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 read through the comments- lmao, YDM. Fascist apologia def seems to fit rule 1 of both the instance and community
Side note: What do you think "shitlib" means?
Edit:
Words OP doesn't know the meaning of:
It's not fascist apologia, I directly stated that I'm not defending anything the Democrats do or fail to do, they are merely the best option in current elections. Two party elections are a classic trolley problem, and choosing to not pull the lever is still making a choice in the system.
Them being the best fascists is some kind of apologia.
And no. It's not the trolly problem and framing it as such is why shitlibs like you threw two elections to Trump. If your framing and understanding of electoralism was right you would be catching W's instead of strays.
So there are 3 options right? Not the trolly problem then.
Something you need to get through your head is that how you think elections work is utterly fucking irrelevant to deciding the best strategies to win them from the campaigns perspective. All that matters is how voters en masse (not as individuals) behave.
Framing elections (wrongly) as set of individual choices as the harm reduction narrative goes is like using a model which describes how an snowflake grows to decide what happens during an avalanche. A person is smart enough to use a turn style when given the space and time to do so. People moving together behave more like a fluid and has resulted in human crushes.
Take the trolly problem and strategic voting, and throw them in the fucking trash for the worthless memes they are.
What does apologia mean, to you?
Strawman, you don't know who I voted for in primaries.
No, there's two options, Red and Blue. Not pulling the lever is allowing Red or Blue to happen.
It's pretty relevant, only Democrats and Republicans win general elections.
That doesn't change reality of outcomes.
You're arguing from a consequentialist ethical framework as if it's the default, while also failing to see the broader consequences of "lesser-evilism"
Not pulling the lever is a valid option even from a consequentialist perspective (as well as, of course, from a deontological perspective or a virtue ethics perspective).
The trolley problem, as a thought experiment, does not exist to justify consequentialism, but to distinguish it from other ethical frameworks.
You are more than defending the Democrats- you're actively supporting them. Your comments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of both ethics and logic, and you're looking at the problem from an extremely narrow perspective.
I'm advocating the lesser evil, which in this case in Democrats. That's not defending nor supporting, they happen to be the best choice. If another party bomes a Big 2 (or if voting reform is implemented and they don't need to be) then I'll gladly hop ship to a party better than Democrats. But the current reality is only Democrats and Republicans win elections.
I don't think that's been demonstrated.
I'm looking at the problem pragmatically, if it results in less people suffering, that's the vote that should be cast.
On the contrary, I think you're looking at it from an extremely narrow purity perspective. Not pulling the lever is allowing any outcome to happen, even one you know to be worse.
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!
I like how you focused on just the parts of his comment that had words you understood and skipped the rest 🤣
Aww do I have a admirer? Thanks for following but I'm not interested. Besides I'm a minority so it probably isn't safe for me to be with someone who doesn't think I count as people.
It's not like he is responding to all my points, so why bother?
you came to our comm, dipshit. nobody is "following" you.
you're following my posts amigo :)
Tankie is when you [checks notes] want people to have better lives.
It's a shame so many leftists seem to have no interest in influencing the system.
Yeah we should instead work within the system. That's working so well work Trump in charge.
Pretty sure Trump won 2024 because a bunch of people weren't happy with Biden and decided not to vote that time. If Kamala had had the same voter turnout Biden got, we wouldn't have war in Iran.
Two years ago there were mass protests in the US against Israel. Public opinion had radically shifted and the politicians were slowly starting to listen. Then the voters put Trump in charge. Now the protesters are too busy protesting for No Kings and getting raided by ICE. Those neutral voters made a bunch of extra work for the protesters and cost us peace in Palestine. USA could have already cut ties with Israel by now.
But dealing with Iran was one of her campaign slogans and policies...
Facts are bad to Democrats, so that doesn't matter. Same for her supporting ice. And Israel. And hating queers. And...