no one fucking told me about states banning RCV during all that yapping on here about how i should VOTE THIRD PARTY OR ELSE IM COMPLICIT in the DNCs CRIMES

it may or may not be joever, very blackpilled at this moment

edit it’s actually 10 states. 5 in the past two months.

  • Enkrod@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Can you explain to me how voting makes one complicit? And how not voting doesn’t make one complicit when the worse of two evils is elected?

    • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can you explain to me how voting makes one complicit? And how not voting doesn’t make one complicit when the worse of two evils is elected?

      if you vote to put someone in power, you are complicit in their actions in office. if you don’t vote for that person, you can’t be complicit.

      • Enkrod@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Hmmm, no, that’s at least not how I think and feel about it. It’s akin to the Trolley Problem for me, where, if my inaction kills/negatively impacts more people than my action, I am morally obligated to take action.

        • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          oh, i think pulling the lever makes you a murderer. but that’s the point of the trolley problem: it’s not that there is a right answer, its that your answer will help you understand your own morality.

          • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Are you willing to let four more people die just to avoid being a murderer? Do you assign to that label more moral value than you assign to human lives?

              • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                And you are overlooking the other 5 people, claiming that you are not complicit in their death even though you, as the one standing at the lever, are the only one able to save them. Your status as “non-murderer” is more important to you than their lives.

                • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  have you considered that “the end justify the means” is bad, actually, and that deontological ethics are the only way to actually be sure you are doing the right thing?

                  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    This is an acceptable position. “Even if you think murder is good in a specific case - don’t. Too many past murderers also tried to justify their acts. We humans are too good at self serving rationalization to be trusted with such things”

                    The problem with this, is that you can’t drag that solution to the voting issue. It works for the trolley problem because it relies on the fact that murder is a big taboo. Voting isn’t a big taboo - you don’t have a long history of “voting is bad” consensus. That idea is new, and has to stand on its own merits.

                  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You didn’t put any of them in that position. And you didn’t put that other person in a position where scarifying them is the only way to save the five people. You are not responsible for the situation, and yet you ended up with the power to pick the outcome. Out of several bad outcomes, yes - but you still have the the opportunity to pick the lesser evil.

                    You wish you didn’t get that opportunity. You wish you weren’t in this position. The six people tied to the track also wish they weren’t in this position. But this is not real life, where complaining about the unfairness and wishing the misfortune didn’t happen to you can solve everything and make everyone happy. This is a moral dilemma, engineered to root out the smart solutions and leave you with the hard choice - four human lives weighted against your personal moral status.

                    And you decided that four lives is an acceptable price to pay so that you can keep basking in your innocence.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You can take action and pick the path that kills nobody. But too many are fearmongered into kill 10 or kill 9.

          The 9 or 10 voters are responsible for the killing. They actively vote against kill 0.