Progressive Politics

4616 readers

793 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

AOC surges to lead in 2028 primary for first time (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 3 days ago by FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/46769092

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"Oh but she's bad because some reason, you're better of not voting and just lying belly up so fascists can ruin everything faster" , "the democrats are just the same as republicans, so we shouldn't even try anything", "I won't support genocide so I won't oppose even more genocide", "it doesn't matter anymore we can't do anything, it'll be better if we let the fascists win and wait until everything is in ruins"
Then people arguing against

That's about how these comment sections always go lmao

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's really interesting watching discussions about the trolley problem in abstract vs the problem in praxis. Because the thought experiment is about inaction (letting the runaway train crash into the group of people) on one hand and harm reduction (switching tracks) on the other.

The thing that I find fascinating is that with the thought experiment (basically) everyone says the answer is clear: switch tracks. But in the applied scenario of voting picking the lesser evil somehow stains your hands more than not voting.

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's the moral purism vs. harm reduction conflict. A moral purist will not accept any compromises because they value their personal moral values over everything else, while someone holding harm reduction stances will accept compromises (the lesser evil) even if it morally stains them, to get better actual results. This means a moral purist is okay with letting the greater evil win as long as their own moral purity stays intact

(and the paradox of moral purism is that they in reality go against their own ideals, by letting the greater evil win)

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not voting for AOC because I'm voting for AOB, the prototype

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago

I’m holding out for AOEII.