Comment and thread in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/23138585
Ban from that community, memes@lemmy.ml:
Rule 1 of said community: Be civil and nice.
Rule 1 of said instance: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
I was clearly not bigoted in any manner, and I believe more civil than the way I was treated, was it the Code of Conduct? Excerpts:
Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
I think I was kind with the people I disagreed with, even if they could not be in return, yet those comments (some including ableist slurs) remain. I think this is enough to demonstrate it is merely a difference in ideology which motivated the ban. Well, bans, because it seems they copied and pasted the same ban in all the communities they have access to:
It’s not a general lemmy.ml ban, just those in particular.
I understand this kind of behavior in safe space communities that don’t want outsiders bellyaching about the pragmatism of electoral politics, but that’s not the case in any of the communities I’ve been banned from, nor is it a part of the instance rules or CoC.
PTB or triggered shitlib? Not an exclusive or, of course.
You’re arguing from a consequentialist ethical framework as if it’s the default, while also failing to see the broader consequences of “lesser-evilism”
Not pulling the lever is a valid option even from a consequentialist perspective (as well as, of course, from a deontological perspective or a virtue ethics perspective).
The trolley problem, as a thought experiment, does not exist to justify consequentialism, but to distinguish it from other ethical frameworks.
You are more than defending the Democrats- you’re actively supporting them. Your comments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of both ethics and logic, and you’re looking at the problem from an extremely narrow perspective.
I’m advocating the lesser evil, which in this case in Democrats. That’s not defending nor supporting, they happen to be the best choice. If another party bomes a Big 2 (or if voting reform is implemented and they don’t need to be) then I’ll gladly hop ship to a party better than Democrats. But the current reality is only Democrats and Republicans win elections.
I don’t think that’s been demonstrated.
I’m looking at the problem pragmatically, if it results in less people suffering, that’s the vote that should be cast.
On the contrary, I think you’re looking at it from an extremely narrow purity perspective. Not pulling the lever is allowing any outcome to happen, even one you know to be worse.
You continue to demonstrate it
Voting for dems is literally supporting them. Arguing in their favor is very much defending them.
You’d benefit to realize that your ethical framework is not the default. Additionally, you are blatantly implementing your own framework (consequentialism) extremely narrowly.
A consequentialist (like yourself) could just as easily argue that lesser-evilism has greater long term consequences that render the short term relief irrelevant.
Consequentialism is not the end all be all of ethics. In fact, it can very easily be used to justify genocide. While you are indirectly doing this, I mean much more blatantly (e.g., “suffering is bad, so we should sterilize everyone to end the human race and therefore end suffering”).
A deontological framework argues that by “pulling the lever” you are now responsible for killing someone, whereas by abstaining you are not responsible (but those aren’t the only options in the real life political scenario, to be clear). I understand that your ethical framework suggests that abstaining makes one complicit in the greater consequences, but this is a perspective (opinion) and not a fact. And again, this perspective ignores the broader consequences down the road that come from lesser-evilism
But they are the only two options, mathematically only a Democrat or a Republican will win a United States First Past The Post election. Those are truly the only outcomes that can happen, barring significant changes which I am also advocating for. You can pretend this is debate club all you want, but if you have the choice to do something to avoid suffering and you do nothing, you are (in part) responsible for the suffering through inaction.
Anyway, strawman because I am not a consequentialist, merely advocating for pragmatic voting.
wow great meme friendo, very cool!
I like how you focused on just the parts of his comment that had words you understood and skipped the rest 🤣
Aww do I have a admirer? Thanks for following but I’m not interested. Besides I’m a minority so it probably isn’t safe for me to be with someone who doesn’t think I count as people.
It’s not like he is responding to all my points, so why bother?
you came to our comm, dipshit. nobody is “following” you.
you’re following my posts amigo :)