this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
201 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
58 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 117 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Remember that in online spaces (and IRL in reality), there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts that will make claims to sway public opinions.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Good point. Although, I would question whether Lemmy is such a place as we really don’t have the numbers to warrant the effort, imo.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 52 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

We get drug spam and stock spam, no reason to expect that political spam is any less likely.

Lemmy has a huge amount of hardcore lefty's. If you can get them to not vote, and especially if you can get them to tell their friends not to vote, that is a big win.

Astroturfing/sockpuppeting is dirty cheap to do, so no reason not to try.

You do see some users here that will post continously on about a certain topic repeatedly, with no other opinions. They might be legit, but I have my suspicions.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 weeks ago

"Hardcore lefties" have a very different understanding of the value of their vote, which is to say, it means very little.

Have you deigned to ask them questions?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I disagree - it feels like Lemmy is seeing the same kind of shills that 4chan saw in the last several elections. These bad actors are trying to sway dems to vote third party or not vote at all "in protest" across many small and large online spaces.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Are the shills in the room with us right now?

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, in fact I see one now.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting. What am I shilling for? What are my real opinions? What are the fake ones I'm presenting?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Your real opinions are the ones I like, and your fake opinions are the ones I don’t. It’s not rocket surgery.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It is not currently such a place. I’ve yet to hear a Lemmy admin say otherwise.

Edit to add: Russiagate conspiracy theorists want it to be true so they can simply dismiss voices that contradict their beliefs.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 33 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There's no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?

Right?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 28 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide? Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue. One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

Suppose you have two buttons. If you press one, it kills someone. If you press the second, it kills two people. If you don't press the first button, someone else is eagerly waiting who will press the second. Whoever has placed the buttons here, has enough power that neither the buttons nor the other person are within your personal ability to harm at the moment, and you have neither the time nor the popularity to amass enough people to change this before the other guy pushes the "kill two people" button. Your only options are to press one or press neither and allow the second be pressed. If your answer to this scenario is "I press neither button, because pressing the first kills someone, don't you care about people's lives!?", then you are not choosing morality, you are choosing selfishness, because you care more about the notion that your hands will be clean than about the net life saved if you press the button that kills fewer people. In fact, the blood is as much on your hands by inaction if you decide to reject your choice, as it would be had you killed the additional victim yourself.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide?

When you are offered two candidates and both support genocide, including one being an active part of the current one, you can say, "no, never again means never again" and work against both rather than pretending you now have to support genocide.

Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue.

You should believe your lying eyes and see that Biden has gotten your consent for genocide, with Harris helping. The genocide has only ramped up as the election draws close.

There is not worse that can be done. It is full, unequivocal support for basically anything Israel wants for genocide including the weapons and supplies on which they depend to carry out this genocide. If anything, Dems are more effective at this kind of thing, as they secure European support and offer better stipulations to the Israelis around when to escalate and when to play it a little cooler.

Though your electoral logic is seld-defeating anyways. Your consent for the lesser evil keeps you politically anemic and unable to have solidarity with those who need it. You make yourself subservient.

One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

This is a fantasy.

Suppose you have two buttons.

I am not interested in childish metaphors.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. "Working against both", when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 weeks ago (8 children)

I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it's a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone's moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

You know how you can trick a stupid fucking child into doing what you want by presenting them a false choice of two alternatives you're happy with? "Do you want to go to bed now or after one more show?"

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 weeks ago

There are, but not on Lemmy, because Lemmy is still much too small to bother with.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 74 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they've become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They've adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant "fuck you" to Harris and the entire Democratic party.

And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There's not much of a difference between the two on this topic.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 55 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

There is a difference between them on this topic.

If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.

With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 30 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I've actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it's a thing I guess.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 28 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don't approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 55 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

They believe that taking a moral stand against the Democrats, who are supporting Israeli genocide, is worth it even if that means that Trump, who even more fervently supports Israeli genocide, becomes president.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 33 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Even calling it "Israeli genocide" is transferring responsibility. "Supporting" is an understatement. The democrats ARE THE ONES DOING THE GENOCIDE. Biden can stop it with a single phone call. Israel is not an independent state; it is a subordinate of the US.

Telling people to vote for your party, a nazi party, at the absolute peak of your depraved inhuman bloodthirst, because the other side might be worse, is the most cynical fucking thing I've ever heard.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (13 children)

I honestly appreciate the downvotes as a counter of angry people shamed into silence

Good. You should be fucking ashamed.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MoonMelon@lemmy.ml 43 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, "Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people".

But if you take a step back it's reasonable to ask, "WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don't spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus' forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose."

So given that realization it's also reasonable when told you must choose to say, "Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt."

That's the essential argument. There's the realpolitik decision to do "less harm", but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 39 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

Wow, it's almost as if someone being bad can be for multiple reasons!

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Lol, living in a world where "anti-genocide" is actually a thing people say is messed up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 34 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

She's campaigning on building the wall. she's endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america's military the most lethal fighting force in the world.

she has decided that the "moderate conservative" who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would've. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she's going to crash into a wall because she can't turn left.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 28 points 4 weeks ago

I’m going to tell you a secret.

The people who say this, the leftists that threaten to withhold their votes, tend to vote strategically anyways. But threatening to withhold votes is one way to apply pressure to politicians to do things like, say, stop promoting a fucking genocide. And then liberals lose their minds for some reason and make it totally irrelevant. And then we have a genocide that lasts for 75 years and starts world war 3.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place, and from there the one who is more likely to listen to public pressure, as well as the same for any congressional seats on the ballot. And probably not vote for the one who is threatening to send the military after those who disagree with them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Obama dropped an average of 60 bombs every day on the middle east and north africa during his presidency.

The US isn't a democracy, and it's elections are nothing but theatre. I recommend asking about this on lemmygrad or hexbear also.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 23 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

The US needs to fix their voting system before they can start voting third party. It's probably even more difficult with Trump

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it's not in their interests that wars end at all.

This is that "military-industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of "forever wars" that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.

Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rocci@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

In my situation, I'm in a solid blue state so I'm voting for a third party to push the country to the left.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 18 points 4 weeks ago

If only USA had ranked choice voting, then everyone could do that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I voted for Harris, but I feel like it's pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.

One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I'm not saying "is" here. I'm saying "should be".

We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there's value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.

And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu's whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.

For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It's not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!

Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that's not something we can do everywhere. We can't repeatedly choose the "least miserable option" and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It's just not possible.

Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, "on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is."

Some people's hill is their ballot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn't allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn't matter what Harris or anyone else wants.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?

https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 20 points 3 weeks ago

What has the current administration actually stopped Israel from doing? Every line in the sand has been crossed and there have been no consequences, trump won't be worse for Palestine than Kamala

[–] macabrett@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 weeks ago

Never again means never again, I will not be party to it.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 19 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who's been actively supporting a genocide?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 21 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to "finish the job" with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] chaos 19 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Do you think electing Trump will be read as "wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights" by the world?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Because it's a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn't change that fact. I'm not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.

At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You'd again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you'd tell us to vote for Harris.

I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ulkesh 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.

Harris is the only sane choice.

Edit>> Cases in point below.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Both candidates will support Israel, so for pro palestine voters it's a "Would you like to vote for the Shitty Party, or Less Shitty Party" situation, where not voting from these parties is shunned upon because it will help Shitty Party win.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›