610
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 2 points 2 days ago

Am I? I just hate the lesser evil bullshit.

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 65 points 2 days ago

Hate it all you want, but until you can establish a viable third party (who isn't also awful), "lesser of two evils" is the only choice you have.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Isn’t that literally life?

It’s every single choice these people have ever made and they still don’t get it.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 2 points 2 days ago

That's what Chomsky said too, I don't buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 day ago

Yes and every time you vote in our little country it's still for the least bad party. It's the nature of politics. You may like a party, but it still has politicians in it, who are human. Humans seem to be inherently flawed.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 1 points 1 day ago

The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that's just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can't undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 day ago

What is the alternative though?

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 2 points 1 day ago

That's the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.

There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.

But then again, I'm sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.

We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.

nononono.

We either have it NOW or we vote for the lesser evil. There is no waiting, it only causes fascism to rise

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The "lesser evils" have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.

So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

people vothing third party despite being warned a bilion times that because of them (and you) trump will get elected. ._.

So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.

your skepticism has directly caused the deportation of milions, including the woman referenced by this post.

If that's what you wanted all along, then yes, i do permit you to help trump, separate families, kill off black people and restore the aryan race.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago

That’s… life. You’ve never not made a lesser-of-two-evils choice. It’s metaphysically impossible.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 3 points 2 days ago

Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn't quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.

If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all. (You would be acting arbitrarily.)

And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.

Good point! Then again, I don't think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.

Even breathing has downsides.

True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.

If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.

This, however, I'm having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a "family" really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Good point! Then again, I don't think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.

That doesn't mean it's not a "lesser evil" decision. If you have to choose between chocolate ice cream (with brain freeze) or black licorice (with brain freeze), that would still be a case of lesser evil (because black licorice is disgusting and gives brain freeze).

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If competing actions have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary. Acting at random isn’t a deliberative procedure (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy) and therefore not a meaningful choice.

[-] drhodl@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

You seem vaguely intelligent. Why you act so stupid?

[-] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago

Yeah, you prefer the greater evil, we get it

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

You're the one who brought him into the conversation.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 day ago
[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 3 points 1 day ago

There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.

What I'd really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

Accelerationism is a horrible idea. It's based on the ideas that,

  1. We can't prevent having a fascist state now and then,

  2. We can afford the waste and suffering this causes.

With climate change, it should be clear that we can no longer afford the luxuries of wars or even culture wars. Technological advancement should allow us to live with far less waste and far less labor than we do. But that would mean departing from capitalism entirely. We need that post scarcity society now. Resource wise it's a lot cheaper than what we have now.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 2 points 1 day ago

No argument here, I wholeheartedly agree. But let me state the obvious: parliamentary democracy is a feature of capitalism.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 day ago

I agree that it currently is, but it doesn't have to be.

I really don't know how to solve these problems. It would require people to stop being selfish, scared , petty and mean to start with, but there is a huge propaganda machine fanning on those feelings constantly. Revolution is a huge waste of resources, energy and people and usually leads to a new government by the new batch of the most eager and ruthless opportunists.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 1 points 1 day ago

At the moment, it's hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I'm confident it's not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there's a way to unteach.

Eventually, I reckon we're progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it's a glimmer of hope.

[-] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 day ago

You are very optimistic. You need the state to optimize sharing of resources because without it you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing. Mutual aid groups on a voluntary basis alone are easily splintered and there are too many people who get a kick out of destruction.

[-] myrmidex@belgae.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You need the state to optimize sharing of resources

I don't believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:

early human societies managed resources through communal efforts and mutual agreements without the need for a centralized authority. These tribes relied on shared cultural norms and direct cooperation among members to allocate and utilize resources effectively. The absence of a formal state did not prevent them from thriving. Instead, it fostered a sense of collective responsibility and interdependence. This demonstrates that resource sharing can be successfully managed through decentralized and community-driven approaches, challenging the notion that a state is essential for optimizing resource distribution.

you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing

Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That's why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that's all the protection they'll need. But granted, that's a big if.

There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:

they survived by... say it with me kids.... EVOLVING INTO STATES!!!

the following quote you provided having been generated from chatgpt does not make your argument sound any better

Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed.

Hmm i wonder where i could find a realistic scenario with ever decreasing resources, climate change, increasing wildfires, greed and corruption, i really do wonder if such an idealized and completely theoretical world exists.

The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet

Soo.. towns government, state governments etc etc? just like now?

[-] j0ester@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Funny how people like you is against LGBT, but you’re the first to lick Donald’s ass clean.

this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
610 points (100.0% liked)

News

30499 readers
2738 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS