this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
475 points (97.0% liked)

World News

57793 readers
1047 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
475
‘I hate Democrats, but I love Abdul’: voters who left over Gaza return for progressive push (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world
213 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I’m sorry but you really don’t understand principles at all if you don’t understand “I will never vote for somebody who supports mass murdering of childen”.

This is so shortsighted.

You can't wave a magic wand and change the established order. One of two parties WILL control our federal government. You're either making a decision to limit the amount of pain and suffering in the world by acting or you're sitting in a corner crying about how unfair the world is. If you gave a shit at all about Palestinians but you didn't vote or voted for a candidate that LITERALLY could not win and therefore could not do anything, then you chose to go cry in a corner instead of making a decision that would actually have an impact.

For people with genuine principles some things are red-lines

Congrats. Your personal red line caused more Palestinian pain and suffering than if you accepted the world doesn't operate based on your red-lines and made the decision to help as much as you could.

Some people will abstain from making a choice if all the options they have are sufficiently Evil

And those people are selfish for not doing what they could within the boundaries they exist in.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You're not even making a good logical case when you're pitching pragmatism over principles.

For starters your claims of "caused more Palestinian pain and suffering" are based on what exact, concrete evidence that had the other child mass murder supporter who openly stated their "unwavering support" for Israel, the Israelis would have behaved differently? You don't know, you can't possibly know (because that's the path not taken), hence you're bullshitting.

Second point - even in the undemocratic electoral system in the US, elections aren't a fucking Trolley Problem and can't treated as one:

  • There isn't any pure choice in the hands of a single person of "go one way or go the other"
  • Voters don't actually know for sure what happens if they "pull the lever" or "don't pull the level".
  • It isn't even a single instance where the decision is made and it's done. Specifically the part were parties pitch presidential candidates is closer to a cyclical Ultimatum game - the parties put forwards their choice of candidate offering certain policies, voters approve in which case get those policies (kinda, it's imperfect) and that party wins or they reject in which case they don't get them and the party loses. The cyclical thing is what's important here: it means that results in one election influence which candidate the party will put forward in the next election. This is the part which "curiously" those making the case for "choosing the lesser-evil" NEVER, EVER mention. Even in voting systems where it's always the same two who win, parties will put forward better candidates if they're heavily punished in elections - I know this because I've seen in happen here in Europe.

So your entire "logic" is flawed - a voter know for sure upfront if their vote will make a difference, they don't know for sure what will happen if their chosen candidate wins AND them refusing to vote can actually have an impact, not in the current election but in subsequent elections, because it can influence parties to put forward more appealing candidates with more appealing policies.

I mean, it's bad enough that you think pragmatism should beat any and all principles, but even your pragmatic argument is deceitful because it's incomplete and anchored on unproven statements that you treat as certainties (what in mathematics is called an axiom).

If you're going to pitch for pragmatism over principles at least make a logical case which is solid rather than parroting deceitful logically-sounding but not in fact logically sound political propaganda with it's cherry picked elements and foundations made of unproven things stated as absolute truths.