• @GoddessNoAi@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    354 months ago

    “I’d rather let someone who actively, aggressively advocates, enables, and wants genocide domestically and abroad to win the presidency, over voting for somebody who passively enables genocide to happen abroad because actively trying to stop it could ignite WWIII” is still a bad take.

    It’s baffling and hypocritical.

    • @Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      -244 months ago

      It is hypocritical to delude yourself into believing voting for genocide is somehow not approving genocide. And i hardly doubt that stopping Israel from committing genocide in Gaza would ignite WW3.

      If you mistake it for Ukraine, think about all the help Ukraine is not getting so Israel can get it instead. Dozens of Billions in Weapons to slaughter a civillian population instead of helping Ukraine defend itself against Russias invasion.

      • @GoddessNoAi@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        254 months ago

        I’m not deluding myself about anything. The choice isn’t “vote for or against genocide” it’s “act to get less or more genocide”. It’s not a false dichotomy; if you’re not voting to defeat Trump, then you’re acting to get more genocide.

        By not acting to defeat Trump, you’re enabling genocide more than Biden ever has.

        • @Lyrl@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -74 months ago

          In some takes on the trolley problem (do nothing, five people are run over by a trolley an die, flip a track change switch and two people are run over by a trolley and die) flipping the switch is the morally worse option because then those two people’s deaths are your fault, whereas the five people who die because you did nothing are someone else’s fault. I don’t agree with that take, but it’s taken seriously in philosophy circles.