And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    210
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    I know people who voted neither candidate because Trump was horrible and Harris was pro-choice. Single-issue voters are the death of democracy. Full stop.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      100
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I said months ago that we were going to “single issue” our way to Trump 2.0, and I’ve never ever wanted to be wrong more than when I said that.

      Edit: Updated with receipts.

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        96
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        nearly all the single-issue voters on the right vote in lock-step unison, and have for decades.

        democrats and progressives seem to just toss in the towel if they aren’t getting everything they want, right now.

        it takes time to build something great, it takes but a moment to destroy it all. welcome to total destruction.

        • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          I could say something witty or sarcastic, but you’ve probably already thought something along the same lines. I’ll just leave a facepalm emoji instead.

          🤦🏻‍♂️

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Only in a two-party system. Locked in a two party system is the death of it. At least introduce multiple rounds, to democratically elect the 2 contestants for the final round…

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

      Sometimes being a single issue voter happens because people just care that much about that one issue. But there’s a natural tendency for anyone’s decision to come down to one thing. Complex issues are complex, most people don’t know what’s right. But then they do have ONE thing that they consider black-and-white, so that influences their choice. It gives them something they feel they can say to others “I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who XYZ…”

      Because let’s face it: no one wants to hear your entire list of political calculations. People’s choices are absolutely influenced by thoughts of how they’ll justify themselves to the people they know. And having one big pithy thing to say is more convenient than a subtle position based on a score of factors.

      Humans are social, emotional, idiosyncratic shortcut machines, not logic engines.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Since no one seems to be taking OP’s question seriously, I’ll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.

    Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.

    Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

    Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won’t win.

    Others still may believe that Trump’s incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.

    Finally, some people feel that voting won’t matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.

    I don’t personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

      They never learn though.

  • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    A lot of people did in fact set aside Gaza until Trump was stopped. As for those that didn’t, they should have listened to Bernie Sanders. I did months ago and went all-in on Dem support. There were multiple times when I wrote up an angry post about US support of Israel and then didn’t post it because I didn’t want to turn a voter into a non-voter or worse a Trump supporter.

    I understand their position of never rewarding ethnic cleansing and war crimes though. They chose to make sure the Dems know they would never “settle” for the illegal killing of civilians. The support for Israel made it especially hard for Arab Americans to vote Dem. It’s difficult to support a party that has been in power during the whole conflict yet gives unconditional support for the internationally condemned murder of Arabs.

    I’m sure a lot also felt disenfranchised by the bipartisan protest suppression and condemnation. Even in Dem states peaceful protesters were punished, and sometimes pro-Israeli protesters who attacked got away with it. Then there was the whole “vote with us or else” pressure that went on for months. Dissenters like the “uncommitted” voters were insulted by the party that wanted their unconditional support.

    So it’s not like it’s completely insane. But as Sanders points out that position only makes things worse and has done so.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    They believe it because that’s what people have been told to believe.

    It should be glaringly obvious that trump’s implied policy that he will let Israel “finish the job” is far worse than the dems poor attempts at negotiating cease-fires or any other moderation on Israel’s aggression.

    All the propaganda has focused on the democrat (in)action regarding Israel. Zero on trump’s plans.

    That’s what the propaganda machine has been pushing.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s what the propaganda machine has been pushing.

      And there was a strong push from the Russians.

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s because nobody believes biden/Harris and for good reason. They’re lying, they have just as much of a plan to turn Gaza into prime oceanfront real estate for wealthy NYC metro area zionists with dual citizenship as the republicans. They’ll just paint the bombs with progress pride and blm flags while lying to your face about their intentions and speaking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their audience. It’s sickening. They’re both going to genocide Palestinians, does it really matter if they’re turned to glass in days or in weeks?

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Before I start let me note that in the end this particular group of people didn’t affect the election. Harris is on the way to losing all swing states. Her failure is much deeper than Gaza policy. Blaming anti-genocide voters for this is just copium.

    With that out of the way, you can divide people with this position into two groups: Arab Americans and everyone else. Arab Americans are people who are feeling the genocide firsthand. So, obviously, they tried to appeal to the Harris campaign and get them to move from Biden’s position on the topic. The result: They were either ignored or antagonized by Harris. That led to the abandon Harris campaign in Michigan and elsewhere. Harris considered those people acceptable casualties in her failure of a campaign, and so they were burnt out and the momentum behind the Uncommitted movement and others turned from “let’s save our Palestinian brothers” to “fuck us and Palestine (because let’s face it, that’s basically what Harris was saying)? Then fuck you too”. Harris thew them under the bus and was thrown under the bus in turn. Maybe not very logical, but a very predictable reaction. Harris treated Arab Americans with just that much contempt, and then she and her enablers had the gall to tell the people attending a funeral every other day to “shut up and vote for her”.

    Now as for everyone else, it’s a more simple instance of taking a stand against a politician for doing something you cannot accept. Now there is a pragmatic idea here that if you allow the DNC to get away with this they’ll think supporting genocide actually wins elections, or that their electorate are such pussies that it doesn’t matter what they think. Add in the goal of pressuring Harris to drop that policy that was important at the start of the Harris campaign and of course the idea of not wanting to vote for genocide and this was the result.

    Of course it’s not all 100% logical, but there is logic here beyond “omg bad guy I no vote”.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Now that the election is out of the way, maybe I can continue talking about this. I held my tongue during the past months, but I think now is a good time to think about this result.

      While the result is unfortunate and disappointing, there are sides to it that aren’t all that bad. They pushed towards the right, pandering, and now the voters told them that this isn’t a winning strategy. I think it helps setting them straight for the future.

      I think you put it very aptly. Of course it would’ve been best if Harris had won, but at least now we can think about it from a neutral perspective: Had she won despite all the right-pandering and genocide-enabling stances, it would either send the message that pandering to the right works, and the progressives are, indeed, either too small a group to listen to in the future too, or too much of pussies to listen to in the future, too — they’ll toe the line no matter what kind of shitty positions you take.

      At least now they know that a change is needed. It’s almost unthinkable to lose to such a weird fascist populist that barely behaves cohesively. They did, by ignoring the progressives. That means something. At least it ought to.

      Things don’t often change unless things hurt. If doing shitty things keeps working, nothing changes. But when things hurt, it opens some eyes at least. Forces re-evaluation on everyone’s part.

      But that being said, this fucking sucks. Despite all the reasoning we can do to make it feel a bit better, this really should not have happened.

      • n1ckn4m3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They played this exact same game in 2016 and lost and yet they learned nothing. What makes anyone think they’re going to learn something this time? The DNC needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up to be a proper left party instead of this bullshit center-right garbage that they pretend is progressive or left.

        EDIT: And I still held my nose and voted, because I will in fact take anything over fascism.

        • icecreamtaco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          2016 was easily dismissed because trump was a surprise candidate they weren’t prepared to deal with, Hilary was disliked, and she still won the popular vote. None of those excuses apply in 2024

      • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        There will be no more elections, do you guys not listen to what Trump says? The only way to have elections again would be a civil war and guess what, the fascists are the majority so fat chance of that happening

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          do you guys not listen to what Trump says?

          Yes that was one of the many outrageous claims he made.

          Who knows which things he will actually try to do, let alone what he’ll succeed at doing.

          Even with the house, senate and supreme court tilted right, I don’t see them succeeding on abolishing elections.

          • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well that’s naive. That has happened in many other countries before, and guess what the USA is not any different from them, so

    • Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re wrong that it didn’t impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement. Slotkin won the senate race, but Trump won by a narrow margin. Independent votes and low turn out siphoned off enough to make that happen. Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re wrong that it didn’t impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement.

        I mean maybe (I haven’t seen the turnout numbers as opposed to protest/non-voters) but the point is that Harris lost before Michigan even finished counting. She could’ve won Michigan and she still wasn’t winning this, is the point.

        Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

        I mean yeah, because the DNC pushed an unelectable candidate whose position was a mix of “nothing will fundamentally change”, wishy washy non-promises and right wing positions. I doubt even 10% of the 15 million in reduced turnout came from Uncommitted and similar movements. The DNC blew it; it’s that simple.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      in the end this particular group of people didn’t affect the election.

      Source for that statement?

        • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Kamala got 20 million fewer votes than Biden. You don’t think a significant amount of those weren’t related?

          So, I’d say that looking at the votes means that it did have an effect.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        She lost before Michigan finished counting. She could’ve won Michigan and she would still lost. Source: Subtract 15 from Trump’s EC votes.

  • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Russian bots mostly, but also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won’t affect them

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.

      The changes will of course be worse, but if things are clearly shit, and someone keeps telling you that it’s not that bad, you start to despise those people even if they’re the better choice.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.

        Okay, but those aren’t the single-issue Gaza voters OP was asking about.

        Frankly, they should’ve been what OP was asking about though, because they were a way bigger factor (and always are, in every election, despite the Democrats abject refusal to acknowledge it).

        • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The big group of voters that the Democrats didn’t see coming were the ton of racists and misogynistic assholes (mostly white but latino men also)

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do you have any examples of Dems telling people things werent bad? The closest things I can think of is dems saying we know things are bad but we are working on them and they are getting better. It feels like a republican talking point that dems think things are good.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won’t affect them

      I’m a privileged person who probably won’t be directly affected by another Trump presidency. Probably. Hopefully.

      But anybody who genuinely holds that opinion, and doesn’t care what happens to everybody else, may as well just be a full-on trumper.

  • RandomVideos@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    The arguments against voting in the USA sound similar to the trolley problem

    Some people wouldnt choose to be the reason of the death of one person even if doing nothing causes the death of multiple people

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      That just means you value your own ability to evade blame over the lives of real people.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah but also they all die anyway. Nobody is “saved” in this situation. In fact, it’s way worse now.

      What’s going to happen in Gaza is going to be horrifying.

    • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is very american - these Gaza supporters protest the suffering of people thousands of miles away and yet think it is okay to bring suffering to everyone in his/her own street

      • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Almost like they are paying for the people suffering thousands of miles away?

        Do you have a brain by any chance?

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

      Yes, this is how I felt. I would rather not choose to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ and pretend that’s good. It’s not just Gaza though, it’s corporatism, war profiteering, and terrible policy.

      I would rather see the system collapse and possibly die in the process than support another shitty government even if it’s the less shitty one.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s a horrible outlook, and I’m sorry you’ve been driven to that point. I understand, as I have been there before.

        Now that I’m older, I realize that pulling the lever is the right thing to do as much as it hurts. I don’t think letting apathy win and watching the government go full Fash was the correct choice, but I don’t blame you, or others who decided the same. The system isn’t going to collapse, though, it’s just going to get a lot shittier for awhile.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because if it wasn’t Gaza, it would have been another excuse to not lift a lazy goddamned finger and still delude themselves into feeling "morally superior"while sitting on their fat mediocre asses at home.

    Before Harris, they also leaned heavily on the “Sleepy Joe” bullshit and “two old white men up for election, who cares”. Once the old “Sleepy Joe” element was removed from the equation, they had to find a way to keep their goddamned stubbornly lazy and ignorant narrative intact.

    Now that the election is over, most of these “concerned and outraged” deadweight assholes will never think about Gaza and the plight of its’ people again. And they will keep on feeling smug about themselves.

    • gerryflap@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not American, and I don’t agree with these people either, but I don’t think that calling them lazy and ignorant makes any sense. In the fucked up democracy of the US it’s clear that the only way to get what you want for the coming 4 years is to vote for the least bad candidate. At the same time I can definitely understand that if you view both candidates was horrible, though one way more horrible than the other, you would feel conflicted about voting for either of them.

      Let’s do a thought experiment. Assuming both candidates are still roughly equally “popular”. If both candidates wanted to start a genocide, but one would want to kill only 50% of the amount of innocents that the other would kill, how would you vote? Would you vote for the one who is overall the less bad option, which will in turn make you give your vote for something horrible. Or would you abstain and signal that the democracy as it currently stands has lost your confidence entirely, even if it means that on the short term the consequences might be way worse?

      Not voting actually costs the democrats something, and should (if they want to win next time) force them to think how to better represent you next time.

      It’s fucked up that your democracy came to this. It has become an annoying game theory dilemma instead of voting for the candidate that you actually believe in. Our system here in the Netherlands is certainly also not perfect, since we have too many parties and too long coalition negotiations, but at least I feel like it represents people way better. Anyone can start a party and capture seat if they represent a large enough niche.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I said the same thing about people like you before the election, and I’ll repeat it again. The laser focus on single issue voters was and will always be mostly an excuse to blame someone else.

      To look at it another way, if this one issue actually decided the election, why didn’t Harris change her strategy two months ago? … Maybe it’s because this wasn’t the determining issue. Or it was, and her staff was incompetent. Take your pick.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is rich to criticize the Democrats for claiming moral superiority while doing nothing, as a justification for not voting for the candidate who would at least try to put a leash on what Israel is doing to Gaza.

      If you want what’s best for a suffering people, you should vote for the candidate not trying to give their oppressors a blank check. All of America is responsible for what the president we chose does next.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those are people who are unable or unwilling to see the forest for the trees.

  • blarth@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you think there was a genuine argument to not vote for Harris over Gaza war crimes, you were amongst those successfully manipulated by Russia. That argument was entirely of America’s enemies’ making as a means to get Trump elected.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don’t think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It’s academic to them. I don’t expect it’ll stop once Trump is in, they’ll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They’re mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we’re trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.

    For people that actually do care, it’s a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It’s a sort of trolley problem. If they don’t vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don’t have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn’t actually benefit Gaza, but there’s only so much they could really do anyway.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because the standard for Democrats is perfectionism, but the standard for Republicans is “That’s just Trump being Trump.”

    In other words, they didn’t think it through, they got suckered by propaganda.

    • Moneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Imagine thinking “stop committing a genocide” is perfection.

      Liberals are amazing creatures.

        • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is 100x worse mean genociding 100 times faster? Because if you are not really living in a cave, you will know there can’t be anything worse than what’s already happening.

          Dems are always so fast to point out propaganda but how did this brainwashing slip in? There’s no worse or better genocide, you freak.

          I’m not an American nor a trump supporter, just an American hater.

        • Moneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Make that argument to the family members of people experiencing the genocide, I would imagine they will laugh in your face. These people are enduring unimaginable horrors, their children are being brutally murdered and libs keep telling them to suck it up because actually this is the lesser of evils.

          It’s a pathetic fucking argument.

          • AngryRobot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Are yiu talking about Gaza? Trump wants Bennie to destroy Palestine. Ets see the looks on their faces then.

  • Nadru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    The arguments are as stupid as you guessed.

    These are naive emotional people who are dumb as fuck. I know so many in my life and it’s like arguying with a brick wall.

    Children still believe we live in a black and white world, democrats are in power now, genocide is happening, they will not vote for them. The concept that both will finance the genocide but another will be much worse is not something they can understand.

    You have others that want to intentionally punish democrats for not doing anything. Great in the meantime, Trump will provide a full carte blanche to Nettanyahu in the middle east, he will continue what he’s doing, annex everything without any limits. They were partying in Israel after Trump won.

    A third group wants the system to break down because they think if you’re a post collapse society, they will be able to build their utopia.

    Yes as dumb idiots living in la la land.

      • asret@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then work to change it. Your voting system is broken and makes millions feel disenfranchised. People should be able to vote their conscience without worrying about stupid political games.

        I’ve criticized then for their voting behavior as well - that if they want outcomes aligned to their values that dictates a particular voting strategy.

        But you don’t get to blame them for the outcome. That’s on the broken system, and the failure of the losing party to appeal to them.

        • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          They share the blame. This election was lost because of low voter turnout and so many will suffer for it. This wasn’t the electoral college, this wasn’t voter fraud, people had the opportunity to fill in a bubble to stop the proud fascists and they chose not to.

          • asret@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not surprising that people don’t show up to vote if they don’t believe they have a voice. Provide proper representation for them rather than the slightly different shades of purple on offer now. Allow them to voice the nuance of their positions and you’d probably have Kamala as the president elect right now.

            This is just the trolley problem - you’re trying to force them to pull a lever when many people feel that the only moral choice is not to.

            Give them a way to participate and they’ll be able to weigh the options.

  • lurklurk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It doesn’t have to make sense for people to convince themselves to do it. It will certainly lead to worse outcomes for gaza

    If your morals disregard the probable outcomes and is more focused on normative rules you could make some arguments but that kind of purity won’t save a single starving child in gaza

    Edit: spelling

    • lousyd@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe people believe that it will save a starving child in the future. Like, some future where politicians finally listen to them?

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So it’s the moral argument of killing kids now in the hope of making a point that might or might not affect future politicians?