156
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Oh, you're talking about Palestine.

In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?

Tough choice, I'm sure.

I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?

Huh? Are we pretending that we live in a fantasy world where the Biden administration didn't bypass congress to send Israel more weapons? Because here in reality, both candidates objectively fell into the second category.

I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.

The logic only looks ridiculous if you trivialize the stakes. You can make any logic look "ridiculous" if you compare it to something completely different.

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

No, the logic looks ridiculous when you try to bOtH sIdEs the two parties. Newsflash, there is more going on in the world besides the Israel Palestine conflict. Do you think Harris would have ended USAid? What about the Iran war?

The funding cuts to USAid alone are estimated to have lead to ~5-10x more deaths than anything in Gaza. Where is your outrage about that? Stop your bullshit.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I don't agree with this oversimplified, utilitarian framework you're using. "Lesser Evilism" is a specific philosophical and political framework, and one that is very naive and unexamined.

If a party is willing to screw over Palestinians today, then who will they screw over tomorrow? Trans people? Immigrants? Will you apply the same "lesser evilist" logic as minority groups get dropped off, one-by-one? This is exactly how the ruling class divides and conquers, and so long as that's the state of things, no one's rights could ever be secure.

Standing up for the lives of Palestinians is not only about Palestinians, it is about solidarity. Solidarity is a strategic decision to establish that no one will be abandoned and sold out, that we will not abandon the little guy just for the sake of securing an election. It is only through a foundation of solidarity that we will be able to build a successful movement that's worth fighting for. To abandon Palestine would also mean abandoning those who are trying to build such a movement, causing it to fracture and strengthening the ruling class.

You can blame me for the ruling class's actions all you want. If the only means I have to stop something they're doing is to fracture the working class and side with a genocidiare, then I simply don't consider that an option that's available to me, and from my perspective, I don't have any means to stop it. Except by working towards a future where ordinary people can unite with solidarity and take power back.

Suppose I had a suitcase nuke, and I could stop Trump from cutting USAID by setting it off in the middle of DC. Suppose that, when it's all said and done, I'd have saved more lives than I'd taken. If I say that setting off a nuclear weapon in a city full of innocent people is simply not on the table for me, that I refuse to even consider it, does that make me a bad person, a reprehensible monster? Am I responsible for all the people who died from Trump's cuts, because I didn't kill a city full of innocents to stop it? Surely not. But then, if I refuse to support the destruction of Gaza in an effort to stop the cuts, how is that any different?

Lesser Evilism is a moral framework and a political strategy, but it is not sound or defensible when it's identified as such and examined. But it generally isn't, and is instead presented as "common sense" or "just rational." Really, it's just a vacuous rhetorical device used to justify tribalism.

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago

There’s a stark difference in your example and the reality from November 2022. In that world the only realistic choice was between voting for Harris or Trump as president, and given those two choices, there was an absolutely objectively better choice. That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy. All the harm you think Harris would have done, Trump has done and so so much more.

All that being said, I sure hope to %insert_deity_here% that Harris doesn’t run again in 2028, or if she does, she gets destroyed in the primaries.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
156 points (89.8% liked)

Political Memes

2635 readers
264 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS