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.
Just because you disagree doesn’t make it ironical.
I didn’t say it did ☺ two things can be true
That’s true, two things can be true! Like, perhaps these two:
Democrats are bad and need to be cancelled.
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering.
Similarly:
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering
Voting for Democrats supports fascism
It’s important to note, however, that a more accurate statement for #1 is “A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering [in the short term]”
Okay good, now we’re getting somewhere. Personally, I don’t think choosing the lesser evil is “supporting fascism,” because it directly serves to keep the more fascist party out of office. Is less suffering, even in the short term, not worth choosing the fascist that hurts less people? Because if both options are fascist, then your only options in the system are “supporting fascists.”
I’m not discounting extra-electoral action, in fact I advocate for it, but in the capacity of an election choosing the lesser evil is the pragmatic choice. Please, please share your long term harm reduction plans, I’d love to have better people to vote for, but right now it’s D and R.
“supporting the less fascist option” = “supporting fascism”. You’re playing semantic games to avoid believing/saying that you’re supporting fascism. There is no “voting against” only “voting for” (in this context, obviously- for the presidential race)
I personally don’t think so. It’s a valid argument, but I don’t believe there is a “right” or “wrong” with this. I enjoy these kinds of discussions as thought experiments, but there’s a time & place for it (and this thread isn’t it, imo)
D & R aren’t the only options though. Yes, they’re (probably) the only outcomes regardless of choice, but abstaining and voting third party are both valid options. I understand you disagree- from what I understand, your primary(/only?) concern is the direct/immediate outcome- but, like I said before, this part is a matter of perspective. Other people, like myself, prioritize long-term consequences, principles, etc. over immediate consequences.
I’ve already seen others explain this to you, so I don’t think it will do any good for me to repeat it in my own words.
Paying taxes to a fascist administration is supporting fascism. I don’t blame people for paying taxes because they feel it’s their “only option”, but it’s dishonest to try to absolve yourself of culpability with semantics.
I don’t think it’s semantics, I think there is a very clear distinction.
I disagree, when only 1 of 2 outcomes are possible, choosing the preferable one is not a complete endorsement of everything they represent.
Why not? If you value harming less people, how is the “right” choice not the one that harms less people?
It’s not a thought experiment though, it’s the possible outcomes of the election: D or R.
Not if you want to actually influence the outcome. See, you’re engaging in thought experiments, I’m talking very pragmatically.
Long term consequences such as what a worse administration could do for 4 years? Like all the climate goals that got immediately revoked, is that long term enough? There is a long term impact to letting the greater evil win. How are Republicans better in the long term?
Well at least we can agree on that. Abstaining and voting third party are objectively valid options, as in you are not literally forced to pick between only D and R, but that’s semantics, because there are only two outcomes.
I think if your “principles” include less bad things happening, they wouldn’t prevent you from choosing the less bad outcome. It seems to me like your principles are more about purity
You don’t get to disagree with logic. This is very basic propositional logic. I’m not trying to be pretentious- you’re just genuinely struggling with logic… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference
I don’t think I can make this point more clearly, but you’re arguing from a narrow consequentialist, pragmatic perspective, with the assumption that it is objectively true or the default position, but it is not.
You behave as if the broad swaths of legitimate philosophic, political, and moral critique of your perspective simply don’t exist. This leads me to believe that you haven’t come to your conclusions through any actual reasoning, despite your attitude about it.
Others have explained this part to you and I think it would be a waste of everyone’s time for me to bother restating the same answers in my own words