bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe

If only we could do more than one thing at once. Like pull the lever for blue because it is incredibly easy but also work on the task of getting rid of the trolley.

Do the easy thing first, leave the hard thing for tomorrow (never).
- The hard thing gets even harder if we don't do the easy thing.
  
  If you believe mindlessly endorsing genocide is the easy thing, we have little in common.
  If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
  
  It sounds like you believe most people who identify as Democrats are actively rooting for the horrifyingly high number of Palestinian deaths, in the tens of thousands, to progress to the millions. Is that an accurate description of your viewpoint? If so, are there some key things that made you start believing that?
  
  Just for criticizing Harris, her supporters have called for me to be put in a concentration camp. What makes you believe Democrats have no capacity for fascism?
  https://lemm.ee/comment/15722267
  
  I believe all humans, Democrats included, have capacity for fascism.
  Do you believe most Democrats are actively rooting for most of the millions of Palestinians to be killed?
  
  I want to understand your question. Do you believe 50% is the only key threshold where support for genocide becomes problematic?
  If less than most Democrats support genocide, then there is no cause for concern?
  
  I believe the fact that anyone, anywhere, of any group, supports mass murder for its own sake is damning of us as a species. I am looking to understand what you believe. I would be grateful for any details you are willing to share.
  
  Is there a reason you refuse to make your question more clear?
  I want to understand your question. Do you believe 50% is the only key threshold where support for genocide becomes problematic?
  If less than most Democrats support genocide, then there is no cause for concern?
  
  Congrats, you've intentionally missed the point. Thanks for trying though.
  
  Not everyone has the capacity to engage with hard questions.
  Not that you tried anyway.
  
  Not that you tried anyway.
  Bullshit.
  
  You can still attempt an answer, I'm not trying to discourage you.
  If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
  
  Oh, you meant that particular failure in logic of a question. Yeah nah, I'm not playing that game after your intentional disregard for what I said.
  
  The grammar nazi in you won't allow answering imperfectly formed questions huh.
  
  If you don't believe that strategic voting is critical to achieving what are inherently long term goals, then we have little in common.
  
  we have little in common
  Yes, I did say that.
  Democrats nominating a war monger was a sign of high minded strategy?
  
  her position wrt Israel and Palestine wasn't clear when she was nominated (though I don't think it was all that hard to anticipate, but here we are); (2) the upcoming vote isn't for her nomination to the democratic ticket, is it?
  No one is saying they don't wish the practical reality in which we live was better, but we are looking at two realistic choices right now. One choice will not only greatly worsen the situation and almost undoubtedly lead to more suffering and death in the Levant, it is also quite literally the highly preferred choice by Netanyahu. The other has in the past, before soliciting as many US votes as possible, at least displayed a willingness to criticize the Israeli government and modulate US policies regarding it. So I dunno what to tell you. At the end of the day, I'm pro-Palestinians not being murdered, and could give a fuck about signaling on social media, so I make practical choices to facilitate my as-many-Palestinians-as-possible-not-being-murdered preference. Maybe you don't have that in common with me.
  
  How was her position unclear?
  Google:
  August 7, 2024 (Harris was certified by the Democratic National Committee)
  A previous report from August 15, 2024, stated that the death toll in Gaza had reached over 40,000.
  I have nothing in common who sees these innocent people dead as a sign Harris somehow shares a value of "pro-Palestinians not being murdered".
  
  Ah, so you're actively avoiding engaging reasonably with what I and others are saying. Good luck to you. Sorry to hear you're comfortable with more Palestinians being murdered so you can signal on social media.
  
  Sorry to hear you're comfortable with more Palestinians being murdered
  Psychological projection
  is a defence mechanism of alterity concerning "inside" content mistaken to be coming from the "outside" Other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

It is questioned, the trolley is that first past the post system you hear people complain about.

But at the same time you don't just let the trolley do the maximum amount of crushing before it can be shut down for good.

If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
- how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency)
  By the supreme court not the president.
  The 3 Dissenting votes were exclusively from Democrat appointed judges from the Clinton and Obama years.
  BLM?
  Republicans are just objectively more hostile to BLM than Democrats.
  
  Why does this meme depict the saving of abortion rights by voting for Harris (again)?
  What "objective" measure implies Democrats are less hostile to BLM?
  Black Americans somehow live with equality, let alone dignity, in Democrat-run cities?
  Blacks should see a widespread endorsement of genocide and conclude BLM is legitimate concern for establishment Democrats?
  
  Why does this meme depict the saving of abortion rights by voting for Harris (again)?
  Because the more Democratic presidental terms there are the more nominees can reach the supreme court to overturn. Roe was overturned precisely because Republicans played that game of getting more judges on the bench
  Additionally more dems in power increases the chance of a legislative victory on the issue
  What "objective" measure implies Democrats are less hostile to BLM?
  Listen to any Republican ever talk about BLM or make policy against "critical race theory" or "woke".
  
  Black Americans somehow live with equality, let alone dignity, in Democrat-run cities?
  Blacks should see a widespread endorsement of genocide and conclude BLM is legitimate concern for establishment Democrats?
  Why ignore this?
  
  That isn't me ignoring your point.
  One of the parties declared open hostilities towards blm/crt/"woke" including via legislation. All of which they use to denounce black rights or history in some way.
  On that measure Democrats are less hostile and it's an important one. You need to teach about the oppression to do anything about it
  
  The heart of your logic enables true evil.
  Do you think a person should excuse their partner's abuse, because a previous partner was more abusive?
  Why do you imply more importance for the recognition of "improvement" than a recognition and rejection of abuse in general?

If you squeeze your eyes shut tight enough, the trolley will just disappear

No need to squeeze your eyes to watch Palestinians just disappear right?
- And your solution is.... to let the trolley roll over them anyway while feeling morally superior. Unless you have some plan of removing the trolley before January, you are choosing to let it crush them anyway. Choosing to not vote or pull the lever is also a choice that you will have to live with and one that requires moral justification.
  
  Not everyone is capable of comprehending a nuanced and complex solution.
  You offer no evidence of any capacity to question the contrivance of a despicable "problem."
  
  "I don't have any moral responsibility because I believe the trolley shouldn't exist in the first place." Totally nuanced and not completely missing the point of the analogy at all. If only everyone knew we could just magically make the trolley disappear we could have skipped over the decades of philosophy written about the trolley problem because the solution is so easy!
  
  I mean you said those words, no need to beat yourself up cause you have a little straw on your face.
  
  That's what it sounds like you are saying. If that's not it, why didn't you tell your solution?
  
  What are you, 5? "I know you are but what am I?"
  
  You quoted yourself, then attacked the strawman with all you had.
  You then expect me to defend your made up straw argument, failed.
  Since you seem to need it, I've explained it to you like a 5 year old.
  
  Yes, it's totally a strawman. You definitely don't think that we should not pull the lever and instead question why the trolley exists. That's definitely not what your original comment said. Because those two are mutually exclusive anyway. We can only ever do one thing, like question the existence of the trolley or pull the lever to save more lives. It's definitely not possible to vote to keep things from getting worse while also working the other 364 days to dismantle the trolley.
  
  How incredibly privileged and ignorant must one be to believe their lives are being kept from "from getting worse" under Harris?

Remember to never question why such an orphan crushing trolley exists!

This is really the crux of every one of these arguments about Gaza-related voting decisions though.

The people saying vote Harris please because (see OP) are saying that because they consider the trolley as an unstoppable force. There is no spectrum of feasible action that involves stopping the trolley before it takes one of those two paths. There may be feasible action that involves getting rid of the trolley later, but not now.

The people saying ZOMG you are voting for genocide if you vote for Harris seem to be focused on the trolley and can't believe we're all worrying about lesser evils when the orphan crushing trolley is right fucking there.

I am not a member of this second group, but it seems to me that they think getting rid of the trolley before it takes one of those paths is possible. Or, they think destroying the trolley later necessarily involves sacrificing ALL those groups (on both tracks above) now.

Your framework believes all non-Palestinian-genocide issues would be fixed by pulling a lever.
If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
- Does it? Is "fixed" the only bar that matters, or is "better" not still valuable? What about simply "not actively getting worse"? Is there no value in taking the smallest of steps to keep things from getting actively worse, or even attempting to stop them from getting worse? Does that prevent you from taking bigger steps to work for a better world? Do you think unions, mass protests, and other means of systemic change will magically be easier under Hitler 2.0 than a Dem?
  You've asked this other question like 4 times in this thread so far, you must really think it's a gotcha.
  Let's imagine for a second that Harris and Trump are indistinguishable on the question of Gaza (they aren't, but let's pretend your fantasy reality exists for a moment). That would mean that any choice results in the same outcome. That makes that question a wash. Choosing to vote for Harris, Trump, or not vote all have the same outcome on that front. But what about the other issues that matter to people? Should we let abortion access get more difficult in the meantime? Should we let the party that doesn't believe there are any issues with policing into power over the one that admits there's an issue but hasn't fixed it yet?
  Your question is incredibly dumb, not only because you seem to think that something happening while X party is in power means that X party is responsible (someone never took a civics class and learned about SC appointments or the filibuster) but because it's entirely possible for a party to be good on one issue and bad on another. The Dem establishment is wrong about Gaza, what the hell does that have to do with abortion? Why would they be bad on abortion and BLM just because they are bad on this issue?
  
  I don't want to blame you for a difference in physical abilities that may exist, but are you looking at the same meme as me?
  A trolley problem format meme depicts the genocide of Palestinians on one track and the false equivalence of genocide to LGBT, BLM, and abortion on the other track.
  What about simply "not actively getting worse"?
  Who says it's not getting worse? A fellow Harris supporter celebrating "history" in Kalamazoo, where the gap between black and white homeownership is at its worst level in 50 years?:
  https://lemmy.world/post/21294216
  Why would they be bad on abortion and BLM just because they are bad on this issue?
  I should explain why Democrats who endorse a genocide of brown people might be bad on BLM??
  
  A trolley problem format meme depicts the genocide of Palestinians on one track and the false equivalence of genocide to LGBT, BLM, and abortion on the other track.
  It's not a false equivalence, there is no equivalence argued for in the meme. It points out that genocide in Gaza will happen on either track, but only one of them will actively make things worse for other groups I care about also. It's not calling them equivalent, in fact it's arguing they are not equivalent which is why we have a moral obligation to keep It off the track with more people on it. At best, the outcome for Gaza is equivalent, but the outcome for others is not.
  Who says it's not getting worse?
  Are you delusional enough to think that Trump and Harris will have identical outcomes for the other groups listed? Even if Harris doesn't "fix" those issues, preventing them from getting worse is better than allowing them to get worse. No improvement on abortion access is objectively better than a national abortion ban or anything else Trump (or really, the Heritage Foundation) wants.
  I should explain why Democrats who endorse a genocide of brown people might be bad on BLM??
  Ah yes, because Harris isn't as anti genocide as we want, it's totally logical to assume she would be in favor of black people dying more at the hands of police. Yes, that totally follows. And definitely the best option to improve policing is to let Trump be in charge. He will totally not work to make things worse.
  
  You believe Harris has somehow preserved abortion rights and that others are delusional?
  Even if Harris doesn't "fix" those issues, preventing them from getting worse is better than allowing them to get worse. No improvement on abortion access is objectively better
  A person who made their career out of imprisoning mostly black and brown men should be somehow seen as strongly against "black people dying more at the hands of police"?
  
  I love that you cut off the quote mid sentence, conveniently leaving out the part that would have answered your dumbass question. No improvement to abortion access is objectively better than working to make things worse. If those are the only two options, we all have a moral obligation to keep things from getting worse.
  You're the one who implied it was the Dems fault because it happened while they were in power. Harris isn't president and so couldn't have done anything either way for abortion. But she certainly hasn't made them worse and is not in favor of making abortion access more difficult. Trump, on the other hand, will actively work to make them worse.
  I'm sorry, what is Harris' stated position in BLM vs Trump's? Which one of them said "please don't be too nice" to them while talking to cops about suspects? Which one of them sent DHS to black-bag protestors during BLM again?
  
  Your claim implying "issues only exist or worsen under Trump" is as bizarre as it is unsubstantiated.
  Thanks to Harris, abortion rights have been preserved in America? There was no meaningful* change under her administration?
  Why are you desperate to make this personal and attack me rather than stay on topic?
  Why are you desperate to discuss Trump instead of Harris?
  
  I don't imply they only exist under Trump, I specifically said that even if they stayed the same under Harris that would be better than allowing Trump to make them worse. If you don't see that Trump has been saying he will make the lives of immigrants and trans people worse if he had the power I can't help you. Maybe open your fucking eyes. At least Harris isn't advocating for banning medical care for trans folks or using the military to round up immigrants and hold them in military camps.
  Thanks to Harris, abortion rights have been preserved in America? There was no meaningful* change under her administration?
  Jesus Christ dude, learn how to read. We already covered this. Harris doesn't have an administration, she is part of Biden's. Things got worse because of actions Trump took while he was in office. Remember the part about taking a civics class to leave about SC appointments and the filibuster? Again, even if she doesn't make abortion access better, that's objectively better than allowing Trump to institute a nation ban.
  Why are you desperate to make this personal and attack me rather than stay on topic?
  Porque no los dos? I'm attacking your dipshit opinions and your actions of choosing to not vote and allow trump to win and make the lives of everyone worse.
  Why are you desperate to discuss Trump instead of Harris?
  We've talking about both this whole time, you just want to pretend that allowing Trump to will is totally separate from voting for Harris. There are only two outcomes here, Trump wins and makes things worse, or Harris wins and she doesn't.
  
  Is "dip shit" what your bullies called you as a child?
  Do you think you are bullying any progressives with your long-winded hateful rants?
- Even if more people die on the bottom track than are shown in the drawing, it will still be true that no one dies on the bottom who isn't also dying on the top, and that more people in total die on the top. (IMO, and I think in the opinion of the first group of people I described.)
  If the folks who don't want to vote Harris due to Gaza are doing so for some reason other than what I outlined above, I'd love to hear it. Because if they aren't trying to get rid of the Trolley than why the fuck would they be taking action that increases the chance of the trolley going to the top track?
  
  Weird to repeat myself, since the original words are there. Let's see if you ignore the point again:
  If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
  
  If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?
  I skipped over it because it's practically a non-sequitur, and it's nearly the same argument as Trump vs Harris on Gaza. You've got the party that might do something good and you've got the party that definitely will do nothing good, and you have no other viable option. Not a difficult choice at that point, for me.
  
  So the last time you pulled the lever for Harris, Democrats solved all non-Palestinian-genocide related issues?
  It's dumb of me to question your lever pulling logic?
  
  It’s dumb of me to question your lever pulling logic?
  No, but it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that either all problems must have been solved or else I should make a choice that might let Trump in.
  I'm not here to shame anyone for how they are voting, and don't really care what you think of my "lever puling logic" - I was trying to get at the heart of your trolley analogy.
  And yes, it's exactly as stated - you are very focused on the Trolley, while I consider it an unstoppable force at this time. All the rest of our "argument" is just restating that difference more explicitly.
  
  it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that either all problems must have been solved
  Are we looking at two different memes??