that position of choosing between their fascist lite pick and the gop's fascist. The only weapon we have that they care about is our ability to deny them power. They don't care about protests, they don't care about articles and letters, debate or polls or anything, as we see none of that changes their behaviour. They care about money and access to power.
So, the solution is to starve them until they realize the party simply can't sustain itself on non-existent maga swing voters. It can't leech enough "moderate" conservatives to survive. They need to be brought to the understanding that their route to power is not to be Alt Republican, it's to be progressive and anti-fascist.
People can say the DNC won't care and it will never work that way, but we've seen a real example from history that starving parties works. When Republican support was waning in the 1950s and 60s, the Republicans went out hunting for a new demographic to sustain them. That's what the Southern Strategy was. Granted they were going in the opposite direction, but the Democrats can be put in the same position and since the GOP already occupies all the white racist territory, Dems have very few other places to hide from Millenials and GenZ.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that's the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
One, that is a very long way of saying the idea you're bringing to the table is don't vote - and I've already said what I think about that.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that's the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
Two, that's a bit of an understatement considering just one highlight of Trump's last presidency was rigging the SCOTUS towards being openly corrupt and against the people for literally decades to come.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
Yeah, I did see that section, but given that a "corporate" candidate is already the democrat nominee, that also amounts to not voting in this election - or voting for independents, which I have also made my opinion known on - so there was no point in talking about that.
There's more than the presidency on the ballot. People should vote, they should just refuse to vote for any right-wing candidate forced on them by the DNC. That's why you vote even when Dems nominate a Republican, to send that message.
There's only one way to teach the DNC that corporate conservative dems are unelectable, and that's to consistently deny them wins in primaries and in the general if necessary.
It's funny you say the philosophy is simple when strategic voting requires multiple layers of analysis and voting for bubblegum ice cream just amounts to what feels good. You can't bring yourself to accept the reality of the situation, so you pretend like the problem is easy to solve if you just ignore it. That's truly simple minded. Pathetic projection on your part.
It's not strategic if the outcome of either option in the binary you present is fascism. You're not "saving" anyone on either of the tracks in the narrow political world you paint.
I'm guessing the joke is that third party voters ignore the trolley about to go down one of two paths, instead deciding to stand next to a short piece of track connected to nothing with no trolley on it, so they can pretend the imminent disaster happening on the other track isn't real
And there's also a contingent of people on the trolley who are trying to get it to slow down, working their asses off to improve long term actual outcomes in the real world, whether related or not to the little lever, and the guy standing next to the empty disconnected track is claiming to be one of them and saying you must be against them and how dare you, you person-running-over-enabling monster, if you say anything against his strategy.
Is it the "only Democrats have agency" thing? Democrats are responsible for their choices but Republicans, they're just like a fire that burns man it doesn't know what it's doing.
I could say the same thing of the self proclaimed progressives saying the dems should have done something in the total 4 years since then they've had trifecta control, not even including the filibuster.
You knew the redcaps would kill it first chance they got, why did you let them get the chance by not voting against them?
What was so much more important to you than women's health that not even the open and active threat to it was enough to motivate you to the herculean task of standing in a line and pushing some buttons?
You asswipes are always on about how you're the only ones who take fascism seriously in this country, and then whenever you're given the chance to show it by doing the basic minimum to keep them out of power you balk and make demands like it's suddenly a distant nightmare instead of the life threatening reality of the people you karen at to get the party's manager for you.
It's debatable if morality is even "inherent" to existence. I'd argue morality is a relative construct, but that's besides the point.
I was speaking in regards to the options presented. And as such, I know of no amount of genocide that could be called "moral". Thus my correction to your assertion, as the options presented only allow for "more or less genocide".
I hope this post gets a lot of tankie comments. They’ll be flockin’ to a blockin’
Heh. See, cause. It rhymes. So.
The one yesterday had that commenter who was all “what’s this? Oh it took me a second cause I blocked all the tankies” and that’s when I realized I forgot to block lemmy.ml. Now that that’s done, it’s just onsie-twosies. It’s a bright, bright sunshiney day.
I like that, as a nation, we are admitting that we'll enable the killing of innocent children. It's important to be honest with ourselves about who we are as a country.
I'm just excited for Trump to win and "Those stupid leftists who didn't vote for Trump" to be the cause, when all the conservative/centrist voters Biden picked up in 2020 abandon him in 2024 over the economy or Hunter Biden's dick or his emails.
Which is weird because I didn't mention voting. America's been doing this shit since before I was born, let alone since before I could vote. It's in our bones.
You don't get to vote to not kill children here. Just how many children we kill and how bad we pretend to feel about it.
And I actually agree with the link: Vote for the person you want to be your enemy. If it's gonna be a frail old man I'll take the one who's not a fascist. But I've given up on ever being happy about the choice, or ashamed of my country.
Yes, the US government's policy is and always has been to support genocidal Israel. That's why Palestine is on both tracks. There is absolutely nothing voters can do to change this any time soon. You should be focusing on who you can save, rather than who you can't.
It’s interesting how much the vote DOES resemble a trolley problem. Generally, the only real point in favor of not pulling the lever is “You’re killing someone, it’s immoral to get involved. Life shouldn’t be in your hands.”
Which is still setting aside all the conscious choice by other human beings that IS happening come election season. Probably the biggest way it diverges is that a trolley is moving under its own “natural” momentum. In reality, it’s as though some Nazis are pulling the trolley along the track to the 5 people.
These posts are basically calling on leftists to support a genocide. I'll vote for Biden, but I'd also punch him square in his rich white Zionist jaw if I was given the opportunity. That's how American democracy works. The U.S. doesn't deserve a pass for supporting genocide, even if it's an election year.
half mental preparations of who to blame if Biden ends up losing.
Lol you're projecting. You all plan on blaming us despite failing to respect our seat at the negotiation table. We made it very clear: we don't vote for strike blocking genocide supporting candidates. You all thought you could fuck around and ignore our boundaries. You're watching us stand up and walk away from the table talking like you still aren't about to find out.
I swear, the best part about threads like these is that you're all so used to not even reading the opposing arguments that at this point you can't even tell eachother apart.
The American system of elections is old and it is apparent the Founding Fathers had no Idea as to how the game theory of elections would play out. Worse, they even picked a system of government that was more prone to a two party system than the United Kingdom due to the direct election of the Executive and the inbuilt separation of the Executive and Legislative branches.
Israel, as genocidal as it is, has a system which encourages minor parties to get elected. There are 16 parties elected to the Knesset out of 120 total seats. However, Israel has a unicameral legislature, there are no individual districts or constituencies, and the legislature selects the head of government.
If your point is that the American system is fucked, we all know. We've known for decades. We're trying to fix it, but progress is basically nonexistent, because every politician who is currently elected benefits from our fucked system. Trying to get to a parliamentary system, like most developed real democracies, is almost entirely out of reach. Just getting ranked choice voting is like pulling teeth, and we'll have to create a brand new party to have politicians free from corporate interests.
I will have to fight all my life to enact positive change in this country, all because a bunch of rich white assholes who came to power long before I was born have stolen my future from me. Don't belittle us, mourn for us and never, ever repeat our mistakes.
It's also a legitimate request to be fair. I don't really have time to explain the entire political situation of the US and why it's not viable to change it through individual voting to this person, but they clearly don't understand enough about it if they're making silly remarks like this.
Its crazy how both parties are heavily invested in killing Palestinians.
Also crazy how Democrats take no credit for persecuting BLM, despite the fact that Obama's FBI was neck deep in that shit for two years before he left office.
Jesus, you've got some tired, made up bullshit without citations in this thread too just like the other one I saw your propaganda driving ass in, don't you?
Don't play the fucking "both sides" shit here.
The facts and truth of the matter, with quotes, documentation, video and audio evidence, is that trump and high ranking members of the GOP are 100% on board with genociding Palestine. They're encouraging Bibi to go further, not stop/slow like Biden's been doing.
There's no world we live in where electing anyone in the GOP, or worst of all, some fuckhead like trump; will make the situation for the Palestinians any better. It will absolutely make it worse for them for significantly longer than it would with a democratic majority/presidency.
Go ahead and get me a list of trump quotes, or any quotes from the GOP that have them talking Israel down from their genocide instead of doubling, tripling, or quadrupling down on backing what Israel is doing today.
FFS man, there's even a fucking top GOP Senator that's seriously suggesting that Israel nuke Palestine. And that's just the low hanging fruit that's out there. There's dozens and dozens of quotes from members of the GOP calling for genocide using those exact words, saying Israel isn't going far enough.
So get the fuck out of here with your "both sides" rhetoric and bullshit.
The problem is that we have two choices, and we will never not have two choices unless we do something about it. I can both say that Joe Biden sucks and we should do better and also vote for him because the other option is worse. This discourse that makes it seem like any criticism of Biden is pro trump is how we will end up in a slightly less terrible place. Cool. Really looking forward to that.
Also like what the fuck...I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
There is a third fucking option and it's not doing a genocide.
Which, of course, they don't. It's a vanity vote. They want to pretend they have actually done something without actually having to do anything of consequence.
If we're interpreting their "third option" as a voting strategy and not convincing Biden to step in and stop the genocide, we can at least implement Approval Voting so that they can vote for all the "no genocide" candidates without having to worry that doing so could somehow backfire. Then, if they want or need to, they can cast a strategic vote to differentiate between different magnitudes of genocide.
No, you can't. You do not have the power to implement Approval Voting, and nobody who does have the power wants to do it. So it's not gonna happen, at least not in the short term. Right now, anybody who wins has to win in an environment of First Past the Post. Nobody capable of doing that currently supports Approval Voting, so right now it is effectively not on the ballot.
This is what I mean about "hav[ing] a viable strategy." Magically wishing Approval Voting into existence ain't it.
Well the strategy is to work your way up from the local level because:
It's easier for people to make change at the local level, Fargo and St. Louis have already done it.
Politicians tend to work their way up the ladder, and will be more open to using the system at higher levels if they already proved they can win under that system.
You have to remember that any real social change takes years, even decades of organized to realize. We didn't go from Jim Crowe to the civil rights act in a fortnight, it took big organizations applying decades of pressure in multiple different ways.
If you want to be a part of the solution, join an organization dedicated to improving things. It doesn't have to be the one I linked, but Election Science is the one working on approval voting. Local elections are such that one highly motivated person can build and run the organization to flip their local election laws, it could be you, but it won't happen overnight.
Great. That is a state issue, so pay attention to your state government, vote for state representatives that support better voting methods, and contact your state representatives to push for reform.
As someone else pointed out, those in power are unlikely to change the voting system to reduce their own power. However, you really start at the local level with referendums, and work your way up. First, it's easier to force change at the local level and second, politicians working their way up will be less hostile to changing to approval if they've already shown they can win under that system.
Apparently we can't in 2024. They didn't hear us in 2016. They won't hear us now in 2024. Maybe two Democrat juggernauts losing the presidential election to Trump of all people will convince them.
The problem is that we don't. If you're not in a "swing" state, all the votes in the world for Joe Biden are meaningless. Win California by another million votes. Win it by another 10M. Have every single eligible voter in California turn up and vote for Joe Biden. He still loses the EC when the SCOTUS tells Arizona to stop counting ballots the minute Trump is in the lead.
Also like what the fuck…I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
We have to keep sending money to Israel because its the means by which we control the Suez Canal.
Except... the Houthis have control over the back end of the canal so long as they're able to scare off shipping in the Gulf of Adan. So now we're endorsing a genocide just for shits and giggles.
It's almost like two organizations have totally monopolized US politics. It's a billion dollar industry, and they'd both rather alternate losing to each other and keep their seat at the table than let anyone else play the game.
Because of a shitty situation set up by countless past people and events completely out of your control you have to make a choice here. And in my mind, it's not even a difficult choice. Yes, either option will support Israel, that's a given, but there is no third option so it might as well not even be a factor in choosing a candidate.
If you want more parties and to remove first past the post then you need to elect the party who supports those stances. That is one of your two options. Real fucking simple.
You know the real solution to the trolley problem that is used in real life? Purposeful derailment. You let the front wheels go down one side, then flip the switch, and the back wheels follow the other path, which derails the trolley.
It either kills everyone, or saves everyone. And then you can figure out a better option as you untie your rail prisoners.
The let it burn and start over crowd are in this third category. The vote for Mickey Mouse crowd is not.
One of the people you can vote for, will throw the trolley and start a revolution. The other will maintain the status quo, which is shit. A useful idiot, is still useful.
I've seen the writing on the wall for a while. I've divested and left. I am now waiting for the collapse and the quicker the better so the split of the nation and restructuring can start. Limping along on life support is not helping.
I have never heard of this and it sounds insane. You wouldn't kill everyone or no one, you'd probably kill everyone and the people on the train too. When I look up purposeful derailment the only incident I find is that crazy guy who crashed two trains into each other for fun killing some spectators.
Edit: hey more googling. You could argue it happened once and calling it a "trolley problem " is generous. The incident I'm finding was a runaway train in Australia. A runaway train is a lot different and usually they don't try to fix them like that, but by applying the brakes. It's also worth mentioning it was a "controlled" derailment and not just some guy flipping on Deja Vu as he sees if he can emulate initial D. There was no one in the area. Also in general I feel the trolley analogy has long fallen apart at this point.
How is voting for a marginal unknown 3rd candidate going to upend the US electoral system, I'm so curious...
Instead of dreaming look at the general population. How many people who vote do you think actually care about this. Sure they might not like the politicians but do they actually want to change the system? I don't think so.
Funny thing is, that's what's called a controlled derailment. It's the engineering answer to the situatuon, if the situation were real and not a contrived philosophical dilemma.
Well, in context of philosophy being taught in class you would then change the prompt to a harder question. You would also debate whether the person who makes the decision is in fact responsible and how that dynamic changes when the prompt changes.
So maybe you have to choose between 2 men only half as happy or handsome or one fully formed magical man with magic hands.
What if the train magically transforms regular men into new men? What if they were opposed to the transformation before it happened?
Conversely, what about if it magically creates men causing potential overpopulation? What if the men it created morally oppose the tram, but more than half the local population feel like it is necessary to run no matter what?
You can pretty much run this thought experiment forever, so far we've been going for 57 years.
