It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
but I live in the reality of the viable options
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
Racist yank cares about american life first. But they are very different than MAGAs /s
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
You could do it like the brave soldier who did self-immolation. If I was american I would
I prefer action , or even just talking, over pointless gestures.