this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
720 points (84.4% liked)

Political Memes

5452 readers
3265 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnerkRabbledauber@lemmy.today 31 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If that third track were an option the trolley problem would never have existed. If there really is a third track in the real-life situation, then the trolley problem is not a good analogy of that problem.

Sadly, in this election there is no third track and we are forced into choosing the lesser of two evils.

If you want a third track, push for ranked choice voting!

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 5 months ago (4 children)

the joke is that you are actively removing yourself from the situation by making a decision to do nothing. In essence, that track has no trolley on it, and no people on it, meaning nobody dies.... As long as you don't look over your shoulder.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

meaning nobody dies… As long as you don’t look over your shoulder.

[–] III@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The real joke is how the "no choice" position is such extreme nonsense that even something as dumbed down as a meme can't make any part of it seem logical.

it's not explicitly nonsense, one of the decisions that you can make in the trolley problem is doing nothing, this is the equivalent of doing nothing in a comedic fashion.

[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Standing at the lever, close your eyes real hard and wish there was a third choice as you hope someone else makes that choice for you

plug your ears, close your eyes, and yell "I CANT HEAR YOU" repeatedly over and over again.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

In the same way 'would you rather' is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).

The third rail is just redundant.

In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).

in a really reductive sense, yes. The trolley problem is at it's heart, a question of whether being involved in an atrocity is better than being uninvolved in an atrocity.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

This is the problem with the trolley problem.

If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.

The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn't making choices.

Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Very well, I shall push for it by

  • voting the same way regardless if the candidate supports it, and

  • suddenly participating in direct action, because we weren't already doing that.

[–] HANN@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There literally is a third option that will be printed on most of not all ballots. Rank choice voting is huge but people should be willing to vote earnestly. Nobody wants to be the one to make the change and wants the world to change first but that's not how it works.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

In a FPTP voting system, you cannot vote earnestly. To do so all but guarantees the election of the opposition.

Explanation: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

that video explains well how strategic voting ends up with two parties.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -3 points 5 months ago

And we have an electoral college, so actually you can still vote earnestly in most states without major concern.

[–] SnerkRabbledauber@lemmy.today 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. In the current system you should not vote earnestly. In a fair system you should. Not in the one we have. The only moral choice is to select the lesser evil. Otherwise you might as well vote for the greater one.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -2 points 5 months ago

Only if your vote might change the results. Which isn't true for millions of Americans.