But it’s not so straightforward when your vote is support for something you can’t stomach. Can you understand how that is difficult for people?
No, I honestly can’t understand that. That whole mindset that doing nothing is somehow more in line with your morals than doing something even though both can have equally bad outcomes is incredibly bizarre to me and reminds me of stupid moral exercises like the trolley problem.
You have two choices, one is to poison a town’s water supply without telling them.
The other choice is poisoning the town’s water supply, not telling them, and then shooting the survivors as they flee the town.
No question that slaughtering fleeing survivors is worse. But either way, you’re being asked to sign your name to poisoning innocent people.
You can only see “you’re voting for slaughtering fleeing townspeople!” But plenty of people cannot stomach voting for poisoning the townspeople in the first place.
You’re both looking at the same situation but seeing different elements.
The nuance comes in here: both are valid stances to take. If you don’t vote “against” shooting the survivors, there’s a greater chance survivors will be shot. But voting for the people poisoning the water supply is untenable for many, and not understanding why that is, is a huge problem.
But plenty of people cannot stomach voting for poisoning the townspeople in the first place.
But they are not doing anything against that by abstaining from voting. They are still giving their consent to the poisoning, just by doing nothing instead of doing something, that is literally the only difference.
My whole point is that the “inaction is better than action” bias when evaluating options is bizarre to me.
But they’re not throwing support behind it. That’s exactly my point.
The option they were given was either “vote for this or do nothing.” Yes, the doing nothing option meant it was more likely a worse scenario would take root.
But no matter what, we were being asked to vote for genocide. Genocide 1.0 or genocide 2.0. That cannot be on the people who don’t want it in the first place.
I definitely get what you’re saying and I agree. The 2.0 option was best avoided. But if that means supporting the 1.0 devs…? It goes completely against peoples moral fabric to support it. Even if that means things could get “worse.” Which, let it not be forgotten that we are still talking about an ongoing genocide.
Not to mention, Kamala’s weak, ineffectual waffling on the issue was still her in campaign mode. That’s best case scenario, and still highly unlikely to be followed through on.
It was a no-win scenario. But we all lost even worse, and everyone understands that. But it was a completely hopeless, no-win quandary.
No, I honestly can’t understand that. That whole mindset that doing nothing is somehow more in line with your morals than doing something even though both can have equally bad outcomes is incredibly bizarre to me and reminds me of stupid moral exercises like the trolley problem.
Here’s how I put it elsewhere in this thread:
You have two choices, one is to poison a town’s water supply without telling them.
The other choice is poisoning the town’s water supply, not telling them, and then shooting the survivors as they flee the town.
No question that slaughtering fleeing survivors is worse. But either way, you’re being asked to sign your name to poisoning innocent people.
You can only see “you’re voting for slaughtering fleeing townspeople!” But plenty of people cannot stomach voting for poisoning the townspeople in the first place.
You’re both looking at the same situation but seeing different elements.
The nuance comes in here: both are valid stances to take. If you don’t vote “against” shooting the survivors, there’s a greater chance survivors will be shot. But voting for the people poisoning the water supply is untenable for many, and not understanding why that is, is a huge problem.
But they are not doing anything against that by abstaining from voting. They are still giving their consent to the poisoning, just by doing nothing instead of doing something, that is literally the only difference.
My whole point is that the “inaction is better than action” bias when evaluating options is bizarre to me.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias seems to be the term used for the phenomenon.
But they’re not throwing support behind it. That’s exactly my point.
The option they were given was either “vote for this or do nothing.” Yes, the doing nothing option meant it was more likely a worse scenario would take root.
But no matter what, we were being asked to vote for genocide. Genocide 1.0 or genocide 2.0. That cannot be on the people who don’t want it in the first place.
I definitely get what you’re saying and I agree. The 2.0 option was best avoided. But if that means supporting the 1.0 devs…? It goes completely against peoples moral fabric to support it. Even if that means things could get “worse.” Which, let it not be forgotten that we are still talking about an ongoing genocide.
Not to mention, Kamala’s weak, ineffectual waffling on the issue was still her in campaign mode. That’s best case scenario, and still highly unlikely to be followed through on.
It was a no-win scenario. But we all lost even worse, and everyone understands that. But it was a completely hopeless, no-win quandary.