Democrats could nominate hitler reincarnated but you people would people would be defending them because republicans would have hitler reincarnated but who also hates animals. “Other guy worse” as a defense only means things continue getting worse because there will always be something worse. When can things actually get better for a change?

You people should be less worried about leftists who despise both parties and more worried about the huge amount of people who just don’t want to vote. Now it would be easier to convince people to get out and vote for an actual candidate rather than an artifact of campaign financing but hey, that’s your problem to solve. Tell the Democrats to do better next time.

One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.

Too many reports. Locking this down.

The way I see it is, if one side wins, the Left will not only have to worry about the Palestinians, but suddenly they’ll have to choose between protesting about all those other things AND it’ll be with a hostile government that will curtail civil rights and probably start committing abuses against US citizens.

If the other side wins, all those other issues become less of a danger and the Left can focus on keeping up the pressure on Democratic leadership to stop supporting Israel. It’s still not guaranteed, but it’s a much better chance than in the alternative world where out and out fascism takes over. Focus on what’s important, don’t needlessly add more problems on to the pile.

We have some very bad people; we have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.

• Donald Trump

Stop trying to condescend to me. Just because the Palestine policy is mere shades different between the two parties doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Both parties voted to cut UNRWA aid. Trump cut all aid to Palestinians, Biden resumed it then stopped it again. Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and recognized the illegal settlements. Biden never undid that. Trump closed the Palestinian embassy in Washington and Biden kept it closed.

What kind of nonsense is this? Republicans used to argue that since Bush was not as bad as Saddam he could get away with killing Iraqis too. It was a stupid argument and it’s also stupid now. Palestinians aren’t judging us by our speeches or Biden’s intentions, they’re judging us by our violent actions.

If Harris wanted us to vote for her, she could at least try to reach out to us. Harris says Black Lives Matter, she says Trans lives matter, she says Israeli lives matter, she won’t say that Arab lives matter equal to Israeli ones. Why shouldn’t I vote for Stein, who DOES say this? Harris pandered to everyone on that list except Arab Americans and Muslim Americans. Her campaign didn’t even allow a single Palestinian to endorse her at DNC. Biden detoured his campaign stops so he could avoid Arab-American voters, has Harris done any different? You’re asking me to vote for you even though your administration caused suffering of Palestinians I know in Palestine, and you won’t promise anything different?

Edit: ah yes, downvote me all you want but I’ve been speaking to voters in swing states and you’re only lying to yourself if you can’t address this concern for them and expect them to magically come to your side. Killing the messenger won’t solve anything. Harris can’t even bring herself to say the most basic talking points in support of Palestinian rights. Just say you plan to make a committee to look into how to build a future Palestinian state or that looking back it was wrong for Biden to deny the Palestinian death count, and that would address a lot of concerns, but it’s like she’s intentionally making it harder for Arabs and Muslims to vote for her.

TIFI

I see .ml found this post. There are almost as many dumb comments as there are downvotes.

The guy at the lever actually has the power to stop the trolley entirely.

Liberals before they vote: I need to vote, any action to save democracy must be taken

Liberals after they vote: Welp time to do nothing for the next four years, also if you disagree with the Democrat president you’re a threat to democracy and you hate freedom :3

This is in an unbelievable reduction of the reality, but sure. I’d also love a citation on how Trump will be worse for Palestine. Unless you’re going to suggest something utterly outrageous like he’s going to nuke the whole planet or something, the situation is already a horrific genocide. Harris and Biden are already funding and arming the genociders. Trump has said this is also what he plans to do. His main argument against Harris vis a vis Palestinian genocide is that he’s better friends with Netanyahu.

Honestly, I wonder how much of our disagreements do ultimately come down to moral philosophy. I see a lot of people making this comparison and I’d be happy to put aside the present political situation and step back to discuss a higher level of disagreement.

I am a consequentialist, and I would agree, in principle, that the correct decision in the trolley problem is to pull the lever. But that should always come with an extreme amount of disclaimers. There are no shortage of people throughout history who have made justifications for their actions on the basis of “the ends justify the means,” but often, they turned out to be wrong. To use an example, torture under the Bush administration was claimed to be justified on the basis of getting useful intelligence in order to save lives. But no such intelligence was ever extracted. Really, it was more motivated by revenge, or a desire to be the sort of cool antihero who does the stuff nobody else will that needs to be done, but “the ends justify the means” served as a rationalization. Another example like that (though perhaps more controversial) is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The problem with applying the trolley problem to real life is that we are mere human beings of flesh and blood. We have a whole host of cognitive biases that mislead us even when we have the best of intentions. If we give our minds a way to justify things that we know are bad, it gives it an out that allows us to rationalize the irrational and justify the unjustifiable.

There are two practices that are necessary to apply in order to counteract these biases. First, it is necessary to adopt a set of strong moral guidelines based on past experience and historical evidence. Second, it is necessary to regularly practice some form of introspection or meditation in order to better understand where your thoughts and feelings arise from, and how they flow through your mind. Said guidelines do not have to be rigorously adhered to 100% of the time, but they should be respected, and only deviated from after clear, careful consideration, understanding why the guideline exists and why deviation from them is almost always bad.

“Base” consequentialism, where you recognize that pulling the lever in the trolley problem is the correct decision, but simply accept that as a guiding principle, is a terrible moral philosophy, worse than deontology and possibly worse than having completely unexamined moral views. Some of the worst atrocities in history are the result of that sort of “ends justify the means” approach, detached from a set of moral guidelines and detached from humility and self-reflection. I would even say, speaking as a communist, that many of the bad things communists have done in history are a result of that kind of mentality. Following moral rules blindly is preferable to breaking moral rules without first doing the necessary work to be trusted with breaking them.

There’s plenty more I could say on the topic but people always complain about my long posts so I’d better cut myself off there.

Me when I ignore state violence and genocide that happen under Dems. Maybe if we ask Dick Cheney nicely enough, he can get Harris to change her mind on policy.