OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml

If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a l

---

Read more

Posts

32

Comments

3,078

Joined

2 yr. ago

Follow your leader.

You're trying to argue that my position is not empathetic, but that's nonsense. It is empathetic towards Palestinians, who are, contrary to popular beliefs, "actual living humans." You want to build societies off of empathetic principles, alright, first step lets all agree that we shouldn't slaughter innocent people or support anyone who does.

See, your stance may be ethical, moral even, in that you're trying to follow this abstract principle about minimizing harm. But your problem is that you think that those ideas are what matters, while you ignore the real human suffering that's resulting from those ideas.

See, I can play that game too! Almost as if you're still trying to assign special status to your own "common sense" beliefs and refusing to place them on the same level of other people's ideas and allowing them to be subject to critical examination.

Where I come from, morality and ethics refer to what you should and shouldn't do. To say, "You acted in a way that was morally correct and kept yourself morally pure, but you shouldn't have" is self-contradictory nonsense.

What you ought to be saying is that you believe my theory of ethics is incorrect and that yours is correct. But to say that would mean that you would have to admit that you have a specific theory of ethics (such as Act Utilitarianism) which would then be open to critique. And returning to the original point, if you accept that you are operating on a specific theory of ethics with a specific set of assumptions, then there's not really any reason to be "baffled" that other people don't follow it, maybe they simply don't subscribe to the same assumptions about ethics that you do.

But what you're doing instead is ceding to me that my ethical positions are correct, but then asserting that there is some sort of, idk, "Superethics" that supercedes all ethical theories, and which is somehow, not an ethical theory like the other ones are despite the fact that it's a theory of what you should and shouldn't do. And this "Superethics" is apparently supposed to be so obvious and objective that everyone in the world should automatically understand and accept it, regardless of their other beliefs or experiences.

It's kind of incredible that countless philosophers have wasted so much time studying ethics, which is for scrubs and rubes, but hardly anyone seems to have touched on the far more important concept of Superethics.

The thing is; those moral systems and critiques of the problem are all ideological.

You are making me seriously reconsider my impression of Finland's educational system.

Every hotshot freshman walks into Philosophy 101 thinking that everybody else's ideas are "ideological" while theirs are just "common sense" (nevermind that they all believe different things). If the professor does their job properly, and the students aren't completely obstinate, then they will leave Philosophy 101 understanding that this is not a valid way of understanding anything.

Anyone who claims that everyone else is operating based on ideology and they are not, is simply unaware of their own ideology. And being unaware of it, that ideology has a far greater hold on them than it otherwise might.

The Trolley Problem isn't even meant to have a definite answer. The thought experiment was developed for the explicit purpose of demonstrating how people's moral intuitions differ, as do different schools of moral philosophy. To think, "Pulling the level is obviously objectively correct, and this is a non-ideological claim" is completely and utterly absurd and demonstrates total ignorance of moral philosophy.

What do you think the point of philosophy even is if all it's theories can be dismissed as "ideological" and your own personal "common sense" is a reliable way of determining truth?

If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you're aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn't have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, "Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it."

I don't have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.

I genuinely can't comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were "baffled" that people didn't agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It's absurd.

Maybe take a philosophy class sometime.

Follow your leader.

No, of course not. You just explained exactly what I would have to do to make that happen: something. I don't see how the course of action could possibly be clearer.

Exactly my point.

I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is "the same as voting for Trump." By that logic, it's also the same as voting for Harris. It's complete and total nonsense.

The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, "If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would've turned out better."

If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I'm not going to be particularly bothered by that.

Greenland, no. But to act like the Democrats aren't involved in imperialism, plunder, and genocide in other places is absurd. I'm not willing to sacrifice those other countries and people for the sake of Greenland, or for my own sake, or for the sake of my neighbors.

In my view, genocide is completely off the table in the range of solutions I'm willing to consider. I'll oppose the right by whatever means are available to me, but that's simply not an option.

If you want to argue that I have a moral responsibility to aid other countries and ensure their safety and security, maybe to some extent that's true. But any such positive moral duty certainly does not outweigh my negative moral duty to not actively fuck with other countries, to not be the danger I'm supposed to be preventing. "First, do no harm." If protecting Finland requires me to support the wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinians, then you're on your own. If protecting Palestinians meant actively supporting the wanton slaughter of Finns, then I would say the same thing.

Yes. I'm also aware that virtually every country on earth has elections, including undemocratic ones. Our elections have been more about spectacle and entertainment since well before Trump. They're also a very useful tool. If you asked a person in a vacuum whether they support genocide, or any of the other awful stuff our politicians get up to, they'd say no. But once you introduce team sports into it, once you get everybody to make a choice, now they feel like they have to defend that choice and justify the horrible things their team does. And so at all times, about a third of the population become active advocates for the ruling class, justifying and explaining everything that they do. Because if I criticize the president, I'm also criticizing their decision to vote for that president, and how about I fuck off with that, bub?

It's all just fear mongering and performatively demonstrating how much faith you have in electoralism. And it's stupid because when the elections do happen, you'll have discredited yourself, looking like the boy who cried wolf. I don't think there's any way I'm going to break through this nonsense so we'll just have to wait a bit until I'm proven right, by which point of course everyone will have moved on to something else and won't care.

And the whole thing is especially stupid, because there are literally wolves right there! How about we focus on the tyranny and oppression that's actually, already happening? On the masked fascist thugs raiding workplaces and dragging people away to secret torture dungeons? Is that not bad enough that you need to conjure up some unlikely, imagined scenario to fret over? I stg.

I guess my question is whether "reluctant" (yet unrepentant) Trump voters ought to be held responsible for the awful shit Trump does, for the things that they were aware of but did not consider to be a deal-breaker. Because I think they should, and I think it's perfectly valid to criticize "reluctant" Kamala voters on the exact same basis.

Ultimately, you make a decision, and if your reservations about a candidate are not significant enough to be represented in that decision, then do they really matter? Do they matter enough that other people ought to be expected to care about them? "Libertarians" who vote Republican are just Republicans, they don't consider their differences significant enough to break with them, so why should I bother to make a distinction?

selfish

I'd say this is a revealing word, except that you already openly admitted that you think American lives are inherently more valuable than those of foreigners.

But it's revealing because it shows that you are fundamentally incapable of seeing Palestinians as human beings. You are therefore only able to conceive of my position as some kind of "pet cause," that is exclusively about me and my feelings. The reality is that my position comes from a place of selflessness, of placing the lives of the marginalized victims of my country above my own concerns and interests. But in your mind, the lives of Palestinians have no value except insofar as an American, a human, cares about them.

You are a disgusting fascist that has no value to contribute to the discussion, you are my enemy and our goals are fundamentally opposite. Unlike you, I believe that all people are created equal. The only problem you have with Trump is that he doesn't respect decorum, on every other point his actions are completely consistent with your chauvinistic values.

I only have three more words to say to scum like you: Follow Your Leader.

Claudia de la Cruz, I have never been shy about saying that.

As an American…yes.

Least fascist .world user.

I never "disregarded" those lives. I voted for a candidate who opposed both ICE and the genocide of Palestinians. You voted for a candidate who supported both.

Oh, of course, something! If only I had thought to do something, the wars would've been stopped, the Patriot Act repealed, and Guantanamo Bay shut down. And the solution is so obvious, staring me right in the face: something.

Oh, so you find children sexually attractive?

Why do you libs always resort to these completely baseless accusations?

All things being equal, it is better that they do it openly and that more people are aware of it.

and you might never get to vote again

This is nonsense. The US Presidential Election is the most popular reality TV show of all time.

You mean that we could've stalled efforts to build a political movement until the situation was even worse.

The choice to vote Democrat is also a choice not to vote PSL. If it cost nothing, then I would've done it, give me ranked choice voting and I will put the Democrats above the Republicans. But I consider it more important to support people who would actually fix the situation if they got power.

people there are getting murdered

Who was George Floyd?

and dragged into concentration camps

Who built the camps?