I suggest you go read more about the Mathematical domain called Games Theory if you think casting one vote amongst millions once every 4 years in a Voting System Mathematically designed so that not all votes count the same, with the only information before casting the vote being what the people who can benefit from your choice say they will do (with no mechanism to enforce their promises), is anywhere near the same as an individual direct choice with guaranteed results between two actions whose possible outcomes the one making the choice knows upfront with absolute certainty.
There should be a special Falacy for pulling out the Trolley Problem for situations where it’s Mathematically not applicable.
I believe in NOT being purposefully deceitful when trying to convince other people, which is what people misusing the Trolley Problem for this situation are.
This is especially so because the logic of the Trolley Problem is an hypersimplification which does not include the kind of things that might actually work in the totally fucked up anti-Democratic system in America - voting in Primaries and being part of Civil Society movements.
The Trolley Falacy is nothing more than tought closing political propaganda.
Those who really believe in harm reduction have been long talking about voting in Primaries and direct political participation supporting Primary candidates who are different in preparation for these Midterms, not parroting simplistic bollocks
I believe in NOT being purposefully deceitful when trying to convince other people, which is what people misusing the Trolley Problem for this situation are.
If you really think people are being purposely deceitful by pointing out a simple way to understand how to make a choice when you have two bad options, then you have a very dim view of people in general.
Last I checked knowingly presenting a false or misleading simplification, whilst not an outright lie, is deceit
Specifically for elections, this specific false simplification by denying the cyclical nature of elections can steer people away from the idea that you can punish a dominant political party in one electoral cycle when they put forward deeply unsuitable candidates to incentivize them to put forward better candidates in the next electoral cycle, something that has happened in the past even in America and is more common in other countries.
Whilst right now given just how shit Trump and the present day Republican party are, such a “punishment” strategy against the Democrats would be an incredibly bad idea, had it been used in previous elections it’s quite likely that America would never have become so extremely Far-Right.
That kind of false simplification was very much the political propaganda strategy of the mainstream Democrat politicians over the last 3 decades to steer voters away from punishing them as they moved ever more Rightwards alongside the Republicans creating the current political reality in America were the politics of the present day mainstream Democrats are to the right of the politics of Roosevelt, a Republican.
But it’s not false or misleading when you only have two choices. But in primaries you have more choices.
So the lesson is support the DSA in primaries and work hard to get them to win.
But even then, you still have only two choices in a general in the primary and you will NEVER have a candidate you agree with 100%. Democracy is an exercise in compromise in order to avoid violence.
Re-read the part about the cyclical nature of elections vs the one-off nature or the choice in the Trolley Problem.
Elections in a fucked up anti-Democratic power-duopoly electoral system like the one in the US are a lot more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game between voters and the party supposedly closest to their own principles and very little like a Trolley Problem. A “punish now to get a better choice offered in a later round” strategy is not only viable but often the best choice in a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, i.e. when the side that has to accept or reject the candidate put forward is offered a bad one and they know they will play the same role (i.e. vote) in later rounds, but it is not at all a valid or even possible strategy in a Trolley Problem.
The relentless insistence in framing it as a Trolley Problem and thus as a unique once-in-a-lifetime choice which will result in a forever the same outcome that cannot be changed (yet another way it differs from a Trolley Problem - you can change the choice every 4 years), rather than a situation were punishing those choosing the available candidates in one round can change which candidates they put forward in the next round, is a self-serving piece of propaganda from politicians who don’t want voters to punish them for always making available only bad candidates.
Short-term harm reduction is not worth long-term harm multiplication. We cannot actually reduce harm by voting for politicians who will refuse to prevent the next republican from being even more fascist than this one.
Democrats will win future elections, as will republicans. Our solution to this problem cannot be to try and avoid letting any republican win ever again. We need democrats who will limit the harm that republicans cause, and if there’s a democrat on the ballot who will refuse to do that, we need to not vote for them. Force them to run candidates who will neuter the republican party instead of enabling them.
Which is why it’s a bad analogy to apply to real world situations. It only helps trap people into thinking the problem is unsolvable because that’s the way the system works, when in reality if the system is making you choose between things like genocide abroad or fascism at home, you should just change the system.
Pretty good analogy for what a regular person finds themselves in US right now. You, an individual, has the same ability to “kill the driver” as that hypothetical guy in a dilemma.
Except not, because you as an individual have zero ability to affect whether the trolley kills one or 5 in America. Your vote only matters in the context of everybody else, and if we’re doing mass movements, why not work towards a mass movement that will actual change things?
You have failed to solve the trolley problem.
I suggest you go read more about the Mathematical domain called Games Theory if you think casting one vote amongst millions once every 4 years in a Voting System Mathematically designed so that not all votes count the same, with the only information before casting the vote being what the people who can benefit from your choice say they will do (with no mechanism to enforce their promises), is anywhere near the same as an individual direct choice with guaranteed results between two actions whose possible outcomes the one making the choice knows upfront with absolute certainty.
There should be a special Falacy for pulling out the Trolley Problem for situations where it’s Mathematically not applicable.
So you don’t believe in harm reduction. OK.
I believe in NOT being purposefully deceitful when trying to convince other people, which is what people misusing the Trolley Problem for this situation are.
This is especially so because the logic of the Trolley Problem is an hypersimplification which does not include the kind of things that might actually work in the totally fucked up anti-Democratic system in America - voting in Primaries and being part of Civil Society movements.
The Trolley Falacy is nothing more than tought closing political propaganda.
Those who really believe in harm reduction have been long talking about voting in Primaries and direct political participation supporting Primary candidates who are different in preparation for these Midterms, not parroting simplistic bollocks
If you really think people are being purposely deceitful by pointing out a simple way to understand how to make a choice when you have two bad options, then you have a very dim view of people in general.
JFC
Last I checked knowingly presenting a false or misleading simplification, whilst not an outright lie, is deceit
Specifically for elections, this specific false simplification by denying the cyclical nature of elections can steer people away from the idea that you can punish a dominant political party in one electoral cycle when they put forward deeply unsuitable candidates to incentivize them to put forward better candidates in the next electoral cycle, something that has happened in the past even in America and is more common in other countries.
Whilst right now given just how shit Trump and the present day Republican party are, such a “punishment” strategy against the Democrats would be an incredibly bad idea, had it been used in previous elections it’s quite likely that America would never have become so extremely Far-Right.
That kind of false simplification was very much the political propaganda strategy of the mainstream Democrat politicians over the last 3 decades to steer voters away from punishing them as they moved ever more Rightwards alongside the Republicans creating the current political reality in America were the politics of the present day mainstream Democrats are to the right of the politics of Roosevelt, a Republican.
But it’s not false or misleading when you only have two choices. But in primaries you have more choices.
So the lesson is support the DSA in primaries and work hard to get them to win.
But even then, you still have only two choices in a general in the primary and you will NEVER have a candidate you agree with 100%. Democracy is an exercise in compromise in order to avoid violence.
JFC
Re-read the part about the cyclical nature of elections vs the one-off nature or the choice in the Trolley Problem.
Elections in a fucked up anti-Democratic power-duopoly electoral system like the one in the US are a lot more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game between voters and the party supposedly closest to their own principles and very little like a Trolley Problem. A “punish now to get a better choice offered in a later round” strategy is not only viable but often the best choice in a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, i.e. when the side that has to accept or reject the candidate put forward is offered a bad one and they know they will play the same role (i.e. vote) in later rounds, but it is not at all a valid or even possible strategy in a Trolley Problem.
The relentless insistence in framing it as a Trolley Problem and thus as a unique once-in-a-lifetime choice which will result in a forever the same outcome that cannot be changed (yet another way it differs from a Trolley Problem - you can change the choice every 4 years), rather than a situation were punishing those choosing the available candidates in one round can change which candidates they put forward in the next round, is a self-serving piece of propaganda from politicians who don’t want voters to punish them for always making available only bad candidates.
So you’re an accelerationist.
You fundamentally don’t understand what elections are, like, on principal
Psh.
Short-term harm reduction is not worth long-term harm multiplication. We cannot actually reduce harm by voting for politicians who will refuse to prevent the next republican from being even more fascist than this one.
Democrats will win future elections, as will republicans. Our solution to this problem cannot be to try and avoid letting any republican win ever again. We need democrats who will limit the harm that republicans cause, and if there’s a democrat on the ballot who will refuse to do that, we need to not vote for them. Force them to run candidates who will neuter the republican party instead of enabling them.
The only solution to the trolley problem is to kill the trolley driver.
Go for it. Otherwise, by doing nothing you’re failing to support harm reduction.
More like: the only problem to the trolley problem is to preach extreme action and do nothing.
I’m pretty sure “the trolley cannot be stopped no matter what” is an integral part of the thought experiment.
Which is why it’s a bad analogy to apply to real world situations. It only helps trap people into thinking the problem is unsolvable because that’s the way the system works, when in reality if the system is making you choose between things like genocide abroad or fascism at home, you should just change the system.
Pretty good analogy for what a regular person finds themselves in US right now. You, an individual, has the same ability to “kill the driver” as that hypothetical guy in a dilemma.
Except not, because you as an individual have zero ability to affect whether the trolley kills one or 5 in America. Your vote only matters in the context of everybody else, and if we’re doing mass movements, why not work towards a mass movement that will actual change things?