this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
338 points (77.9% liked)

Political Memes

11571 readers
2275 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

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

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

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

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think these are the people who choose "Do nothing" on the 5-v-1 trolley problem. i.e.: they would rather let 5 people die than take an active role in killing one. I can understand the moral argument, but it really does make for objectively poor outcomes.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

The Trolley Problem isn't a correct Games Theory representation of this situation, not even close:

  • For starters, those doing the chosing don't know for sure what's down each track (we do know now, with hindsight and only for the chosen branch, but that's long after making the choice and you still don't know what would be down the other track)
  • Second, it's not an individual choice, it's a mathematical calculation (not even an average) of multiple choices which were not coordinated (i.e. each individual does not know enough at the time of their own choice to predict the final result), so unlike in the Trolley Problem, there is no individual responsibility.
  • Last but not least, this is a cyclical choice were how many victims are on the tracks for the next choice is influenced by what was chosrn in an earlier cycel and even how many people made that choice - sending the tram down a line with more victims now might actually mean fewer victims on the line of one or even both branches for the next choice, or the opposite (clearly past choices created this situation were both candidates were Genocide supporters hence there we're far more victims on both tracks)

You have either been deceived by this propagandistic misuse of Games Theory and are now parroting it without fully understanding it or you are knowingly being deceitful for the purpose of supporting the leaders of your party.

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

if you intervene you own the consequences. Who tied these people to the tracks? are they watching me decide? refusing to participate in a rigged game is perfectly rational and moral.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, but the election happened and votes were counted and now it’s another four years of killing everything. If you didn’t do the one thing that you could do, that’s neither rational nor moral.

[–] smoker@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don’t get to choose whether you are in the trolley problem. Once you’re standing in front of the lever, choosing to not intervene is still a choice.

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago

it's unwise to negotiate with terrorists, and for similar reasons I would say that it is unwise to participate in a system that legitimises your own destruction

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I said I understand the argument. You can rage at how the people got on the tracks and look for the real culprits all day, but while you're 'solving' the big problem, people die who didn't have to.

How about the Blade Runner question: You come across a tortoise on its back, belly baking in the hot sun: do you flip the tortoise on its feet or worry who flipped it on its back while you watch it die?

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

i would intervene with the tortoise, and i'd happily wear the consequences. I'm not obliged to be a pure witness nor am i bound by any kind of prime directive. I can explain to my conscience why an extra tortoise exists due to my actions but i couldn't say the same about the trolley problem without extra information.

For example, if i am being observed then my decision becomes data, which carries its own weight and precedent. If the situation was arranged to view my response, then I am obliged to not participate, to send a signal to the experimenters to not tie anyone up on the tracks for future observers. I condemn everyone in front of me to death but how do i know they won't be killed regardless? whoever arranged the situation obviously didn't value their lives very highly...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you do nothing, you own the consequences too, even if you try to pretend that you don't.

And they are much worse consequences. Much worse than the 5:1 ratio of the original trolley problem

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You are not responsible for actions which you do not take, and further, you are not responsible for consequences proceeding from actions you did not take.

The trolley problem is designed specifically to illustrate the simple logic of utilitarianism. It allocates no blame to whoever tied the guy to the tracks, and doesn't usually include any consideration of context. Unlike reality, the trolley problem reduces a qualitative moral decisionmaking to a pure binary, in a complete vacuum. It exists to demonstrate that one number is bigger than another number, with a couple of extra steps. No relationship to reality.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

If you have a choice whether you wanted to have it or not, and you choose not to act. That in and of itself is you making a call as to what outcome you prefer. You are therefore responsible.

Choosing not to act is still a choice own it. You would choose to let 5 people die instead of 1 so that you don’t have to feel responsible but you are. You are putting your emotions over the lives of others.

There is such a thing legally speaking as gross negligence. You chose not to act and a worse outcome happens when you had the ability to stop it. Your argument would never hold up in court.

You can try to claim moral superiority all you like but in the end it’s just an excuse to allow you to put your feelings over the lives of others.

As a Canadian I’m am disappointed and disgusted by the selfishness of the US populace both left and right in different ways. Get off your high horse and own your decisions. The time for change is at the grassroots level. Stop with your mememe “morality” and do something beyond the absolute minimum of voting if you even did that.

Fix your shit American sorry not sorry

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who tied these people to the tracks?

A mentally ill guy who's mentally ill because his alcoholic father treated him horribly as a kid, and his father was an alcoholic because he lost his job because of the economic recession.

What now?

are they watching me decide?

Why do you care? Does that affect your decision?

There is no "non-rigged" game, this is a very messy world burdened with centuries of unfairness. At some point you'll have to move on from merely pointing out who's at fault towards actually trying to fix things.

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 1 points 21 hours ago

the trolley problem is the rigged game. It captures none of the important 'messiness' of the real world and ultimately is used to help you rationalise voting against your own best interests within a 2-party political paradigm