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 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!