counterpoint: “sleepy joe” was around long before the 2019 general election and the dude still got into office. and that was a powerful phrase too.
i’m not down with what your argument boils down to, that we shouldn’t criticize politicians because it risks elections. this is a GENOCIDE happening. it’s not like this name came up for funsies. america has long been in the business of funding attrocities, and i have no shame in calling on Biden to change that.
The difficulty, in this particular case, is that the alternative is a President who will even more aggressively support Israel’s genocide.
Like, I get it. The idea of voting for a party and a president that are actively supporting genocide feels morally reprehensible.
But the alternative will, without question, be so much worse. At least the Democrats can, to some degree, be pressured on this issue. Trump will take the opportunity to murder Brown people and gleefully run with it to the ends of the earth, and along the way he’ll burn down what’s left of American democracy just for good measure.
This is, quite literally, the trolley problem. You either have to be actively complicit in some amount of horror, or a passive bystander to an even greater atrocity, placating yourself with the knowledge that while more people have died as a direct result of your choices, at least it wasn’t your hand on the trigger.
There is no good option here, and there is no morally clean option here. It’s awful, it fucking sucks, it’s not a choice anyone should ever be forced to make. But for every American, it’s the choice in front of them now.
i guess the trolley problem rang true for others here so i won’t dig on that too hard, but it’s not really the trolley problem at all because it’s not a binary choice.
one of those third choices being exactly the topic of this post, wherein voters have used the primary as a way to make their positions heard. will it work? who knows, but at least the uncommited movement are making a choice such that their votes are in no way passive complicity.
No, it’s a still a binary choice in the end. Whatever people do before election day or after it, on election day their choices will be “Vote for the less bad genocide enabler” or “Vote in a way that ultimate helps the much worse genocide enabler gain power” (and that includes not voting).
None of which means that people should stop putting pressure on Biden’s government to end the genocide. Part of the argument for why Biden is the less bad choice is precisely that it is more likely that he can be affected by public pressure on this issue. So yes, absolutely, apply that pressure. But be careful how you do it, because the danger, as others have pointed out in this thread, is that once you create this mini-avalanche of “Genocide Joe” negative publicity around Biden, you won’t be able to stop it before November.
I don’t know where the line is there. It’s a very difficult path to tread correctly.
Sure it’s a binary choice “in the end” but I have never been discussing “in the end”. I and OP are looking at the primaries. Now.
The primaries are an example of voters getting the opportunity to untie as many people from the less populous track as possible. Then, down the line, they get the choice to flip the switch or not.
Limiting your mindset to in the end statements is doomerism. I don’t disagree with any of your statements but you’re just looking at things from a perspective I don’t find altogether useful.
And what happens if, as a direct result of the way this campaign was conducted during the primaries, Biden ends up losing? (say, because the GOP somehow latch onto this Genocide Joe thing and turn into a Swiftboat that drags his whole campaign down just enough for Trump to squeak a win).
In that hypothetical scenario would you feel that the right choices were made?
See, no matter which way you come at this, in the end you’re still stuck in the trolley problem.
The point is, if you’re not considering these actions now in the context of what impact they might potentially have when you get to that in the end point, then you’re driving at night without the lights on.
That’s not me saying “Don’t do it.” That’s me saying “Think very carefully about how you do it.”
i mean i guess?
counterpoint: “sleepy joe” was around long before the 2019 general election and the dude still got into office. and that was a powerful phrase too.
i’m not down with what your argument boils down to, that we shouldn’t criticize politicians because it risks elections. this is a GENOCIDE happening. it’s not like this name came up for funsies. america has long been in the business of funding attrocities, and i have no shame in calling on Biden to change that.
The difficulty, in this particular case, is that the alternative is a President who will even more aggressively support Israel’s genocide.
Like, I get it. The idea of voting for a party and a president that are actively supporting genocide feels morally reprehensible.
But the alternative will, without question, be so much worse. At least the Democrats can, to some degree, be pressured on this issue. Trump will take the opportunity to murder Brown people and gleefully run with it to the ends of the earth, and along the way he’ll burn down what’s left of American democracy just for good measure.
This is, quite literally, the trolley problem. You either have to be actively complicit in some amount of horror, or a passive bystander to an even greater atrocity, placating yourself with the knowledge that while more people have died as a direct result of your choices, at least it wasn’t your hand on the trigger.
There is no good option here, and there is no morally clean option here. It’s awful, it fucking sucks, it’s not a choice anyone should ever be forced to make. But for every American, it’s the choice in front of them now.
i guess the trolley problem rang true for others here so i won’t dig on that too hard, but it’s not really the trolley problem at all because it’s not a binary choice.
one of those third choices being exactly the topic of this post, wherein voters have used the primary as a way to make their positions heard. will it work? who knows, but at least the uncommited movement are making a choice such that their votes are in no way passive complicity.
No, it’s a still a binary choice in the end. Whatever people do before election day or after it, on election day their choices will be “Vote for the less bad genocide enabler” or “Vote in a way that ultimate helps the much worse genocide enabler gain power” (and that includes not voting).
None of which means that people should stop putting pressure on Biden’s government to end the genocide. Part of the argument for why Biden is the less bad choice is precisely that it is more likely that he can be affected by public pressure on this issue. So yes, absolutely, apply that pressure. But be careful how you do it, because the danger, as others have pointed out in this thread, is that once you create this mini-avalanche of “Genocide Joe” negative publicity around Biden, you won’t be able to stop it before November.
I don’t know where the line is there. It’s a very difficult path to tread correctly.
Sure it’s a binary choice “in the end” but I have never been discussing “in the end”. I and OP are looking at the primaries. Now.
The primaries are an example of voters getting the opportunity to untie as many people from the less populous track as possible. Then, down the line, they get the choice to flip the switch or not.
Limiting your mindset to in the end statements is doomerism. I don’t disagree with any of your statements but you’re just looking at things from a perspective I don’t find altogether useful.
And what happens if, as a direct result of the way this campaign was conducted during the primaries, Biden ends up losing? (say, because the GOP somehow latch onto this Genocide Joe thing and turn into a Swiftboat that drags his whole campaign down just enough for Trump to squeak a win).
In that hypothetical scenario would you feel that the right choices were made?
See, no matter which way you come at this, in the end you’re still stuck in the trolley problem.
The point is, if you’re not considering these actions now in the context of what impact they might potentially have when you get to that in the end point, then you’re driving at night without the lights on.
That’s not me saying “Don’t do it.” That’s me saying “Think very carefully about how you do it.”