• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not making that assumption at all. I’m saying your “red line” point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. “Red Lines” don’t work if they don’t differentiate between the candidates.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that’s a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.

        A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide

          Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death

          • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.

            • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              It is 100% within Biden’s power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.

              • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn’t like).

                If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it’s a moot point.

                • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  then pick the person

                  Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.

                  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    You’re just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.

                    You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it’s not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.

                  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If you think that’s a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called “The Lesser Evil”, where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she’ll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.

                    Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts – he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.

                    It really isn’t hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?

    • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      >which helps the candidate you hate most to win

      when i voted for howie and biden won, does that mean that i hated biden the most? what kind of quantum emotion theory are you cooking up?

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are not the only person voting, you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.

        Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options, then voting for anyone else or failing to vote is a vote less for Biden, which is equivalent to a vote for Trump.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          if not voting is voting for trump, then voting for trump would be like voting twice.

          this is clearly absurd election misinformation.

          non-voters are the biggest voting block in the country. there is no way what you are saying is true.

          • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            A person who would otherwise support Biden, voting for Trump instead, is indeed a two vote swing. That is just the math of it.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          >Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options

          that is not a good assumption: I only vote for candidates if I want them to win.

          • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The base assumption here is not that you would actually vote for either one, it’s that when given only two choices, you prefer one or the other. The only way that doesn’t hold is if you truly do not care between the two options and it’s a coin flip. If that is true, then the ‘person you hate most between the two’ still benefits, but it’s a coin flip which one it is so you don’t care.

            If you prefer Biden over Trump, you are helping Trump by not voting for Biden. And vice versa. Even if you would never vote for any major party candidate, that just means you are always helping the major party candidate you hate the most.

              • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I mean…you tell me your political feelings. It’s not about who won, it’s just who you are helping.

                If you hate Trump more than Hillary and you didn’t vote for one of them in 2016, you helped Trump in 2016. If you hate Biden more than Trump and you didn’t vote in 2020 then you helped Biden. But if you hate Trump more than Biden, then you helped Trump in 2020 even though he didn’t win.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          >you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.

          only a vote for a candidate helps them win

              • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You’re really trying to make a razor thin distinction without a difference then. So not voting for Biden is “taking part in the creation of a situation wherein Trump is more likely to win” or whatever you need to the wording to be.

                If all Biden supporters boycott the election, Trump wins. If you’re not disputing that fact then you’re twiddling around with wording and not actually disagreeing.