Political Memes

5401 readers

4187 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

760

this post commits the cardinal internet sin of having nuance sorry :( (lemmy.cafe)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

222 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This reminds me of the trolley problem. One candidate wants to kill five people, the other "only" wants to kill one person. No matter what you do, it is guaranteed that one of them will get elected and kill at least one person - but if you try to use your vote to make the lesser evil slightly more probable - you are suddenly complicit.

Even worse - if the kill-one-person wins and kills that person, the kill-five-people candidate' supporters will be the ones to hold the kill-one-person voters accountable for it. Their candidate would have killed more people, but because he lost the elections he was not able to kill anyone, which somehow makes voting for him more ethical?

[+] [email protected] -11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You fail to mention the economic status or skin color of the potential victims.

Realistically the kill-five-people Candidate would have explicitly stated that they'd select the "correct" victims for their supporters to rally behind.

Whereas the kill-one-person Candidate would deny wanting to kill anyone in particular, so when it happens everyone is mad, even if their victim is a member of the "other" their opponent explicitly said they'd kill.

Wow that is a mess, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You fail to mention

I did not fail to mention - I chose not to do it. The point of the trolley problem is not to find reason why killing the one person is not really that bad and why killing the five people is so much more terrible than what a simple multiplication implies. The point is to ask if its worth to end up with the greater evil just so that you can tell yourself that you are not complicit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Something I've come to realize in the past few years is that blame and responsibility are just lies that we tell ourselves and each other. There are only our actions, what we can reasonably expect the results to be, and what the actual consequences are. Even if you're not "responsible" for something, if you know you can prevent it, and choose not to, you have chosen for that thing to happen.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

That's an excruciatingly tortured metaphor. Are you implying that killing only one person instead of five could be worse depending on everyone's skin color or economic status? Or that it's worse to kill one person if the candidate tries to deny killing them?

Rereading your post. You're either saying that or adding nothing to the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I'm shocked! Are you telling me there are people in real life with whom you can have nuanced conversation?!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who you vote for says a lot about what your priorities are and what your moral compass is willing to tolerate for what you see as the "greater good." When you vote for someone, you may not agree with everything they stand for but you absolutely do believe that overall what they stand for is more closely aligned with your political goals than the alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It doesn't really reflect that much on you. Like, if my choices were Putin or Pol Pot, I don't think voting for Putin would say much about my moral compass. Obviously not voting would feel nicer, but feeling nice doesn't help much when the national average life experience drops to the mid teens.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Equating trump and biden is dishonest. Both in terms of what the average american experiences and at a distant policy level.

Saying "I dont care about things that dont immediately impact me" also says a lot about someones' moral compass and where their priorities are. There is no belief that doesnt say SOMETHING about a person.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah, if this guy had voted for pol pot over putin (or the other way around, idk my instinct says pol pot was way worse.) It would absolutely say something about them as a person.

load more comments