My acknowledged character flaw is my preachiness about my position, particularly in a environment like a lemmy thread where we’re all shouting into a void. I do not, however, make apologies for my position.
I am not a dem apologist - I am a utilitarian. I would love to see both Biden and Trump out on their asses and a viable, functioning third party option. But that is one of a number of things that are not realistic right now. I look at the world right now and I don’t have the ability to look at the trolley problem we’ve been given, sit down, and refuse to make a decision because I believe it’s going to somehow punish the trolley for daring to give me a choice I don’t like. I have to choose whether to pull the lever.
The absolute reality of this election boils down to two logically consistent positions that make sense.
The system is so utterly unsalvageable and without merit that I am willing to make any sacrifice to force a shock to the system that might be big enough to shatter it in the hopes that something better can emerge in the future.
The best we can do is to minimize damage until an opportune time to push for greater change.
Both of these positions are logically consistent, and make total sense. I don’t happen to agree with the first one, but if that’s your jam? I understand it. But own it. The logically inconsistent position that drives me absolutely crazy is to claim that a Biden loss is somehow consistent with a moral crusade to protect Palestinian refugees. That’s absolutely insane and illogical to the point where it is at best based in ignorance and at worst reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If you are motivated primarily by the fate of Palestinians, a Biden victory or loss is not about Biden at all. If you are motivated primarily by number 1, and you want break the eggs to make the omelette, have the moral courage to be honest about it. I, for one, am not in that boat. I don’t have the ability to perform the fancy, nonsensical mental gymnastics necessary to sacrifice an entire culture of people on the altar of my ideological purity and then claim with a straight face that I’m somehow doing it for their benefit. I have to do the cold, calculating work of estimating how many people will ACTUALLY die and/or suffer as a result of the decisions I do or do not make, and then make an unpalatable choice that protects the things I find important because that’s just how life is. A series of sub-optimal choices that reflect the messy reality we live in.
I expect everyone to do the same, even if the things they find important aren’t the same things I do. But when someone claims to value the same things I do and ALSO make decisions that are against those interests by EVERY single sound and reasonable measure? I already dealt with that kind of nonsense when I used to get dragged to church.
As pointed out earlier, this person I responded to in this thread isn’t that person, and I do apologize for implying otherwise. But the person I’m talking about here DOES exist. That person is in this thread. And that person needs to hear this.
Okay, I don’t really want to debate the merits of the position. I could but I don’t think we’re too far apart on it. So the character flaw is the preachiness and I misunderstood that’s what you meant, but you still have said something very interesting that I want to understand. I really wanted to know about this:
As pointed out earlier, this person I responded to in this thread isn’t that person, and I do apologize for implying otherwise. But the person I’m talking about here DOES exist. That person is in this thread. And that person needs to hear this.
See, this is a mistake that people making pro-dem arguments - whether out of utilitarianism or some misguided sense of allegiance - keep running into. I have seen so many arguments that boil down to (and I’m not saying this is exactly what you did but it’s a general pattern):
A: Biden is screwing the pooch for XYZ clearly stated factual reasons.
B: You want Trump to win.
A: No, I think people should probably vote for Biden but he’s tanking it for XYZ clearly stated reasons.
B: Fuck you, MAGA/Ivan.
I was asking you about it because you are literally the first person out of dozens of these exchanges that I have ever seen admit to being wrong about this. I think that’s honestly admirable, and I was asking because I really want to understand if you have any insight as to where your misunderstanding came from.
If your answer is that it doesn’t matter because the person your argument is for is out there somewhere, then I think that’s a problem for reasons I can explain if you want to hear them. If you have another explanation I’m interested.
You’re right - my posts aren’t referring to a SPECIFIC person, but general statements targeted at a casual reader of the thread.
I think this is where most people’s overreaction comes from - being so passionate about the desired OUTCOME that they forget to actually be convincing about how to get there. Yes, there are a huge number of us that are not huge fans of many of Biden’s decisions, but voting for him anyway because of the limited number of choices we have. But there are clearly people out there who aren’t as inclined towards making those subtle distinctions, and it’s important that the discourse, as much as possible, makes clear to people that their vote need not be a declaration of undying love. It’s okay to say “Biden, but not happy about it.” It’s really important that those people see the whole view, particularly when there’s so much knee-jerk reaction towards both “YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM” and “YOU CAN’T SUPPORT HIM”.
That said, while of course it eases conscience to talk about how Biden has problems, helping someone who is gung-ho about supporting him to have doubts has almost no tangible benefits to the external reality we live in from the standpoint of the outcome I desire (I don’t post here to be neutral - of course I have a bias), and may actually have a negative impact. Helping someone who is on the fence understand that despite voting being essentially binary, there is a whole spectrum of valid ways to think about it, can lead someone to making a decision that can have a real impact on getting the outcome I see as best, so of course I want to counter the former with the latter.
Since you asked, I’ll answer.
My acknowledged character flaw is my preachiness about my position, particularly in a environment like a lemmy thread where we’re all shouting into a void. I do not, however, make apologies for my position.
I am not a dem apologist - I am a utilitarian. I would love to see both Biden and Trump out on their asses and a viable, functioning third party option. But that is one of a number of things that are not realistic right now. I look at the world right now and I don’t have the ability to look at the trolley problem we’ve been given, sit down, and refuse to make a decision because I believe it’s going to somehow punish the trolley for daring to give me a choice I don’t like. I have to choose whether to pull the lever.
The absolute reality of this election boils down to two logically consistent positions that make sense.
Both of these positions are logically consistent, and make total sense. I don’t happen to agree with the first one, but if that’s your jam? I understand it. But own it. The logically inconsistent position that drives me absolutely crazy is to claim that a Biden loss is somehow consistent with a moral crusade to protect Palestinian refugees. That’s absolutely insane and illogical to the point where it is at best based in ignorance and at worst reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If you are motivated primarily by the fate of Palestinians, a Biden victory or loss is not about Biden at all. If you are motivated primarily by number 1, and you want break the eggs to make the omelette, have the moral courage to be honest about it. I, for one, am not in that boat. I don’t have the ability to perform the fancy, nonsensical mental gymnastics necessary to sacrifice an entire culture of people on the altar of my ideological purity and then claim with a straight face that I’m somehow doing it for their benefit. I have to do the cold, calculating work of estimating how many people will ACTUALLY die and/or suffer as a result of the decisions I do or do not make, and then make an unpalatable choice that protects the things I find important because that’s just how life is. A series of sub-optimal choices that reflect the messy reality we live in.
I expect everyone to do the same, even if the things they find important aren’t the same things I do. But when someone claims to value the same things I do and ALSO make decisions that are against those interests by EVERY single sound and reasonable measure? I already dealt with that kind of nonsense when I used to get dragged to church.
As pointed out earlier, this person I responded to in this thread isn’t that person, and I do apologize for implying otherwise. But the person I’m talking about here DOES exist. That person is in this thread. And that person needs to hear this.
Okay, I don’t really want to debate the merits of the position. I could but I don’t think we’re too far apart on it. So the character flaw is the preachiness and I misunderstood that’s what you meant, but you still have said something very interesting that I want to understand. I really wanted to know about this:
See, this is a mistake that people making pro-dem arguments - whether out of utilitarianism or some misguided sense of allegiance - keep running into. I have seen so many arguments that boil down to (and I’m not saying this is exactly what you did but it’s a general pattern):
A: Biden is screwing the pooch for XYZ clearly stated factual reasons.
B: You want Trump to win.
A: No, I think people should probably vote for Biden but he’s tanking it for XYZ clearly stated reasons.
B: Fuck you, MAGA/Ivan.
I was asking you about it because you are literally the first person out of dozens of these exchanges that I have ever seen admit to being wrong about this. I think that’s honestly admirable, and I was asking because I really want to understand if you have any insight as to where your misunderstanding came from.
If your answer is that it doesn’t matter because the person your argument is for is out there somewhere, then I think that’s a problem for reasons I can explain if you want to hear them. If you have another explanation I’m interested.
It seems to me we’re almost on the same page.
You’re right - my posts aren’t referring to a SPECIFIC person, but general statements targeted at a casual reader of the thread.
I think this is where most people’s overreaction comes from - being so passionate about the desired OUTCOME that they forget to actually be convincing about how to get there. Yes, there are a huge number of us that are not huge fans of many of Biden’s decisions, but voting for him anyway because of the limited number of choices we have. But there are clearly people out there who aren’t as inclined towards making those subtle distinctions, and it’s important that the discourse, as much as possible, makes clear to people that their vote need not be a declaration of undying love. It’s okay to say “Biden, but not happy about it.” It’s really important that those people see the whole view, particularly when there’s so much knee-jerk reaction towards both “YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM” and “YOU CAN’T SUPPORT HIM”.
That said, while of course it eases conscience to talk about how Biden has problems, helping someone who is gung-ho about supporting him to have doubts has almost no tangible benefits to the external reality we live in from the standpoint of the outcome I desire (I don’t post here to be neutral - of course I have a bias), and may actually have a negative impact. Helping someone who is on the fence understand that despite voting being essentially binary, there is a whole spectrum of valid ways to think about it, can lead someone to making a decision that can have a real impact on getting the outcome I see as best, so of course I want to counter the former with the latter.